Performance of the Palliative Prognostic Index for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinician predicted survival for cancer patients is often inaccurate, and prognostic tools may be helpful, such as the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI). The PPI development study reported that when PPI score is greater than 6, it predicted survival of less than 3 weeks with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%. When PPI score is greater than 4, it predicts survival of less than 6 weeks with a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 77%. However, subsequent PPI validation studies have evaluated various thresholds and survival durations, and it is unclear which is most appropriate for use in clinical practice. With the development of numerous prognostic tools, it is also unclear which is most accurate and feasible for use in multiple care settings. AIM: We evaluated PPI model performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients based on different thresholds and survival durations and compared it to other prognostic tools. DESIGN: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302679). We calculated the pooled sensitivity and specificity of each threshold using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and pooled diagnostic odds ratio of each survival duration using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to compare PPI performance with clinician predicted survival and other prognostic tools. Findings which could not be included in meta-analyses were summarised narratively. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL, ProQuest and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from inception till 7 January 2022. Both retrospective and prospective observational studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients in any setting were included. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients were included (n = 19,714 patients). Across meta-analyses of 12 PPI score thresholds and survival durations, we found that PPI was most accurate for predicting survival of <3 weeks and <6 weeks. Survival prediction of <3 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>6 (pooled sensitivity = 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.75, specificity = 0.80, 95% CI 0.75-0.85). Survival prediction of <6 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>4 (pooled sensitivity = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.78, specificity = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.80). Comparative meta-analyses found that PPI performed similarly to Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score in predicting <3-week survival, but less accurately in <30-day survival prediction. However, Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score only provide <30-day survival probabilities, and it is uncertain how this would be helpful for patients and clinicians. PPI also performed similarly to clinician predicted survival in predicting <30-day survival. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution as limited studies were available for comparative meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for all studies, mainly due to poor reporting of statistical analyses. while there were low applicability concerns for most (38/39) studies. CONCLUSIONS: PPI score>6 should be used for <3-week survival prediction, and PPI score>4 for <6-week survival. PPI is easily scored and does not require invasive tests, and thus would be easily implemented in multiple care settings. Given the acceptable accuracy of PPI in predicting <3- and <6-week survival and its objective nature, it could be used to cross-check clinician predicted survival especially when clinicians have doubts about their own judgement, or when clinician estimates seem to be less reliable. Future studies should adhere to the reporting guidelines and provide comprehensive analyses of PPI model performance.

Caregivers' experiences of a home support program after the hospital discharge of an older family member: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ageing global population has seen increasing numbers of older people living with chronic health problems, declining function, and frailty. As older people seek to live out their years at home, family members, friends and neighbours (informal caregivers) are increasingly relied upon for support. Moreover, pressured health systems and shorter hospital length of stay mean that informal caregivers can find themselves supporting the older person who is still unwell after discharge. The Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH) program was developed as a nursing outreach intervention designed to systematically address support needs of family caregivers of older people after hospital discharge to sustain their home-based caregiving. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of informal caregivers who participated in the FECH program after an older family member's discharge from hospital. METHODS: The study employed a qualitative descriptive design. Caregivers of older people discharged home from a Medical Assessment Unit in an Australian hospital who were included in the program were interviewed to explore their experiences and perceptions of the FECH program. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one family caregivers (81% female, aged 25-89 years) participated in the interviews. Themes emerging were 'The experience of caregiving'; 'The experience of receiving FECH program support'; and 'Caregivers' suggestions for improvement'. Caregivers indicated that reflective discussions with the FECH nurse enabled them to recognise the complexity of the caregiving role and determine aspects where they needed support. Caregivers valued guidance from the FECH nurse in accessing information and resources, which helped them to feel more connected to support, more prepared to care for the older person and themselves, and more secure in the caregiving role. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers' experiences indicated that the structured reflective FECH discussions prompted thought and provided guidance in navigating health and care systems. The FECH program appears to offer a means to address the practical, physical and psychosocial needs of informal caregivers as partners in person-centred health and social care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR Trial ID: ACTRN126140011746773 .