Search

Background: Early integration of palliative care into oncology care has shown positive effects on patient symptoms and quality of life. It may also reduce health care costs. However given the heterogeneity of settings and interventions and the lack of information on the minimally effective dose for influencing care utilisation and costs, it remains uncertain whether early palliative care reduces costs., Objectives: We sought to determine whether an early palliative care intervention integrated in usual oncology care in a Swiss hospital setting reduced utilisation and costs of health care in the last month of life when compared with usual oncology care alone., Methods: We performed a cost-consequences analysis alongside a multicentre trial. We extracted costs from administrative health insurance data and health care utilisation from family caregiver surveys to compare two study arms: usual oncology care and usual oncology care plus the palliative care intervention. The intervention consisted of a single-structured, multiprofessional conversation with the patient about symptoms, end-of-life decisions, network building and support for carers (SENS). The early palliative care intervention was performed within 16 weeks of the diagnosis of a tumour stage not amenable or responsive to curative treatment., Results: We included 58 participants with advanced cancer in our economic evaluation study. Median overall health care costs in the last month of life were 7892 Swiss Francs (CHF) (interquartile range: CHF 5637-13,489) in the intervention arm and CHF 8492 [CHF 5411-12,012] in the control arm. The average total intervention treatment cost CHF 380 per patient. Integrating an early palliative care intervention into usual oncology care showed no significant difference in health care utilisation or overall health care costs between intervention and control arms (p = 0.98)., Conclusion: Although early palliative care is often presented as a cost-reducing care service, we could not show a significant effect of the SENS intervention on health care utilisation and costs in the last month of life. However, it may be that the intervention was not intensive enough, the timeframe too short or the study population too small for measurable effects. Patients appreciated the intervention. Single-structured early palliative care interventions are easy to implement in clinical practice and present low treatment costs. Further research about the economic impact of early palliative care should focus on extracting large, detailed cost databases showing potential shifts in cost and cost-effectiveness., Clinical Trials: gov Identifier: NCT01983956.

Background: Telemedicine in palliative care (PC) is increasingly being used, especially in outpatient settings with large geographic distances. Its proven benefits include improved communication, coordination quality and time savings. However, the effect on symptom control is less evident. Whether these benefits apply to the Swiss setting and the needs of healthcare professionals (HCPs) is unknown., Objectives: To identify the perceptions and needs of healthcare professionals (nurses and physicians) regarding telemedicine (generally and specifically for care conferences) in a Swiss outpatient palliative care network., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-method online survey with purposefully sampled healthcare professionals from an outpatient palliative care team as baseline data during the planning phase of a quality improvement project (digital care conferences)., Findings/results: Of the 251 HCPs approached, 66 responded, including nurses (n = 37) and physicians (n = 29), with an overall response rate of 26.6%. These were distributed into two groups: general palliative care HCPs (n = 48, return rate 21.3%) and specialised palliative care HCPs (n = 18, return rate 69.2%). Generally, telemedicine was perceived as useful. Potential easy access to other HCPs and hence improved communication and coordination were perceived as advantages. Barriers included a lack of acceptance and physical contact, unsolved questions about potential data breaches and technical obstacles. Regarding digital care conferences, the perceived acceptance and feasibility were good; preferred participants were the specialised palliative care HCPs (nurses and physicians), primary physicians and home care nurses, as well as the leadership of a nurse. The needs of the HCPs were as follows: (a) clear and efficient planning, (b) usability and security and (c) visual contact with the patient., Conclusion: Digital care conferences are perceived as a feasible and useful tool by healthcare professionals in a local palliative care network in Switzerland. A pilot phase will be the next step towards systematic integration of this telemedicine modality into outpatient palliative care.

Background: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent., Aim: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used., Design: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]-100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213., Setting/participants: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes., Results: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries ( p  = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries ( p  = 0.53)., Conclusions: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted.