Perspectives of nursing home executives on collaboration with GPs and specialist palliative care teams.

Background: Nursing home (NH) staff, general practitioners (GPs) and specialist outpatient palliative care teams are expected to cooperate to ensure adequate palliative care for NH residents in Germany. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the perspective of NH executives concerning collaboration with GPs and specialist outpatient palliative care teams. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with executives of NHs in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Interviews were analysed by means of structured content analyses. Results: Executives of 20 NHs participated in the study, eight NHs cooperate with specialist outpatient palliative care teams. Content analysis resulted in two main categories: 'general palliative care by primary carers' and 'collaboration with SAPV in NHs', each with three first-order subcategories. The main barriers to adequate palliative care were reported to be lack of palliative care knowledge in GPs and NH staff, refusal of some GPs to cooperate with specialist outpatient palliative care teams and staff shortage in NHs. Specialist palliative care involvement was described to result in improved palliative care. Conclusion: Solutions seem obvious, e.g., further education in palliative care or round tables to discuss collaboration. However, studies show that even comprehensive educational and management interventions to implement palliative care do not always result in long-term effects and further research is needed.

Screening for Palliative Care Need in Oncology: Validation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

CONTEXT: Leading oncology societies recommend monitoring symptoms and support needs through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but their use for assessing specialist palliative care (SPC) need has not yet been explored. Research on SPC integration has focused on staff-assessed screening tools, which are time-consuming. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) in identifying need for SPC in patients with incurable cancer. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, patients with incurable cancer (prognosis <2 years) completed PROMs. In an independent process, the palliative care consultation service (PCCS) assessed the need for SPC in each patient through multiprofessional case review, and this was used as the reference standard. ROC analyses were employed to determine diagnostic validity. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 71 (34.1 %) were classified as having SPC need by the PCCS. Aiming for a minimum sensitivity of 80%, a cut-off of ≥2 items with high/very high burden in the IPOS resulted in a 90.2% sensitivity (specificity = 50; AUC = 0.791; CI 95%= 0.724-0.858). A cut-off of ≥5 resulted in a sensitivity of 80 % for NCCN DT (specificity = 49.5 %; AUC = 0.687; CI 95% = 0.596-0.777). CONCLUSION: PROMs are useful for identifying SPC need in cancer patients. Their implementation might facilitate timely integration of SPC. Future research should focus on an integrated assessment approach with PROMs that combines the requirements of the different specialties to save patient and staff resources.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard. METHODS: Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards. METHOD: A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'. CONCLUSIONS: While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).

Development of a screening tool for the need of specialist palliative care in oncologic inpatients: study protocol for the ScreeningPALL Study.

INTRODUCTION: A range of referral criteria and scores have been developed in recent years to help with screening for the need of specialist palliative care (SPC) in advanced, incurable cancer patients. However, referral criteria have not yet been widely implemented in oncology, as they usually need to be revised by physicians or nurses with limited time resources. To develop an easily applicable screening for the need for SPC in incurable cancer inpatients, we aim to (a) test inter-rater reliability of multiprofessional expert opinion as reference standard for SPC need (phase I) and (b) explore the diagnostic validity of selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and routine data for the need of SPC (phase II). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria for patients are metastatic or locally advanced, incurable cancer, ≥18 years of age and informed consent by patient or proxy. (Exclusion criteria: malignant haematological disease as main diagnosis). In phase I, three palliative care consultation teams (PCTs) of three German university hospitals assess the SPC need of 20 patient cases. Fleiss' Kappa will be calculated for inter-rater reliability. In phase II, 208 patients are consecutively recruited in four inpatient oncology wards of Freiburg University Hospital. The PCT will provide assessment of SPC need. As potential referral criteria, patients complete PROMs and a selection of routine data on person, disease and treatment is documented. Logistic regression models and ROC analyses are employed to test their utility in screening for SPC need. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings and congresses. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany (approval no. 20-1103). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered on 17 December 2020.

[Validity and responsiveness of the Scales for the Assessment of Functioning at Work]. / Validität und Änderungssensitivität der Skalen zur Erfassung der Funktionsfähigkeit im Beruf (SE-FFB).

The Scales for the Assessment of Functioning at Work (SE-FFB) allow for an ICF-oriented assessment of patient reported work performance and symptoms at work. The aim of the study is to test convergent end discriminate validity through correlations with measures that are typically applied in rehabilitation and responsiveness by means of description of the change in the course of rehabilitation (t0=beginning of the rehabilitation, t1=3 months after rehabilitation). The sample comprises 249 rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal diseases. The correlations of the SE-FFB with the criteria of convergent and discriminate validity are in accordance with the expectations. For women medium effects were found, indicating better work performance and fewer symptoms 3 months after rehabilitation, for men the effects were small. The SE-FFB allows for a reliable, valid and responsive assessment of the working situation.

Calibration of an item bank for work capacity in cardiological rehabilitation patients.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of work loss is a core objective of cardiovascular rehabilitation. However, comprehensive and economic diagnostic instruments on work limitation are missing. The present study describes the calibration of an item bank for work capacity in cardiovascular rehabilitation patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was based on an item pool (166 items) for assessing work capacity in orthopaedic rehabilitation patients. A total of 349 cardiovascular rehabilitation patients were recruited from 14 German rehabilitation inpatient centres. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine underlying dimensions of work capacity. Rasch analysis was applied to test for fit of the model, item fit, unidimensionality, particularly local independence and differential item functioning using RUMM2030. RESULTS: Two independent factors (cognitive work capacity/physical work capacity) were found. Fitting of the data to the Rasch model was initially poor (significant item-trait interaction for both factors; p < 0.001). After rescoring disordered categories, excluding misfitting items and items with differential item functioning, 20 and 18 items remained for cognitive work capacity and physical work capacity. Item-trait interaction (cognitive work capacity p = 0.24; physical work capacity p = 0.95) and person separation index (cognitive work capacity = 0.81; physical work capacity = 0.85) were satisfactory. Unidimensionality was given for both factors. CONCLUSIONS: The calibrated item bank provides the basis to assess work capacity in cardiovascular rehabilitation patients, fulfilling high psychometric standards. Further, the item bank could be either used to develop a computer adaptive test or an economic short-form questionnaire.