Describing Complexity in Palliative Home Care Through HexCom : A Cross-Sectional, Multicenter Study

Complexity has become a core issue in caring for patients with advanced disease and/or at the end-of-life. The Hexagon of Complexity (HexCom) is a complexity assessment model in the process of validation in health-care settings. Our objective is to use the instrument to describe differences in complexity across disease groups in specific home care for advanced disease and/or at the end-of-life patients, both in general and as relates to each domain and subdomain. Cross-sectional study of home care was conducted in Catalonia. The instrument includes 6 domains of needs (clinical, psychological/emotional, social/family, spiritual, ethical, and death-related), 4 domains of resources (intrapersonal, interpersonal, transpersonal, and practical), and 3 levels of complexity (High (H), Moderate (M), and Low (L)). Interdisciplinary home care teams assessed and agreed on the level of complexity for each patient. Forty-three teams participated (74.1% of those invited). A total of 832 patients were assessed, 61.4% of which were cancer patients. Moderate complexity was observed in 385 (47.0%) cases and high complexity in 347 (42.4%). The median complexity score was 51 for cancer patients and 23 for patients with dementia (p<0.001). We observed the highest level of complexity in the social/family domain. Patients/families most frequently used interpersonal resources (80.5%). This study sheds light on the high-intensity work of support teams, the importance of the social/family domain and planning the place of death, substantial differences in needs and resources across disease groups, and the importance of relationship wellbeing at the end-of-life

Assessing Face Validity of the HexCom Model for Capturing Complexity in Clinical Practice : a Delphi study

Funding: This research was funded by INSTITUT CATALÀ DE LA SALUT, grant number 7Z19/008.Capturing complexity is both a conceptual and a practical challenge in palliative care. The HexCom model has proved to be an instrument with strong reliability and to be valid for describing the needs and strengths of patients in home care. In order to explore whether it is also perceived to be helpful in enhancing coordinated and patient-centred care at a practical level, a methodological study was carried out to assess the face validity of the model. In particular, a Delphi method involving a group of 14 experts representing the full spectrum of healthcare professionals involved in palliative care was carried out. The results show that there is a high level of agreement, with a content validity index-item greater than 0.92 both with regard to the complexity model and the HexCom-Red, HexCom-Basic, and the HexCom-Clin instruments, and higher than 0.85 regarding the HexCom-Figure and the HexCom-Patient instruments. This consensus confirms that the HexCom model and the different instruments that are derived from it are valued as useful tools for a broad range of healthcare professional in coordinately capturing complexity in healthcare practice

Gender and observed complexity in palliative home care : A prospective multicentre study using the hexcom model

This study analyses gender differences in the complexity observed in palliative home care through a multicentre longitudinal observational study of patients with advanced disease treated by palliative home care teams in Catalonia (Spain). We used the HexCom model, which includes six dimensions and measures three levels of complexity: high (non-modifiable situation), medium (difficult) and low. Results: N = 1677 people, 44% women. In contrast with men, in women, cancer was less prevalent (64.4% vs. 73.9%) (p < 0.001), cognitive impairment was more prevalent (34.1% vs. 26.6%; p = 0.001) and professional caregivers were much more common (40.3% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.001). Women over 80 showed less complexity in the following subareas: symptom management (41.7% vs. 51,1%; p = 0.011), emotional distress (24.5% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.015), spiritual distress (16.4% vs. 26.4%; p = 0.001), socio-familial distress (62.7% vs. 70.1%; p = 0.036) and location of death (36.0% vs. 49.6%; p < 0.000). Men were more complex in the subareas of "practice" OR = 1.544 (1.25-1.90 p = 0.000) and "transcendence" OR = 1.52 (1.16-1.98 p = 0.002). Observed complexity is related to male gender in people over 80 years of age. Women over the age of 80 are remarkably different from their male counterparts, showing less complexity regarding care for their physical, psycho-emotional, spiritual and socio-familial needs

Pla estratègic d’atenció pal·liativa especialitzada de Catalunya: bases del model de futur

Pla estratègic; Atenció pal·liativa; Atenció centrada en la personaPlan estratégico; Atención paliativa; Atención centrada en la personaStrategic plan; Palliative care; Person centered careAquest Pla estratègic aborda la planificació estratègica de l’atenció a les persones amb necessitats pal·liatives per part dels equips i dispositius de cures pal·liatives específics (a partir d’ara, atenció pal·liativa especialitzada), mentre que de forma conjunta amb la direcció estratègica d’atenció primària i comunitària serà necessari el replantejament de l’atenció al final de vida de forma transversal

Pla estratègic d'atenció geriàtrica i pal·liativa especialitzada de Catalunya: línies estratègiques, projectes i actuacions

Pla estratègic; Atenció pal·liativa; Atenció centrada en la personaPlan estratégico; Atención paliativa; Atención centrada en la personaStrategic plan; Palliative care; Person centered careAquest document conté les línies estratègiques, projectes i actuacions del Pla estratègic d'atenció geriàtrica i pal·liativa especialitzada de Catalunya

Effectiveness of an intervention for improving drug prescription in primary care patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy:Study protocol of a cluster randomized clinical trial (Multi-PAP project)

This study was funded by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias ISCIII (Grant Numbers PI15/00276, PI15/00572, PI15/00996), REDISSEC (Project Numbers RD12/0001/0012, RD16/0001/0005), and the European Regional Development Fund ("A way to build Europe").Background: Multimorbidity is associated with negative effects both on people's health and on healthcare systems. A key problem linked to multimorbidity is polypharmacy, which in turn is associated with increased risk of partly preventable adverse effects, including mortality. The Ariadne principles describe a model of care based on a thorough assessment of diseases, treatments (and potential interactions), clinical status, context and preferences of patients with multimorbidity, with the aim of prioritizing and sharing realistic treatment goals that guide an individualized management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention that implements the Ariadne principles in a population of young-old patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The intervention seeks to improve the appropriateness of prescribing in primary care (PC), as measured by the medication appropriateness index (MAI) score at 6 and 12months, as compared with usual care. Methods/Design: Design:pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial. Unit of randomization: family physician (FP). Unit of analysis: patient. Scope: PC health centres in three autonomous communities: Aragon, Madrid, and Andalusia (Spain). Population: patients aged 65-74years with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs prescribed in ≥3months). Sample size: n=400 (200 per study arm). Intervention: complex intervention based on the implementation of the Ariadne principles with two components: (1) FP training and (2) FP-patient interview. Outcomes: MAI score, health services use, quality of life (Euroqol 5D-5L), pharmacotherapy and adherence to treatment (Morisky-Green, Haynes-Sackett), and clinical and socio-demographic variables. Statistical analysis: primary outcome is the difference in MAI score between T0 and T1 and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Adjustment for confounding factors will be performed by multilevel analysis. All analyses will be carried out in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: It is essential to provide evidence concerning interventions on PC patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity, conducted in the context of routine clinical practice, and involving young-old patients with significant potential for preventing negative health outcomes. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02866799Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

© 2023Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020