Impact of physician-based palliative care delivery models on health care utilization outcomes: A population-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Increasing involvement of palliative care generalists may improve access to palliative care. It is unknown, however, if their involvement with and without palliative care specialists are associated with different outcomes. AIM: To describe physician-based models of palliative care and their association with healthcare utilization outcomes including: emergency department visits, acute hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in last 30 days of life; and, place of death. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative data. We used descriptive statistics to compare outcomes across three models (generalist-only palliative care; consultation palliative care, comprising of both generalist and specialist care; and specialist-only palliative care) and conducted a logistic regression for community death. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All adults aged 18-105 who died in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2017. RESULTS: Of the 231,047 decedents who received palliative services, 40.3% received generalist, 32.3% consultation and 27.4% specialist palliative care. Across models, we noted minimal to modest variation for decedents with at least one emergency department visit (50%-59%), acute hospitalization (64%-69%) or ICU admission (7%-17%), as well as community death (36%-40%). In our adjusted analysis, receipt of a physician home visit was a stronger predictor for increased likelihood of community death (odds ratio 9.6, 95% confidence interval 9.4-9.8) than palliative care model (generalist vs consultation palliative care 2.0, 1.9-2.0). CONCLUSION: The generalist palliative care model achieved similar healthcare utilization outcomes as consultation and specialist models. Including a physician home visit component in each model may promote community death.

Frailty Is Associated With Decreased Time Spent at Home After Critical Illness: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is characterized by vulnerability to stressors due to an accumulation of multiple functional deficits. Frailty is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for accelerated functional decline, increasing dependency, and risk of mortality. The objective of this study was to examine the association of frailty, at the time of critical care admission, with days alive at home and health care costs post-discharge. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used linked administrative data (2010-2016) in Ontario, Canada. We identified all patients admitted at the intensive care unit (ICU), aged 19 years and above, assessed using the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC), within 6 months prior to index hospitalization including an ICU stay. Patients were stratified as robust, pre-frail, or frail based on a validated Frailty Index. The primary outcome was days alive at home in the year after admission. Secondary outcomes included mortality, health care-associated costs, ICU interventions, long-term care admissions, and hospital readmissions. RESULTS: Frail patients spent significantly fewer days at home within 1 year of index hospitalization (mean 159 days vs 223 days in robust cohort, P < .001). Mortality was higher among frail patients at 1 year (59.6% in the frail cohort vs 45.9% in robust patients; odds ratio for death 1.59 [1.49-1.69]). Frail patients also had higher rates of long-term care admission within 1 year (30.1% vs 10.6% in robust patients). Total health care-associated costs per person alive were $30 450 higher the year after admission in the frail cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty prior to ICU admission among patients who were eligible for RAI-HC assessment was associated with higher mortality and fewer days spent at home following admission. Frail patients had markedly higher rates of long-term care admission and increased costs per life saved following critical illness. These findings add to the discussion of risk-benefit trade-offs for ICU admission.

How Often, Where, and by Which Specialty Do Long-Term Care Home Residents Receive Specialist Physician Care? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

This retrospective cohort study describes the rates, location, and determinants of specialist physician visits among 257,216 long-term care (LTC) residents across 648 LTC homes in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2016. Visit rates in the last year of life were calculated for a sub-cohort of residents who died in LTC between 2013 and 2016. Visits were measured per resident-year using physician billings. Over 10 years, the rate of visits to specialists outside the LTC home was consistently higher than within LTC (2.99 vs. 1.55 visits/resident-year). Residents were less likely to receive specialist care if they were older, had dementia, or lived in urban LTC homes. From 12 months before death to the last week of life, rates of specialist visits increased by 246% and 56% inside and outside of LTC, respectively. Improving access to physician specialist care in LTC homes may reduce burdensome transitions and improve resident quality of life.

Speeding and Speed Modification of Older Drivers: Does Vehicle Type Make a Difference?

The purpose of this study was to examine whether vehicle type based on size (car vs. other = truck/van/SUV) had an impact on the speeding, acceleration, and braking patterns of older male and female drivers (70 years and older) from a Canadian longitudinal study. The primary hypothesis was that older adults driving larger vehicles (e.g., trucks, SUVs, or vans) would be more likely to speed than those driving cars. Participants (n = 493) had a device installed in their vehicles that recorded their everyday driving. The findings suggest that the type of vehicle driven had little or no impact on per cent of time speeding or on the braking and accelerating patterns of older drivers. Given that the propensity for exceeding the speed limit was high among these older drivers, regardless of vehicle type, future research should examine what effect this behaviour has on older-driver road safety.

How are physicians delivering palliative care? A population-based retrospective cohort study describing the mix of generalist and specialist palliative care models in the last year of life.

BACKGROUND: To enable coordinated palliative care delivery, all clinicians should have basic palliative care skill sets ('generalist palliative care'). Specialists should have skills for managing complex and difficult cases ('specialist palliative care') and co-exist to support generalists through consultation care and transfer of care. Little information exists about the actual mixes of generalist and specialist palliative care. AIM: To describe the models of physician-based palliative care services delivered to patients in the last 12 months of life. DESIGN: This is a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health care administrative data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Physicians providing palliative care services to a decedent cohort in Ontario, Canada. The decedent cohort consisted of all adults (18+ years) who died in Ontario, Canada between April 2011 and March 2015 ( n = 361,951). RESULTS: We describe four major models of palliative care services: (1) 53.0% of decedents received no physician-based palliative care, (2) 21.2% received only generalist palliative care, (3) 14.7% received consultation palliative care (i.e. care from both specialists and generalists), and (4) 11.1% received only specialist palliative care. Among physicians providing palliative care ( n = 11,006), 95.3% had a generalist palliative care focus and 4.7% a specialist focus; 74.2% were trained as family physicians. CONCLUSION: We examined how often a coordinated palliative care model is delivered to a large decedent cohort and identified that few actually received consultation care. The majority of care, in both the palliative care generalist and specialist models, was delivered by family physicians. Further research should evaluate how different models of care impact patient outcomes and costs.

Seasonal and Weather Effects on Older Drivers' Trip Distances.

The purpose of this study was to determine if season or weather affected the objectively measured trip distances of older drivers (≥ 70 years; n = 279) at seven Canadian sites. During winter, for all trips taken, trip distance was 7 per cent shorter when controlling for site and whether the trip occurred during the day. In addition, for trips taken within city limits, trip distance was 1 per cent shorter during winter and 5 per cent longer during rain when compared to no precipitation when controlling for weather (or season respectively), time of day, and site. At night, trip distance was about 30 per cent longer when controlling for season and site (and weather), contrary to expectations. Together, these results suggest that older Canadian drivers alter their trip distances based on season, weather conditions, and time of day, although not always in the expected direction.

Older driver estimates of driving exposure compared to in-vehicle data in the Candrive II study.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies on older adults' driving practices have relied on self-reported information. With technological advances it is now possible to objectively measure the everyday driving of older adults in their own vehicles over time. The purpose of this study was to examine the ability of older drivers to accurately estimate their kilometers driven over one year relative to objectively measured driving exposure. METHODS: A subsample (n = 159 of 928; 50.9% male) of Candrive II participants (age ≥ 70 years of age) was used in these analyses based on strict criteria for data collected from questionnaires as well as an OttoView-CD Autonomous Data Logging Device installed in their vehicle, over the first year of the prospective cohort study. RESULTS: Although there was no significant difference overall between the self-reported and objectively measured distance categories, only moderate agreement was found (weighted kappa = 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.67). Almost half (45.3%) chose the wrong distance category, and some people misestimated their distance driven by up to 20,000 km. Those who misjudged in the low mileage group (≤5000 km) consistently underestimated, whereas the reverse was found for those in the high distance categories (≥ 20,000); that is, they always overestimated their driving distance. CONCLUSIONS: Although self-reported driving distance categories may be adequate for studies entailing broad group comparisons, caution should be used in interpreting results. Use of self-reported estimates for individual assessments should be discouraged.