Using normalization process theory to evaluate the use of patient-centred outcome measures in specialist palliative home care-a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Standardised use of patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) improves aspects of quality of care. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) considers the social (inter-)actions of implementation processes operationalised through four constructs: coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and enablers for the successful use of PCOMs in specialist palliative home care (SPHC) using NPT, to collect clinically meaningful and reliable data to improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care professionals from German SPHC teams who participated in a study using PCOMs. Data were analysed using Framework analysis, and contextualised within NPT. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews across five teams were conducted. Some teams already had an understanding of what PCOMs are and how to use them, based on previous experience. In other teams, this understanding developed through the perception of the benefits (coherence). Participation and engagement depended on individuals and was decisive for coherence-building. The attitude of the management level also played a major role (cognitive participation). Integration of PCOMs into everyday clinical practice varied and depended on the manifestation of the first two constructs and other already established routines (collective action). In the context of appraisal, both positive (e.g. focus on patient) and negative aspects (e.g. additional work) of using PCOMs were mentioned (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: Although benefits of using PCOMs were partly recognised, not all teams continued standardised use. Here, not only the social (inter-)actions, but also the influence of the context (working environment) were decisive. Future implementation strategies should consider integrating PCOMs in existing electronic patient records, education sessions supporting coherence-building, internal facilitators/local champions, and ensuring frequent data analyses as it is beneficial and increases the readiness of using PCOMs.

The experience of Australian aged care workers during a trial implementation of a palliative care outcomes programme.

End of life care is an essential part of the role of Australian aged care homes (ACHs). However, there is no national framework to support aged care staff in systematically identifying residents with palliative care needs or to routinely assess, respond to, and measure end of life needs. The Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) is a national outcomes and benchmarking programme which aims to systematically improve palliative care for people who are approaching the end of life, and for their families and carers. The PCOC Wicking Model for Residential Aged Care was developed and piloted in four Australian ACHs. This paper reports on the qualitative findings from semi-structured interviews and focus groups conducted with ACH staff (N = 37) to examine feasibility. Thematic analysis identified three overarching themes about the pilot: (i) processes to successfully prepare and support ACHs; (ii) appropriateness of PCOC tools for the ACH setting; and (iii) realised and potential benefits of the model for ACHs. The lessons presented valuable insights to refine the PCOC Wicking Model and enrich understanding of the potential challenges and solutions for implementing similar programs within ACHs in future. The results suggest that key to successfully preparing ACHs for implementation of the PCOC Wicking Model is an authentic and well-paced collaborative approach with ACHs to ensure the resources, structures and systems are in place and appropriate for the setting. The PCOC Wicking Model for Residential Aged Care is a promising prototype to support ACHs in improving palliative and end of life care outcomes for residents and their carers.

Population-level, patient-reported outcomes: a case study regarding a public health intervention that involves patients with life-limiting illnesses.

Introduction: Dying and death are public health concerns, but little is known about public health interventions that target populations living with life-limiting illnesses. This gap makes it difficult to identify best-practice public health interventions for this population and to achieve public health objectives. The study aimed to describe a public health intervention that intends to improve population-level outcomes using point-of-care and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: A case study approach, informed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Best-Practice Public Health Framework, was used to describe coverage, effectiveness, and equity using mixed methods. Data from 2012 to 2022 were analyzed. Results: Over the 10-year period, the number of deaths recorded in the programme (n = 16,358 to 32,421, +98.2%) as well as the percentage of the population that might benefit from palliative care increased (14.8% to 25.1%). The median age of those admitted for care (74 to 77 years) and the proportion of services participating in the programme located in outer regional and remote areas of Australia increased (2012: 59; 2022: 94; +5.4%). The access by patients that experience the greatest socioeconomic disadvantage decreased (2012: 18.2% n = 4,918; 2022: 15.9% n = 9,525). Improvements in relation to moderate distress related to pain were identified (2012: 63% n = 8,751, 2022: 69% n = 13,700), and one in five instances of severe distress related to pain did not improve (2012: 20% n = 781; 2022: 19% n = 635). Conclusion: Population-level, patient-reported outcome data are useful and necessary in addressing public health objectives in populations with life-limiting illnesses. Our application of the OECD's Best-Practice Public Health Framework has helped to identify and describe a national intervention that may be transferred to other settings to address health promotion objectives. This may help improve the targeting of treatments to improve pain and issues related to equity.

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.

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.

Physical Symptoms at the Time of Dying Was Diagnosed: A Consecutive Cohort Study To Describe the Prevalence and Intensity of Problems Experienced by Imminently Dying Palliative Care Patients by Diagnosis and Place of Care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to analyze routine assessments recorded, when a patient was documented as likely to die in hours to days, to determine the prevalence, intensity, and associations of physical symptoms. BACKGROUND: Although death inevitably occurs, very little prospective data describe at population level the physical symptoms confronting imminently dying people. METHODS: Using prospectively collected data from participating palliative care services in the Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration between July 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, factors associated with worse symptom experiences were explored using logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: The experiences of 18,975 patients who died after being identified as imminently terminal were analyzed, with 75% (n = 14,238) of these being cancer deaths. Seventy percent (n = 13,051) occurred in a palliative care unit, 8.7% (n = 1657) in an acute hospital with palliative care support, and 22.5% (n = 4266) at home. More than half were assessed as experiencing acceptable symptom control especially those with nonmalignant disease. The notable exception was breathing problems, where compared to cancer patients, those with nonmalignant disease were 34% more likely to experience distressing breathlessness (odds ratio 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.23-147). Regardless of the cause, deaths in a community setting were more likely to be complicated by more severe symptoms with the exception of breathlessness, where those dying in acute hospitals were most likely to be assessed as requiring further help. DISCUSSION: The terminal phase is perceived as a time where the majority will experience distressing symptoms, but this work suggests a contrary view. However, there did seem to be a detrimental effect depending on place of care with more significant problems recorded when people were dying at home. More work is needed to clarify this given the current push for more home deaths.