A Novel Approach to Measurement-Based Care: Integrating Palliative Care Tools Into Geriatric Mental Health.

Background: Older adults cared for in a geriatric mental health program often have medical co-morbidities causing physical symptoms which may be under-recognized. We explore the utility of palliative care tools in this patient population to identify the burden of symptoms and impact on patient dignity. Methods: Participants were recruited from a geriatric mental health inpatient unit and outpatient day hospital. Mood and somatic symptoms were tracked with self-report rating scales, including the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI) used in psychiatry, as well as the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) used in palliative care. Demographic characteristics were collected from a retrospective chart review. Exploratory longitudinal models were developed for the GDS and GAI outcomes to assess change over time after adjusting for ESAS and PDI item scores. Results: Data were obtained for 33 English speaking patients (inpatients N = 17, outpatients N = 16) with a mean age of 76.5 (SD = 6.1). At baseline, several ESAS symptom burdens were rated as moderate and the PDI often captured physically distressing symptoms. GDS scores declined over time but at a slower rate for those reporting higher levels of pain on the ESAS (P = .04). GAI scores declined over time but at a slower rate for those identifying physically distressing symptoms on the PDI (P = .04). Conclusions: This study demonstrates how using the ESAS and PDI in a mental health population can be helpful in tracking symptoms and how these symptoms are related to psychiatric outcomes.

No Time to Waste: An Appraisal of Value at the End of Life.

OBJECTIVES: The use of economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions may be limited by an incomplete appreciation of how patients and society perceive value at end of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate how patients, caregivers, and society value gains in quantity of life and quality of life (QOL) at the end of life. The validity of the assumptions underlying the use of the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) as a measure of preferences at end of life was also examined. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched from inception to February 22, 2021. Original research studies reporting empirical data on healthcare priority setting at end of life were included. There was no restriction on the use of either quantitative or qualitative methods. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data from studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all included studies. The primary outcomes were the value of gains in quantity of life and the value of gains in QOL at end of life. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies involving 53 981 participants reported that gains in QOL were generally preferred over quantity of life at the end of life across stakeholder groups. Several violations of the underlying assumptions of the QALY to measure preferences at the end of life were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients, caregivers, and members of the general public prioritize gains in QOL over marginal gains in life prolongation at the end of life. These findings suggest that policy evaluations of end-of-life interventions should favor those that improve QOL. QALYs may be an inadequate measure of preferences for end-of-life care thereby limiting their use in formal economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions.

Integrating Palliative Care Assessment Tools to Enhance Understanding of Illness Trajectory in Post-Acute Care and Long-Term Care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether education and integration of the Gold Standard Framework Proactive Identification Guidance (GSF-PIG) and the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) into care rounds, in post-acute care settings, can facilitate communication between the interprofessional care team to enhance understanding of illness trajectories, identifying those who would benefit from a palliative approach to care. METHODS: Interprofessional care teams received training on the GSF-PIG and PPS which were integrated into weekly care rounds and completed a post-evaluation survey. A chart review was conducted for the 40 patients and residents reviewed with the GSF-PIG and PPS. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and comparisons of characteristics between patients and residents who were grouped as positive or negative on the GFS-PIG surprise question using chi square analyzes and t-tests. RESULTS: The GSF-PIG and PPS were found to enhance communication within care teams and enhance understanding of patient and resident's illness burden. The chart review revealed that patients and residents whom the team would not be surprised if they died within 1 year were older (p = .002), had a lower PPS score (p = .002) and had more indicators of decline (p < .001) compared to patients and residents the team would be surprised if they died within the year. CONCLUSION: Training interprofessional care teams on the utilization and integration of the GSF-PIG and PPS during weekly care rounds helped increase the understanding of patient and resident illness burden and illness trajectory to identify those who may benefit from a palliative approach to care.