Development of a patient-reported palliative care-specific health classification system: the POS-E

BackgroundGeneric preference-based measures are commonly used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to inform resource-allocation decisions. However, concerns have been raised that generic measures may be inappropriate in palliative care.ObjectiveOur objective was to derive a health-state classification system that is amenable to valuation from the ten-item Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), a widely used patient-reported outcome measure in palliative care.MethodsThe dimensional structure of the original POS was assessed using factor analysis. Item performance was assessed, using Rasch analysis and psychometric criteria, to enable the selection of items that represent the dimensions covered by the POS. Data from six studies of patients receiving palliative care were combined (N = 1011) and randomly split into two halves for development and validation. Analysis was undertaken on the development data, and results were validated by repeating the analysis with the validation dataset.ResultsFollowing Rasch and factor analyses, a classification system of seven items was derived. Each item had two to three levels. Rasch threshold map helped identify a set of 14 plausible health states that can be used for the valuation of the instrument to derive a preference-based index.ConclusionCombining factor analysis and Rasch analysis with psychometric criteria provides a valid method of constructing a classification system for a palliative care-specific preference-based measure. The next stage is to obtain preference weights so the measure can be used in economic evaluations in palliative care

Development and validation of a casemix classification to predict costs of specialist palliative care provision across inpatient hospice, hospital and community settings in the UK: a study protocol

Introduction Provision of palliative care is inequitable with wide variations across conditions and settings in the UK. Lack of a standard way to classify by case complexity is one of the principle obstacles to addressing this. We aim to develop and validate a casemix classification to support the prediction of costs of specialist palliative care provision.Methods and analysis Phase I: A cohort study to determine the variables and potential classes to be included in a casemix classification. Data are collected from clinicians in palliative care services across inpatient hospice, hospital and community settings on: patient demographics, potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use. Cost predictors are derived using multivariate regression and then incorporated into a classification using classification and regression trees. Internal validation will be conducted by bootstrapping to quantify any optimism in the predictive performance (calibration and discrimination) of the developed classification. Phase II: A mixed-methods cohort study across settings for external validation of the classification developed in phase I. Patient and family caregiver data will be collected longitudinally on demographics, potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use. This will be triangulated with data collected from clinicians on potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use, and with qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers about care provision across difference settings. The classification will be refined on the basis of its performance in the validation data set.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. The results are expected to be disseminated in 2018 through papers for publication in major palliative care journals; policy briefs for clinicians, commissioning leads and policy makers; and lay summaries for patients and public

Establishing key criteria to define and compare models of specialist palliative care : a mixed-methods study using qualitative interviews and Delphi survey

Background: Specialist palliative care services have various configurations of staff, processes and interventions, which determine how care is delivered. Currently, there is no consistent way to define and distinguish these different models of care. Aim: To identify the core components that characterise and differentiate existing models of specialist palliative care in the United Kingdom. Design: Mixed-methods study: (1) semi-structured interviews to identify criteria, (2) two-round Delphi study to rank/refine criteria, and (3) structured interviews to test/refine criteria. Setting/participants: Specialist palliative care stakeholders from hospice inpatient, hospital advisory, and community settings. Results: (1) Semi-structured interviews with 14 clinical leads, from eight UK organisations (five hospice inpatient units, two hospital advisory teams, five community teams), provided 34 preliminary criteria. (2) Delphi study: Round 1 (54 participants): thirty-four criteria presented, seven removed and seven added. Round 2 (30 participants): these 34 criteria were ranked with the 15 highest ranked criteria, including setting, type of care, size of service, diagnoses, disciplines, mode of care, types of interventions, ‘out-of-hours’ components (referrals, times, disciplines, mode of care, type of care), external education, use of measures, bereavement follow-up and complex grief provision. (3) Structured interviews with 21 UK service leads (six hospice inpatients, four hospital advisory and nine community teams) refined the criteria from (1) and (2), and provided four further contextual criteria (team purpose, funding, self-referral acceptance and discharge). Conclusion: In this innovative study, we derive 20 criteria to characterise and differentiate models of specialist palliative care – a major paradigm shift to enable accurate reporting and comparison in practice and research

Social and clinical determinants of preferences and their achievement at the end of life: Prospective cohort study of older adults receiving palliative care in three countries

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Achieving choice is proposed as a quality marker. But little is known about what influences preferences especially among older adults. We aimed to determine and compare, across three countries, factors associated with preferences for place of death and treatment, and actual site of death. Methods: We recruited adults aged ≥65-years from hospital-based multiprofessional palliative care services in London, Dublin, New York, and followed them for >17 months. All services offered consultation on hospital wards, support for existing clinical teams, outpatient services and received funding from their National Health Service and/or relevant Insurance reimbursements. The New York service additionally had 10 inpatient beds. All worked with and referred patients to local hospices. Face-to-face interviews recorded most and least preferred place of death, treatment goal priorities, demographic and clinical information using validated questionnaires. Multivariable and multilevel analyses assessed associated factors. Results: One hundred and thirty eight older adults (64 London, 59 Dublin, 15 New York) were recruited, 110 died during follow-up. Home was the most preferred place of death (77/138, 56%) followed by inpatient palliative care/hospice units (22%). Hospital was least preferred (35/138, 25%), followed by nursing home (20%) and home (16%); hospice/palliative care unit was rarely least preferred (4%). Most respondents prioritised improving quality of life, either alone (54%), or equal with life extension (39%); few (3%) chose only life extension. There were no significant differences between countries. Main associates with home preference were: cancer diagnosis (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.40-9.90) and living with someone (OR 2.19, 1.33-3.62). Adults with non-cancer diagnoses were more likely to prefer palliative care units (OR 2.39, 1.14-5.03). Conversely, functional independence (OR 1.05, 1.04-1.06) and valuing quality of life (OR 3.11, 2.89-3.36) were associated with dying at home. There was a mismatch between preferences and achievements - of 85 people who preferred home or a palliative care unit, 19 (25%) achieved their first preference. Conclusion: Although home is the most common first preference, it is polarising and for 16% it is the least preferred. Inpatient palliative care unit emerges as the second most preferred place, is rarely least preferred, and yet was often not achieved for those who wanted to die there. Factors affecting stated preferences and met preferences differ. Available services, notably community support and palliative care units, require expansion. Contrasting actual place of death with capacity for meeting patient and family needs may be a better quality indicator than simply 'achieved preferences'