Search

Abstract Background Older people account heavily for palliative care needs at the population level and are growing in number as the population ages. There is relatively little high-quality data on symptom burden and quality of life, since these data are not routinely collected, and this group are under-recruited in primary research. It is unclear which measurement tools are best suited to capture burdens and experience. Methods We recruited a cohort of 221 patients aged 75 + years with poor prognosis who had an unplanned admission via the emergency department in a large urban hospital in England between 2019 and 2020. Risk of dying was assessed using the CriSTAL tool. We collected primary data and combined these with routine health records. Baseline clinical data and patient reported quality of life outcomes were collected on admission and reassessed within the first 72 h of presentation using two established tools: EQ-5D-5 L, EQ-VAS and the Integrated Palliative Outcomes Scale (IPOS). Results Completion rate was 68% (n = 151) and 33.1% were known to have died during admission or within 6 months post-discharge. The vast majority (84.8%) reported severe difficulties with at least one dimension of EQ-5D-5 L at baseline and improvements in EQ-VAS observed at reassessment in 51.7%. The baseline IPOS revealed 78.2% of patients rating seven or more items as moderate, severe or overwhelming, but a significant reduction (-3.6, p = 1) and negatively associated with baseline IPOS and CriSTAL scores. Conclusion Older people with poor prognosis admitted to hospital have very high symptom burden compared to population norms, though some improvement following assessment was observed on all measures. These data provide valuable descriptive information on quality of life among a priority population in practice and policy and can be used in future research to identify suitable interventions and model their effects.

Background: The prevalence of constipation in patients with cancer is estimated at 50-90%. It is often associated with pain, anorexia, nausea and vomiting and impacts negatively on quality of life. Despite its common occurrence, it is often poorly recognised and treated by healthcare professionals. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in Ireland to describe constipation prevalence and severity in patients attending cancer centres and to evaluate management efficacy. In-patients or patients attending day oncology wards in any of the country’s eight designated cancer centres were eligible to participate. Participants were shown the Bristol Stool Chart and answered questions regarding stool appearance and sensation of incomplete defecation; they completed the Constipation Assessment Scale. Data on pain character and intensity, opioid use, and prescribed and over-the-counter laxative use were collected. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Significance of variations for continuous data were determined using t-tests. Conditional ordered logistic regression was undertaken to determine factors associated with constipation. Results: The dataset comprised 491 patients. 24.8% had been reviewed by specialist palliative care; 14.5% by the anaesthetic pain team. In total, 42.2% of respondents were taking step 2 or step 3 opioids. Constipation prevalence was 67.6%; 19.4% of patients had Constipation Assessment Scale scores indicating severe constipation. A total of 46% of the respondents were not taking any laxatives. Of those who were taking laxatives, 54.8% reported constipation symptoms. While opioid use was strongly associated with participants reporting higher scores, this association was not seen in those patients receiving specialist palliative care. Conclusions: Constipation remains a clinical problem in Irish cancer centres. Despite increased opioid use, patients receiving specialist palliative care were more likely to take laxatives and reported less constipation. Specialist palliative care practice should be studied in order to identify what are the transferable ‘ingredients’ of effective constipation management.

Background: Early access to rehabilitation can improve quality of life for those with life-limiting illnesses and is highlighted as a core component of the Adult Palliative Care Services Model of Care for Ireland. Despite this, palliative rehabilitation remains under-utilised and under-developed. In 2020, the Sláintecare Integration Fund provided opportunity to pilot a novel rehabilitative palliative care service, “Palliat Rehab”. This protocol proposes a case study, which aims to advance understanding of the form, content, and delivery of the pilot service. Methods: A prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods, case study design will be used to describe the service and to explore the experiences of patients, informal carers and clinicians. Additionally, data collection instruments will be tested and the utility of outcome measures will be examined. Data will be collected from documentary, survey, and interview sources. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, including chi-square tests for categorical variables, Mann-Whitney U tests for ordinal data, and t-tests/ ANOVA for continuous data. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Conclusions: New pathways are required to advance service provision to ensure that patients receive the ‘right care, in the right place, at the right time’. This protocol outlines a case study which will aim to develop current understanding of the implementation and delivery of a novel rehabilitative palliative care service in Ireland and will consider its potential contribution to the achievement of Sláintecare goals. Investigating the service within its environmental context will lead to a better understanding of ‘how’ and ‘why’ things happen. Findings will be used to inform efforts to further develop and tailor the intervention.

Abstract Background At the end of life, formal care costs are high. Informal care (IC) costs, and their effects on outcomes, are not known. This study aimed to determine the IC costs for older adults in the last 3 months of life, and their relationships with outcomes, adjusting for care quality. Methods Mortality follow-back postal survey. Setting: Palliative care services in England (London), Ireland (Dublin) and the USA (New York, San Francisco). Participants: Informal carers (ICrs) of decedents who had received palliative care. Data: ICrs reported hours and activities, care quality, positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and completed the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG). Analysis: All costs (formal, informal) were calculated by multiplying reported hours of activities by country-specific costs for that activity. IC costs used country-specific shadow prices, e.g. average hourly wages and unit costs for nursing care. Multivariable logistic regression analysis explored the association of potential explanatory variables, including IC costs and care quality, on three outcomes: positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and subsequent grief. Results We received 767 completed surveys, 245 from London, 282 Dublin, 131 New York and 109 San Francisco. Most respondents were women (70%); average age was 60 years. On average, patients received 66–76 h per week from ICrs for ‘being on call’, 52–55 h for ICrs being with them, 19–21 h for personal care, 17–21 h for household tasks, 15–18 h for medical procedures and 7–10 h for appointments. Mean (SD) IC costs were as follows: USA $32,468 (28,578), England $36,170 (31,104) and Ireland $43,760 (36,930). IC costs accounted for 58% of total (formal plus informal) costs. Higher IC costs were associated with less grief and more positive perspectives of caregiving. Poor home care was associated with greater caregiver burden. Conclusions Costs to informal carers are larger than those to formal care services for people in the last three months of life. If well supported ICrs can play a role in providing care, and this can be done without detriment to them, providing that they are helped. Improving community palliative care and informal carer support should be a focus for future investment.

Abstract Background The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a review. The aim was to report on and draw conclusions from two expert meetings that reflected on earlier mapped issues in order to reach consensus, and to advise on the QALY’s future use in palliative care. Methods A nominal group approach was used. In order to facilitate group decision making, three statements regarding the use of the QALY in palliative care were discussed in a structured way. Two groups of international policymakers, healthcare professionals and researchers participated. Data were analysed qualitatively using inductive coding. Results 1) Most experts agreed that the recommended measurement tool for the QALYs ‘Q’ component, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), is inappropriate for palliative care. A more sensitive tool, which might be based on the capabilities approach, could be used or developed. 2) Valuation of time should be incorporated in the ‘Q’ part, leaving the linear clock time in the ‘LY’ component. 3) Most experts agreed that the QALY, in its current shape, is not suitable for palliative care. Conclusions 1) Although the EQ-5D does not suffice, a generic tool is needed for the QALY. As long as no suitable alternative is available, other tools can be used besides or serve as basis for the EQ-5D because of issues in conceptual overlap. 2) Future research should further investigate the valuation of time issue, and how best to integrate it in the ‘Q’ component. 3) A generic outcome measure of effectiveness is essential to justly allocate healthcare resources. However, experts emphasized, the QALY is and should be one of multiple criteria for choices in the healthcare insurance package.

Background: Early access to rehabilitation can improve quality of life for those with life-limiting illnesses and is highlighted as a core component of the Adult Palliative Care Services Model of Care for Ireland. Despite this, palliative rehabilitation remains under-utilised and under-developed. In 2020, the Sláintecare Integration Fund provided opportunity to pilot a novel rehabilitative palliative care service, “Palliat Rehab”. This protocol proposes a case study, which aims to advance understanding of the form, content, and delivery of the pilot service. Methods: A prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods, case study design will be used to describe the service and to explore the experiences of patients, informal carers and clinicians. Additionally, data collection instruments will be tested and the utility of outcome measures will be examined. Data will be collected from documentary, survey, and interview sources. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, including chi-square tests for categorical variables, Mann-Whitney U tests for ordinal data, and t-tests/ ANOVA for continuous data. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Conclusions: New pathways are required to advance service provision to ensure that patients receive the ‘right care, in the right place, at the right time’. The development of ‘‘Palliat Rehab’’ offers opportunity to study an innovative service and consider its potential contribution to the achievement of Sláintecare goals. Investigating the service within its environmental context will lead to a better understanding of ‘how’ and ‘why’ things happen. Findings will be of value in assessing whether there is evidence that supports the service, and will be used to inform efforts to further develop and tailor the intervention.

Abstract Background A key challenge for most systems is how to provide effective access to urgent and emergency care across rural and urban populations. Tensions about the placement and scope of hospital emergency services are longstanding in Irish political life and there has been recent reform to centralise hospital services in some regions. The focus of this paper is a system approach to examine the geographic variation in resourcing and utilisation of such care across GP practices, out-of-hours care, ambulance services, Emergency Departments and Local Injury Units in Ireland. Methods We used a cross-sectional study design to evaluate variation in resource allocation by aggregating geographic funding to various elements of the urgent and emergency care system and assessing patterns in hospital resource utilisation across the population. Expenditure, staffing, access and activity data were gathered from government sources, individual facilities and service providers, health professional bodies, private firms and central statistics. Data on costs and activity in 2014 are collated and presented at both county and regional levels. Analyses focus on resources spent on urgent and emergency care across geographic areas, the role of population concentration in allocation, the relationship between pre-hospital spending and in-hospital spending, and the utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources by residents of each county. Results An array of funding mechanisms exists, resulting in a fragmented approach to the resourcing of urgent and emergency care. There are large differences in spending per capita at the county-level, ranging from between €50 and €200 per capita; however, these are less pronounced regionally. Distribution of hospital emergency care resources is highly skewed to the North East of the country, and away from the recently reconfigured South and Mid-West regions. Conclusions This analysis advances the traditional approach of evaluating individual services or hospital resourcing. There are notable differences in utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources at the regional level, indicating that populations within those regions which have been reconfigured have lower utilisation of hospital resources. There is a clear case for more integration in decision-making around funding and consideration of key principles, such as equity, to guide that process.

Background: Out-of-hours palliative care is a priority for patients, caregivers and policymakers. Approximately three quarters of the week occurs outside of typical working hours, and the need for support in care of serious and terminal illness during these times is commonplace. Evidence on relevant interventions is unclear. Aim: To review systematically the evidence on the effect of out-of-hours specialist or generalist palliative care for adults on patient and caregiver outcomes, and costs and cost-effectiveness. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. We searched Embase, MEDLINE [Ovid], Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine [Ovid], PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit (Ovid), and grey literature published between 1 January 2000 and 12th November 2019. Studies that comparatively evaluated the effect of out-of-hours specialist or generalist palliative care for adults on patient and caregiver outcomes, and on costs and cost-effectiveness were eligible, irrespective of design. Only English-language studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently examined the returned studies at each stage (title and abstract review, full-text review, and quality assessment). Results: We identified one eligible peer-reviewed study, judged as insufficient quality. Other sources returned no eligible material. The systematic review therefore included no studies. Conclusions: The importance of integrated, 24-hour care for people in line with a palliative care approach is not reflected in the literature, which lacks evidence on the effects of interventions provided outside typical working hours. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018111041.

Background: All countries face growing demand for palliative care services. Projections of need are essential to plan care in an era of demographic change. We aim to estimate palliative care needs in the Republic of Ireland from 2016 to 2046. Methods: Static modelling of secondary data. First, we estimate the numbers of people who will die from a disease associated with palliative care need. We combine government statistics on cause of death (2007-2015) and projected mortality (2016-2046). Second, we combine these statistics with survey data to estimate numbers of people aged 50+ living and dying with diseases associated with palliative care need. Third, we use these projections and survey data to estimate disability burden, pain prevalence and health care utilisation among people aged 50+ living and dying with serious medical illness. Results: In 2016, the number of people dying annually from a disease indicating palliative care need was estimated as 22,806, and the number of people not in the last year of life aged 50+ with a relevant diagnosis was estimated as 290,185. Equivalent estimates for 2046 are up to 40,355 and 548,105, increases of 84% and 89% respectively. These groups account disproportionately for disability burden, pain prevalence and health care use among older people, meaning that population health burdens and health care use will increase significantly in the next three decades. Conclusion: The global population is ageing, although significant differences in intensity of ageing can be seen between countries. Prevalence of palliative care need will nearly double over 30 years, reflecting Ireland’s relatively young population. Older people living with a serious disease outnumber those in the last year of life by approximately 12:1, necessitating implementation of integrated palliative care across the disease trajectory. Urgent steps on funding, workforce development and service provision are required to address these challenges.

Abstract Background Achieving choice is proposed as a quality marker. But little is known about what influences preferences especially among older adults. We aimed to determine and compare, across three countries, factors associated with preferences for place of death and treatment, and actual site of death. Methods We recruited adults aged ≥65-years from hospital-based multiprofessional palliative care services in London, Dublin, New York, and followed them for >17 months. All services offered consultation on hospital wards, support for existing clinical teams, outpatient services and received funding from their National Health Service and/or relevant Insurance reimbursements. The New York service additionally had 10 inpatient beds. All worked with and referred patients to local hospices. Face-to-face interviews recorded most and least preferred place of death, treatment goal priorities, demographic and clinical information using validated questionnaires. Multivariable and multilevel analyses assessed associated factors. Results One hundred and thirty eight older adults (64 London, 59 Dublin, 15 New York) were recruited, 110 died during follow-up. Home was the most preferred place of death (77/138, 56%) followed by inpatient palliative care/hospice units (22%). Hospital was least preferred (35/138, 25%), followed by nursing home (20%) and home (16%); hospice/palliative care unit was rarely least preferred (4%). Most respondents prioritised improving quality of life, either alone (54%), or equal with life extension (39%); few (3%) chose only life extension. There were no significant differences between countries. Main associates with home preference were: cancer diagnosis (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.40–9.90) and living with someone (OR 2.19, 1.33–3.62). Adults with non-cancer diagnoses were more likely to prefer palliative care units (OR 2.39, 1.14–5.03). Conversely, functional independence (OR 1.05, 1.04–1.06) and valuing quality of life (OR 3.11, 2.89–3.36) were associated with dying at home. There was a mismatch between preferences and achievements – of 85 people who preferred home or a palliative care unit, 19 (25%) achieved their first preference. Conclusion Although home is the most common first preference, it is polarising and for 16% it is the least preferred. Inpatient palliative care unit emerges as the second most preferred place, is rarely least preferred, and yet was often not achieved for those who wanted to die there. Factors affecting stated preferences and met preferences differ. Available services, notably community support and palliative care units, require expansion. Contrasting actual place of death with capacity for meeting patient and family needs may be a better quality indicator than simply ‘achieved preferences’.