ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) have complex health needs, and thus require care that is coordinated across professionals and organizations. This study aimed to describe the extent of coordinated care delivery for patients with advanced CKD from the perspectives of both patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: The Coordination Scale of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-26) survey was administered to a random sample of 14,257 patients on maintenance dialysis or receiving care in end-stage kidney disease preparation clinics in Ontario, Canada. A five-item survey was administered to 596 multidisciplinary nephrology professionals. RESULTS: Among the 1,925 patient respondents, 67% reported they had been referred to an allied health professional; 19% had been encouraged to attend programs in the community; and 34% had been told how their visits with other types of doctors helped their treatment (% reporting "always" or "most of the time"). Patient responses were significantly different by treatment modality/setting, but not by gender or geographic location of treatment facility. Among the 276 professional respondents, 37% reported their patients' care was well-coordinated across settings; 56% reported participating in interdisciplinary care planning discussions; and 53% reported they are aware of appropriate home and community services to support their patients (% reporting "always" or "most of the time"). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that care for patients with advanced CKD in Ontario is not consistently coordinated. Healthcare professionals may enhance patient perceptions of coordinated care through explicit communication with patients about how the professionals they see and treatments or services they receive influence their overall health and well-being. At a systems level, there is a need to improve professional awareness of and linkages to home- and community-based services.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether an intervention to identify Canadian patients eligible for a palliative approach changes the use of health care resources and costs within the final month of life. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians identified 1,187 patients in family practice units and cancer centers who were likely to die within 1 year based on diagnosis, symptom assessment, and performance status. A multidisciplinary intervention that included activation of community resources and initiation of palliative planning was started. By using propensity-score matching, patients in the intervention group were matched 1:1 with nonintervention controls selected from provincial administrative data. We compared health care use and costs (using 2017 Canadian dollars) for 30 days before death between patients who died within the 1-year follow-up and matched controls. RESULTS: Groups (n = 629 in each group) were well-balanced in sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and previous health care use. In the last 30 days, there was no differences in proportions between the two groups of patients regarding emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, or inpatient hospitalizations. However, patients in the intervention group had greater use of palliative physician encounters, community home care visits, and/or physician home visits (92.8% v 88.4%; P = .007). In the 507 pairs with cancer, more patients in the intervention group underwent chemotherapy (44% v 33%; P < .001) and radiation (18.7% v 3.2%; P = .043) in the last 30 days. Mean cost per patient was similar for the intervention group (mean, $17,231; 95% CI, $16,027 to $18,436) and for the control group (mean, $16,951; 95% CI, $15,899 to $18,004). CONCLUSION: Even with the limitations in our observational study design, identification of palliative patients did not significantly change overall costs but may shift resources toward palliative services.
Subject(s)
Home Care Services , Palliative Care , Canada , Health Care Costs , Hospitalization , HumansABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care impacts on the use of palliative, community and acute-based care services. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians from eight sites were encouraged to systematically identify patients who were likely to die within one year and would were thought to benefit from early palliative care. Patients in the INTEGRATE Intervention Group were 1:1 matched to controls selected from provincial healthcare administrative data using propensity score-matching. The use of palliative care, community-based care services (home care, physician home visit, and outpatient opioid use) and acute care (emergency department, hospitalization) was each evaluated within one year after the date of identification. The hazard ratio (HR) in the Intervention Group was calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: Of the 1,185 patients in the Intervention Group, 951 (80.3%) used palliative care services during follow-up, compared to 739 (62.4%) among 1,185 patients in the Control Group [HR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.82)]. The Intervention Group also had higher proportions of patients who used home care [81.4% vs. 55.2%; HR 2.07 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.27)], had physician home visits [35.5% vs. 23.7%; HR 1.63 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.92)] or had increased outpatient opioid use [64.3% vs. 52.1%); HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.57]. The Intervention Group was also more likely to have a hospitalization that was not primarily focused on palliative care (1.42 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.58)) and an unplanned emergency department visit for non-palliative care purpose (1.47 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.64)). CONCLUSION: Physicians actively identifying patients who would benefit from palliative care resulted in increased use of palliative and community-based care services, but also increased use of acute care services.
