The interRAI CHESS Scale is Comparable to the Palliative Performance Scale in Predicting 90-day Mortality in a Palliative Home Care Population

Background: Prognostic accuracy is important throughout all stages of the illness trajectory as it has implications for the timing of important conversations and decisions around care. Physicians often tend to over-estimate prognosis and may under-recognize palliative care (PC) needs. It is therefore essential that all relevant stakeholders have as much information available to them as possible when estimating prognosis. Aims: The current study examined whether the interRAI Changes in Health, End-Stage Disease, Signs and Symptoms (CHESS) Scale is a good predictor of mortality in a known PC population and to see how it compares to the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) in predicting 90-day mortality. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from 2011 to 2018 on 80,261 unique individuals receiving palliative home care and assessed with both the interRAI Palliative Care instrument and the PPS. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between the main outcome, 90-day mortality and were then replicated for a secondary outcome examining the number of nursing visits. Comparison of survival time was examined using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: The CHESS Scale was an acceptable predictor of 90-day mortality (c-statistic = 0.68; p \u3c 0.0001) and was associated with the number of nursing days (c = 0.61; p \u3c 0.0001) and had comparable performance to the PPS (c = 0.69; p \u3c 0.0001). The CHESS Scale performed slightly better than the PPS in predicting 90-day mortality when combined with other interRAI PC items (c = 0.72; p \u3c 0.0001). Conclusion: The interRAI CHESS Scale is an additional decision-support tool available to clinicians that can be used alongside the PPS when estimating prognosis. This additional information can assist with the development of care plans, discussions, and referrals to specialist PC teams

Does early palliative identification improve the use of palliative care services?

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