Factors associated with general practitioner visits for pain in people experiencing chronic pain.

Introduction Patients with chronic pain (CP) are frequent users of general practitioners (GPs). Aim This study aimed to assess factors associated with the rate of GP visits related to pain in patients with CP. Methods This study used data collected by adult specialist pain management services (SPMS) that participated in the electronic Persistent Pain Outcomes Collaboration (ePPOC) in Australia. Adult patients (18 years or older) with CP (duration greater than 3 months) who were referred to SPMS from the calendar year 2015-2021 were included (N = 84 829). Results Patients who reported severe anxiety, stress, pain, pain interference, pain catastrophising and severely impaired pain self-efficacy were more likely to seek help from a GP. Patients with longer pain duration had a lower rate of GP visits. The rate of GP visits was 1.22 (IRR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.26) times higher in patients with severe pain severity, compared to patients with mild pain severity. Patients who used opioids were more likely to visit a GP (IRR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.34) than those who were not using opioids. Discussions More than half of the adult CP patients had greater than three GP visits in the 3 months before referral. This study would indicate that some patients may attend their GP to seek an opioid prescription. Given the rising use of opioids nationally, future study is required on opioid users' GP visitation practices. Additionally, the inverse association between pain duration and the rate of GP visits warrants further exploration.

A decade of outcomes: The evolution of an australasian outcomes collaboration for chronic pain services.

Since the establishment of the electronic Persistent Pain Outcomes Collaboration (ePPOC) in 2013, ongoing improvements in benchmarking and quality improvement activities have provided the opportunity for ePPOC to grow to support more than one hundred adult and pediatric services delivering care to Individuals living with persistent pain throughout Australia and New Zealand. These improvements straddle multiple domains, including benchmarking and indicators reports, internal and external research collaboration and the integration of quality improvement initiatives with pain services. This paper outlines improvements undertaken and lessons learned in relation to the growth and maintenance of a comprehensive outcomes registry and its articulation with pain services and the wider pain sector.

Patterns of patient outcomes following specialist pain management in Australasia: a latent class analysis using the electronic Persistent Pain Outcomes Collaboration database.

ABSTRACT: The increasing demand for pain management and limited resources available highlight the need to measure treatment effectiveness. We analysed data collected at 75 specialist persistent pain services located in Australia and New Zealand to calculate the overall treatment outcome for patients receiving care during 2014 to 2020. Sociodemographic and clinical information was provided for 23,915 patients, along with patient-reported measures assessing pain, pain interference, depression, anxiety, stress, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy. Latent class analysis identified 4 distinct outcomes based on patients' pattern of responses across the assessment tools at treatment end. Group 1 (n = 8369, 35%) reported low/mild severity across all clinical domains at the end of care, while group 4 (n= 7081, 30%) were more likely to report moderate/high severity on all domains. Group 2 (n = 1991, 8%) reported low/mild pain with moderate/high psychological distress at treatment end, and group 3 (n = 6474, 27%) reported moderate/high pain with low/mild psychological distress. Multivariable logistic regression identified those factors associated with the different groups. In particular, factors most predictive of a poor (group 4) vs good outcome (group 1) were unemployment (due to pain or other reasons), requiring an interpreter, widespread pain, pain of longer duration, and attributing the pain to an injury at work. The results may allow identification of those most likely to benefit from the services currently provided and inform development of alternative or enhanced services for those at risk of a poor outcome.

Patient-reported outcome measurement of symptom distress is feasible in most clinical scenarios in palliative care: an observational study involving routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) ensures patients' priorities are at the forefront of care planning and helps to standardize approaches to quality improvement. In palliative care, barriers to PROMs are widely known but what are not understood are the clinical and care settings in which patients are more likely to report and when proxy reporting is needed. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of patient-reported symptom distress compared to the incidence of proxy reporting in palliative care and influencing factors. METHODS: A national observational study using routinely collected PROMs data with influencing factors investigated by logistic regression modelling. Participants were patients with an advanced life-limiting illness receiving palliative care in an inpatient or a community healthcare setting in Australia. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand one hundred and fifty-eight reports of symptom distress were collected from 1117 patients seen by 21 palliative care services. The majority of respondents were diagnosed with cancer (76%), were older (≥65 years, 72%) and had nominated English as their first language (88%). The majority of symptom distress reports were completed by patients (61%). The odds of a patient providing a self-report where grater when they were receiving community versus inpatient palliative care (odds ratio (OR): 3.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.25-4.01), for patients diagnosed with malignant versus non-malignant disease (OR 1.7; 95% CI: 1.26-2.31), and for those who required an urgent change in their care plan versus those whose symptoms and problems were adequately managed (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.04-1.83). CONCLUSION: Three factors are associated with an increased likelihood of patient versus proxy reporting in palliative care: healthcare setting, diagnosis, and the acuity and urgency of the patient's clinical needs. PROMs are feasible in most clinical scenarios in palliative care, including when an urgent clinical response is required.

The PCOC Symptom Assessment Scale (SAS): A valid measure for daily use at point of care and in palliative care programs.

BACKGROUND: Very few measures are used successfully as part of routine care within national palliative care outcome programs. Only a handful of studies examine these measures. The aim of this study is to evaluate the validity of a measure used in a national outcomes program: the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration Symptom Assessment Scale (PCOC SAS). METHODS: A retrospective multi-site cohort study with secondary analysis of routinely collected patient-level data to assess PCOC SAS's internal consistency, construct validity, reliability, interpretability, acceptability and sensitivity. The analyses used two sets, with data collected by inpatient and community palliative care services registered with the Australian national PCOC. RESULTS: Dataset one included 1,117 patients receiving palliative care from 21 services. Dataset two included 5,294 patients receiving palliative care from 119 PCOC services. PCOC SAS demonstrated the ability to detect and discriminate distress by palliative care phase, functional status and diagnosis. Excellent and good convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated. Fair through to substantial inter-rater and intra-rater reliability levels were evidenced. Sufficient interpretability resulted along with necessary levels of acceptability and sensitivity. CONCLUSION: PCOC SAS is a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure suitable for use in routine clinical care with patients requiring palliative and or end-of-life care, including in national outcomes programs.

Comparing functional decline and distress from symptoms in people with thoracic life-limiting illnesses: lung cancers and non-malignant end-stage respiratory diseases.

BACKGROUND: Malignant and non-malignant respiratory diseases account for >4.6 million deaths annually worldwide. Despite similar symptom burdens, serious inequities in access to palliative care persists for people with non-malignant respiratory diseases. AIM: To compare functional decline and symptom distress in advanced malignant and non-malignant lung diseases using consecutive, routinely collected, point-of-care national data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The Australian national Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration collects functional status (Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS)) and symptom distress (patient-reported 0-10 numerical rating scale) in inpatient and community settings. Five years of data used Joinpoint and weighted scatterplot smoothing. RESULTS: In lung cancers (89 904 observations; 18 586 patients) and non-malignant end-stage respiratory diseases (14 827 observations; 4279 patients), age at death was significantly lower in people with lung cancer (73 years; IQR 65-81) than non-malignant end-stage respiratory diseases (81 years; IQR 73-87 years; p<0.001). Four months before death, median AKPS was 40 in lung cancers and 30 in non-malignant end-stage respiratory diseases (p<0.001). Functional decline was similar in the two groups and accelerated in the last month of life. People with non-malignant diseases accessed palliative care later.Pain-related distress was greater with cancer and breathing-related distress with non-malignant disease. Breathing-related distress increased towards death in malignant, but decreased in non-malignant disease. Distress from fatigue and poor sleep were similar for both. CONCLUSIONS: In this large dataset unlike previous datasets, the pattern of functional decline was similar as was overall symptom burden. Timely access to palliative care should be based on needs not diagnoses.

Collaborative data familiarisation and quality assessment: Reflections from use of a national dataset to investigate palliative care for Indigenous Australians.

BACKGROUND: Data quality is fundamental to the integrity of quantitative research. The role of external researchers in data quality assessment (DQA) remains ill-defined in the context of secondary use for research of large, centrally curated health datasets. In order to investigate equity of palliative care provided to Indigenous Australian patients, researchers accessed a now-historical version of a national palliative care dataset developed primarily for the purpose of continuous quality improvement. OBJECTIVES: (i) To apply a generic DQA framework to the dataset and (ii) to report the process and results of this assessment and examine the consequences for conducting the research. METHOD: The data were systematically examined for completeness, consistency and credibility. Data quality issues relevant to the Indigenous identifier and framing of research questions were of particular interest. RESULTS: The dataset comprised 477,518 records of 144,951 patients (Indigenous N = 1515; missing Indigenous identifier N = 4998) collected from participating specialist palliative care services during a period (1 January 2010-30 June 2015) in which data-checking systems underwent substantial upgrades. Progressive improvement in completeness of data over the study period was evident. The data were error-free with respect to many credibility and consistency checks, with anomalies detected reported to data managers. As the proportion of missing values remained substantial for some clinical care variables, multiple imputation procedures were used in subsequent analyses. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: In secondary use of large curated datasets, DQA by external researchers may both influence proposed analytical methods and contribute to improvement of data curation processes through feedback to data managers.

The Level of Distress From Fatigue Reported in the Final Two Months of Life by a Palliative Care Population: An Australian National Prospective, Consecutive Case Series.

CONTEXT: Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in life-limiting illnesses, although not much is known about the distress it causes patients as they approach death. OBJECTIVES: To map the trajectory of distress from fatigue reported by an Australian palliative care population in the last 60 days leading up to death. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal, consecutive cohort study using national data from the Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration between July 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. Patients were included if they had at least one measurement of fatigue on a 0-10 numerical rating scale in the 60 days before death. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse patients by diagnostic cohort and functional status. RESULTS: A total of 116,604 patients from 203 specialist palliative care services were analyzed, providing 501,104 data points. Distress from fatigue affected up to 80% of patients referred to palliative care, with the majority experiencing moderate or severe distress. Malignant and nonmalignant diagnoses were equally affected, with the neurological cohort showing the greatest variability. The degree of distress correlated with a patient's functional level; it worsened as a patient's function declined until a patient became bedbound when the reporting of distress reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Distress from fatigue is high in this cohort of patients. Interventions to reduce this distress need to be a research priority.

Palliative care is effective: but hospital symptom outcomes superior.

OBJECTIVES: To explore differences in severe symptom outcomes for palliative care patients receiving hospital care compared with those receiving care at home. METHODS: Change in symptom distress from the start of an episode of palliative care to just prior to death was measured for 25 679 patients who died under the care of a hospital or home-based palliative care team between January 2015 and December 2016. Logistic regression models controlled for differences between hospital and home and enabled a comparison of the number of severe symptoms just prior to death. RESULTS: All symptoms improved and over 85% of all patients had no severe symptoms prior to death. Pain control illustrates this with 7.4% of patients reporting severe pain distress at episode start and 2.5% just prior to death. When comparing all symptom outcomes by place of death, hospital patients are 3.7 times more likely than home patients to have no severe symptoms. CONCLUSION : Symptom outcomes are better for hospital patients. Patients at home have less improvement overall and some symptoms get worse. Reasons for the difference in outcomes by hospital and home are multifactorial and must be considered in relation to the patient's right to choose their place of care.

Prevalence and severity of sleep difficulty in patients with a CNS cancer receiving palliative care in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The literature describing the incidence of sleep difficulty in CNS cancers is very limited, with exploration of a sleep difficulty symptom trajectory particularly sparse in people with advanced disease. We aimed to establish the prevalence and longitudinal trajectory of sleep difficulty in populations with CNS cancers receiving palliative care nationally, and to identify clinically modifiable predictors of sleep difficulty. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 2406 patients with CNS cancers receiving palliative care from sites participating in the Australian national Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration were evaluated longitudinally on patient-reported sleep difficulty from point-of-care data collection, comorbid symptoms, and clinician-rated problems. Multilevel models were used to analyze patient-reported sleep difficulty. RESULTS: Reporting of mild to severe sleep difficulties ranged from 10% to 43%. Sleep scores fluctuated greatly over the course of palliative care. While improvement in patients' clinical status was associated with less sleep difficulty, the relationship was not clear when patients deteriorated. Worsening of sleep difficulty was associated with higher psychological distress (P < .0001), greater breathing problems (P < .05) and pain (P < .05), and higher functional status (P < .001) at the beginning of care. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep difficulty is prevalent but fluctuates widely in patients with CNS cancers receiving palliative care. A better-tailored sleep symptom assessment may be needed for this patient population. Early interventions targeting psychological distress, breathing symptoms, and pain for more functional patients should be explored to see whether it reduces sleep difficulties late in life.

The trajectory of functional decline over the last 4 months of life in a palliative care population: A prospective, consecutive cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding current patterns of functional decline will inform patient care and has health service and resource implications. AIM: This prospective consecutive cohort study aims to map the shape of functional decline trajectories at the end of life by diagnosis. DESIGN: Changes in functional status were measured using the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. Segmented regression was used to identify time points prior to death associated with significant changes in the slope of functional decline for each diagnostic cohort. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of severe symptoms and late referrals, age and sex. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In all, 115 specialist palliative care services submit prospectively collected patient data to the national Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration across Australia. Data on 55,954 patients who died in the care of these services between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015 were included. RESULTS: Two simplified functional decline trajectories were identified in the last 4 months of life. Trajectory 1 has an almost uniform slow decline until the last 14 days of life when function declines more rapidly. Trajectory 2 has a flatter more stable trajectory with greater functional impairment at 120 days before death, followed by a more rapid decline in the last 2 weeks of life. The most rapid rate of decline occurs in the last 2 weeks of life for all cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Two simplified trajectories of functional decline in the last 4 months of life were identified for five patient cohorts. Both trajectories present opportunities to plan for responsive healthcare that will support patients and families.

Perceptions of the care received from Australian palliative care services: A caregiver perspective.

ABSTRACTBackground:Caregiver satisfaction and experience surveys help health professionals to understand, measure, and improve the quality of care provided for patients and their families. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore caregiver perceptions of the care received from Australian specialist palliative care services. METHOD: Caregivers of patients receiving palliative care in services registered with Australia's Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration were invited to participate in a caregiver survey. The survey included the FAMCARE-2 and four items from the Ongoing Needs Identification: Caregiver Profile questionnaire. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1,592 caregivers from 49 services. Most respondents reported high satisfaction and positive experiences. Caregivers receiving care from community-based palliative care teams were less satisfied with the management of physical symptoms and comfort (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI95%] = 0.14, 0.59), with patient psychological care (OR = 0.56; CI95% = 0.32, 0.98), and with family support (OR = 0.52; CI95% = 0.35, 0.77) than caregivers of patients in an inpatient setting. If aged over 60 years, caregivers were less likely to have their information needs met regarding available support services (OR = 0.98; CI95% = 0.97, 0.98) and carer payments (OR = 0.99; CI95% = 0.98, 1.00). Also, caregivers were less likely to receive adequate information about carer payments if located in an outer regional area (OR = 0.41; CI95% = 0.25, 0.64). With practical training, caregivers receiving care from community services reported inadequate information provision to support them in caring for patients (OR = 0.60; CI95% = 0.45, 0.81). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: While our study identified caregivers as having positive and satisfactory experiences across all domains of care, there is room for improvement in the delivery of palliative care across symptom management, as well as patient and caregiver support, especially in community settings. Caregiver surveys can facilitate the identification and evaluation of both patients' and caregivers' experiences, satisfaction, distress, and unmet needs.

Breathlessness During the Last Week of Life in Palliative Care: An Australian Prospective, Longitudinal Study.

CONTEXT: Breathlessness is a major cause of suffering and distress, and little is known about the trajectory of breathlessness near death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the trajectory and clinical-demographic factors associated with breathlessness in the last week of life in patients receiving specialist palliative care. METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study using national data on specialist palliative care from the Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration. We included patients in the Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration who died between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 with at least one measurement of breathlessness on a 0-10 numerical rating scale in the week before death. The trajectory and factors associated with breathlessness were analyzed using multivariate random-effects linear regression. RESULTS: A total 12,778 patients from 87 services (33,404 data points) were analyzed. The average observed breathlessness was 2.1 points and remained constant over time. Thirty-five percent reported moderate to severe distress (numerical rating scale ≥4) at some time in their last week. Factors associated with higher breathlessness were younger age, male gender, cardiopulmonary involvement, concurrent fatigue, nausea, pain, sleeping problems, higher Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status, and clinical instability in the multivariate analysis. Respiratory failure showed the largest association (mean adjusted difference 3.1 points; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-3.4). CONCLUSION: Although breathlessness has been reported to worsen in the last months, the mean severity remained stable in the final week of life. In specialized palliative care, one in three people experienced significant breathlessness especially in respiratory disease.

Palliative Care Problem Severity Score: Reliability and acceptability in a national study.

BACKGROUND: The Palliative Care Problem Severity Score is a clinician-rated tool to assess problem severity in four palliative care domains (pain, other symptoms, psychological/spiritual, family/carer problems) using a 4-point categorical scale (absent, mild, moderate, severe). AIM: To test the reliability and acceptability of the Palliative Care Problem Severity Score. DESIGN: Multi-centre, cross-sectional study involving pairs of clinicians independently rating problem severity using the tool. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians from 10 Australian palliative care services: 9 inpatient units and 1 mixed inpatient/community-based service. RESULTS: A total of 102 clinicians participated, with almost 600 paired assessments completed for each domain, involving 420 patients. A total of 91% of paired assessments were undertaken within 2 h. Strength of agreement for three of the four domains was moderate: pain (Kappa = 0.42, 95% confidence interval = 0.36 to 0.49); psychological/spiritual (Kappa = 0.48, 95% confidence interval = 0.42 to 0.54); family/carer (Kappa = 0.45, 95% confidence interval = 0.40 to 0.52). Strength of agreement for the remaining domain (other symptoms) was fair (Kappa = 0.38, 95% confidence interval = 0.32 to 0.45). CONCLUSION: The Palliative Care Problem Severity Score is an acceptable measure, with moderate reliability across three domains. Variability in inter-rater reliability across sites and participant feedback indicate that ongoing education is required to ensure that clinicians understand the purpose of the tool and each of its domains. Raters familiar with the patient they were assessing found it easier to assign problem severity, but this did not improve inter-rater reliability.

Improving national hospice/palliative care service symptom outcomes systematically through point-of-care data collection, structured feedback and benchmarking.

PURPOSE: Every health care sector including hospice/palliative care needs to systematically improve services using patient-defined outcomes. Data from the national Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration aims to define whether hospice/palliative care patients' outcomes and the consistency of these outcomes have improved in the last 3 years. METHODS: Data were analysed by clinical phase (stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal). Patient-level data included the Symptom Assessment Scale and the Palliative Care Problem Severity Score. Nationally collected point-of-care data were anchored for the period July-December 2008 and subsequently compared to this baseline in six 6-month reporting cycles for all services that submitted data in every time period (n = 30) using individual longitudinal multi-level random coefficient models. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 19,747 patients (46 % female; 85 % cancer; 27,928 episodes of care; 65,463 phases). There were significant improvements across all domains (symptom control, family care, psychological and spiritual care) except pain. Simultaneously, the interquartile ranges decreased, jointly indicating that better and more consistent patient outcomes were being achieved. CONCLUSION: These are the first national hospice/palliative care symptom control performance data to demonstrate improvements in clinical outcomes at a service level as a result of routine data collection and systematic feedback.

Palliative Care Phase: inter-rater reliability and acceptability in a national study.

BACKGROUND: The concept of palliative care consisting of five distinct, clinically meaningful, phases (stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal and bereavement) was developed in Australia about 20 years ago and is used routinely for communicating clinical status, care planning, quality improvement and funding. AIM: To test the reliability and acceptability of revised definitions of Palliative Care Phase. DESIGN: Multi-centre cross-sectional study involving pairs of clinicians independently rating patients according to revised definitions of Palliative Care Phase. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians from 10 Australian palliative care services, including 9 inpatient units and 1 mixed inpatient/community-based service. RESULTS: A total of 102 nursing and medical clinicians participated, undertaking 595 paired assessments of 410 patients, of which 90.7% occurred within 2 h. Clinicians rated 54.8% of patients in the stable phase, 15.8% in the unstable phase, 20.8% in the deteriorating phase and 8.7% in the terminal phase. Overall agreement between clinicians' rating of Palliative Care Phase was substantial (kappa = 0.67; 95% confidence interval = 0.61-0.70). A moderate level of inter-rater reliability was apparent across all participating sites. The results indicated that Palliative Care Phase was an acceptable measure, with no significant difficulties assigning patients to a Palliative Care Phase and a good fit between assessment of phase and the definition of that phase. The most difficult phase to distinguish from other phases was the deteriorating phase. CONCLUSION: Policy makers, funders and clinicians can be confident that Palliative Care Phase is a reliable and acceptable measure that can be used for care planning, quality improvement and funding purposes.

Referral patterns and proximity to palliative care inpatient services by level of socio-economic disadvantage. A national study using spatial analysis.

BACKGROUND: A range of health outcomes at a population level are related to differences in levels of social disadvantage. Understanding the impact of any such differences in palliative care is important. The aim of this study was to assess, by level of socio-economic disadvantage, referral patterns to specialist palliative care and proximity to inpatient services. METHODS: All inpatient and community palliative care services nationally were geocoded (using postcode) to one nationally standardised measure of socio-economic deprivation - Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA; 2006 census data). Referral to palliative care services and characteristics of referrals were described through data collected routinely at clinical encounters. Inpatient location was measured from each person's home postcode, and stratified by socio-economic disadvantage. RESULTS: This study covered July - December 2009 with data from 10,064 patients. People from the highest SEIFA group (least disadvantaged) were significantly less likely to be referred to a specialist palliative care service, likely to be referred closer to death and to have more episodes of inpatient care for longer time. Physical proximity of a person's home to inpatient care showed a gradient with increasing distance by decreasing levels of socio-economic advantage. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that a simple relationship of low socioeconomic status and poor access to a referral-based specialty such as palliative care does not exist. Different patterns of referral and hence different patterns of care emerge.