A pilot study on the effect of advance care planning implementation on healthcare utilisation and satisfaction in patients with advanced heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced heart failure may benefit from palliative care, including advance care planning (ACP). ACP, which can include referral back to the general practitioner (GP), may prevent unbeneficial hospital admissions and interventional/surgical procedures that are not in accordance with the patient's personal goals of care. AIM: To implement ACP in patients with advanced heart failure and explore the effect of ACP on healthcare utilisation as well as the satisfaction of patients and cardiologists. METHODS: In this pilot study, we enrolled 30 patients with New York Heart Association class III/IV heart failure who had had at least one unplanned hospital admission in the previous year because of heart failure. A structured ACP conversation was held and documented by the treating physician. Primary outcome was the number of visits to the emergency department and/or admissions within 3 months after the ACP conversation. Secondary endpoints were the satisfaction of patients and cardiologists as established by using a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Median age of the patients was 81 years (range 33-94). Twenty-seven ACP documents could be analysed (90%). Twenty-one patients (78%) did not want to be readmitted to the hospital and subsequently none of them were readmitted during follow-up. Twenty-two patients (81%) discontinued all hospital care. All patients who died during follow-up (n = 12, 40%) died at home. Most patients and cardiologists indicated that they would recommend the intervention to others (80% and 92% respectively). CONCLUSION: ACP, and subsequent out-of-hospital care by the GP, was shown to be applicable in the present study of patients with advanced heart failure and evident palliative care needs. Patients and cardiologists were satisfied with this intervention.

Downgrade of cardiac defibrillator devices to pacemakers in elderly heart failure patients: clinical considerations and the importance of shared decision-making.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are implanted on a large scale in patients with heart failure (HF) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. There are different scenarios in which defibrillator therapy is no longer desired or indicated, and this is occurring increasingly in elderly patients. Usually device therapy is continued until the device has reached battery depletion. At that time, the decision needs to be made to either replace it or to downgrade to a pacing-only device. This decision is dependent on many factors, including the vitality of the patient and his/her preferences, but may also be influenced by changes in recommendations in guidelines. In the last few years, there has been an increased awareness that discussions around these decisions are important and useful. Advanced care planning and shared decision-making have become important and are increasingly recognised as such. In this short review we describe six elderly patients with HF, in whose cases we discussed these issues, and we aim to provide some scientific and ethical rationale for clinical decision-making in this context. Current guidelines advocate the discussion of end-of-life options at the time of device implantation, and physicians should realise that their choices influence patients' options in this critical phase of their illness.

Assessing quality of care from hospital case notes: comparison of reliability of two methods.

OBJECTIVES: To determine which of the two methods of case note review provide the most useful and reliable information for reviewing quality of care. DESIGN: Retrospective, multiple reviews of 692 case notes were undertaken using both holistic (implicit) and criterion-based (explicit) review methods. Quality measures were evidence-based review criteria and a quality of care rating scale. SETTING: Nine randomly selected acute hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen doctors, 11 specialist nurses and three clinically trained audit staff, and eight non-clinical audit staff. ANALYSIS METHODS: Intrarater consistency, inter-rater reliability between pairs of staff using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), completeness of criterion data capture and between-staff group comparison. RESULTS: A total of 1473 holistic reviews and 1389 criterion-based reviews were undertaken. When the three same staff types reviewed the same record, holistic scale score inter-rater reliability was moderate within each group (ICC 0.46 to 0.52). Inter-rater reliability for criterion-based scores was moderate to good (ICC 0.61 to 0.88). Comparison of holistic review score and criterion-based score of case notes reviewed by doctors and by non-clinical audit staff showed a reasonable level of agreement between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: Using a holistic approach to review case notes, same staff groups can achieve reasonable repeatability within their professional groups. When the same clinical record was reviewed twice by the doctors, and by the non-clinical audit staff, using both holistic and criterion-based methods, there are close similarities between the quality of care scores generated by the two methods. When using retrospective review of case notes to examine quality of care, a clear view is required of the purpose and the expected outputs of the project.

Comparison of case note review methods for evaluating quality and safety in health care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine which of two methods of case note review--holistic (implicit) and criterion-based (explicit)--provides the most useful and reliable information for quality and safety of care, and the level of agreement within and between groups of health-care professionals when they use the two methods to review the same record. To explore the process-outcome relationship between holistic and criterion-based quality-of-care measures and hospital-level outcome indicators. DATA SOURCES: Case notes of patients at randomly selected hospitals in England. REVIEW METHODS: In the first part of the study, retrospective multiple reviews of 684 case notes were undertaken at nine acute hospitals using both holistic and criterion-based review methods. Quality-of-care measures included evidence-based review criteria and a quality-of-care rating scale. Textual commentary on the quality of care was provided as a component of holistic review. Review teams comprised combinations of: doctors (n = 16), specialist nurses (n = 10) and clinically trained audit staff (n = 3) and non-clinical audit staff (n = 9). In the second part of the study, process (quality and safety) of care data were collected from the case notes of 1565 people with either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart failure in 20 hospitals. Doctors collected criterion-based data from case notes and used implicit review methods to derive textual comments on the quality of care provided and score the care overall. Data were analysed for intrarater consistency, inter-rater reliability between pairs of staff using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and completeness of criterion data capture, and comparisons were made within and between staff groups and between review methods. To explore the process-outcome relationship, a range of publicly available health-care indicator data were used as proxy outcomes in a multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 1473 holistic and 1389 criterion-based reviews were undertaken in the first part of the study. When same staff-type reviewer pairs/groups reviewed the same record, holistic scale score inter-rater reliability was moderate within each of the three staff groups [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.46-0.52], and inter-rater reliability for criterion-based scores was moderate to good (ICC 0.61-0.88). When different staff-type pairs/groups reviewed the same record, agreement between the reviewer pairs/groups was weak to moderate for overall care (ICC 0.24-0.43). Comparison of holistic review score and criterion-based score of case notes reviewed by doctors and by non-clinical audit staff showed a reasonable level of agreement (p-values for difference 0.406 and 0.223, respectively), although results from all three staff types showed no overall level of agreement (p-value for difference 0.057). Detailed qualitative analysis of the textual data indicated that the three staff types tended to provide different forms of commentary on quality of care, although there was some overlap between some groups. In the process-outcome study there generally were high criterion-based scores for all hospitals, whereas there was more interhospital variation between the holistic review overall scale scores. Textual commentary on the quality of care verified the holistic scale scores. Differences among hospitals with regard to the relationship between mortality and quality of care were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Using the holistic approach, the three groups of staff appeared to interpret the recorded care differently when they each reviewed the same record. When the same clinical record was reviewed by doctors and non-clinical audit staff, there was no significant difference between the assessments of quality of care generated by the two groups. All three staff groups performed reasonably well when using criterion-based review, although the quality and type of information provided by doctors was of greater value. Therefore, when measuring quality of care from case notes, consideration needs to be given to the method of review, the type of staff undertaking the review, and the methods of analysis available to the review team. Review can be enhanced using a combination of both criterion-based and structured holistic methods with textual commentary, and variation in quality of care can best be identified from a combination of holistic scale scores and textual data review.