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.

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.

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.

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.