The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on processes, resource use and cost in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic impacts on working routines and workload of palliative care (PC) teams but information is lacking how resource use and associated hospital costs for PC changed at patient-level during the pandemic. We aim to describe differences in patient characteristics, care processes and resource use in specialist PC (PC unit and PC advisory team) in a university hospital before and during the first pandemic year. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study using routine data of all patients cared for in a PC unit and a PC advisory team during 10-12/2019 and 10-12/2020. Data included patient characteristics (age, sex, cancer/non-cancer, symptom/problem burden using Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS)), information on care episode, and labour time calculated in care minutes. Cost calculation with combined top-down bottom-up approach with hospital's cost data from 2019. Descriptive statistics and comparisons between groups using parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Inclusion of 55/76 patient episodes in 2019/2020 from the PC unit and 135/120 episodes from the PC advisory team, respectively. IPOS scores were lower in 2020 (PCU: 2.0 points; PC advisory team: 3.0 points). The number of completed assessments differed considerably between years (PCU: episode beginning 30.9%/54.0% in 2019/2020; PC advisory team: 47.4%/40.0%). Care episodes were by one day shorter in 2020 in the PC advisory team. Only slight non-significant differences were observed regarding total minutes/day and patient (PCU: 150.0/141.1 min., PC advisory team: 54.2/66.9 min.). Staff minutes showed a significant decrease in minutes spent in direct contact with relatives (PCU: 13.9/7.3 min/day in 2019/2020, PC advisory team: 5.0/3.5 min/day). Costs per patient/day decreased significantly in 2020 compared to 2019 on the PCU (1075 Euro/944 Euro for 2019/2020) and increased significantly for the PC advisory team (161 Euro/200 Euro for 2019/2020). Overhead costs accounted for more than two thirds of total costs. Direct patient cost differed only slightly (PCU: 134.7 Euro/131.1 Euro in 2019/2020, PC advisory team: 54.4 Euro/57.3 Euro). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic partially impacted on daily work routines, especially on time spent with relatives and palliative care problem assessments. Care processes and quality of care might vary and have different outcomes during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Direct costs per patient/day were comparable, regardless of the pandemic.

Effectiveness of a specialised breathlessness service for patients with advanced disease in Germany: a pragmatic fast-track randomised controlled trial (BreathEase).

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the Munich Breathlessness Service (MBS), integrating palliative care, respiratory medicine and physiotherapy, was tested in the BreathEase trial in patients with chronic breathlessness in advanced disease and their carers. METHODS: BreathEase was a single-blinded randomised controlled fast-track trial. The MBS was attended for 5-6 weeks; the control group started the MBS after 8 weeks of standard care. Randomisation was stratified by cancer and the presence of a carer. Primary outcomes were patients' mastery of breathlessness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) Mastery), quality of life (CRQ QoL), symptom burden (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS)) and carer burden (Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI)). Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses were conducted with hierarchical testing. Effectiveness was investigated by linear regression on change scores, adjusting for baseline scores and stratification variables. Missing values were handled with multiple imputation. RESULTS: 92 patients were randomised to the intervention group and 91 patients were randomised to the control group. Before the follow-up assessment after 8 weeks (T1), 17 and five patients dropped out from the intervention and control groups, respectively. Significant improvements in CRQ Mastery of 0.367 (95% CI 0.065-0.669) and CRQ QoL of 0.226 (95% CI 0.012-0.440) score units at T1 in favour of the intervention group were seen in the ITT analyses (n=183), but not in IPOS. Exploratory testing showed nonsignificant improvements in ZBI. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate positive effects of the MBS in reducing burden caused by chronic breathlessness in advanced illness across a wide range of patients. Further evaluation in subgroups of patients and with a longitudinal perspective is needed.

Starting from scratch: implementing outcome measurement in clinical practice.

Outcome measurement is becoming increasingly important in palliative care both in research as well as clinical care. Regular ongoing assessments in palliative care clinical practice have the potential to enable monitoring of the patient's situation, assess the effectiveness of interventions, assess symptoms accurately and focus on patients' priorities. Implementing routine outcome measurement into clinical practice remains a challenge. Therefore, the aim of this article is to describe the process of implementing routine outcome measurement into daily clinical work in a university palliative care unit. According to the recommendations of Antunes, the following steps were used to implement routine outcome measurement in clinical care in a university palliative care unit. (I) Selection of outcomes of interest by the clinical leads and head of department: most prevalent symptoms; psychological, practical and spiritual concerns, functional status, carer burden; (II) selection of outcome measures: Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), phase of illness, Australian Karnofsky Performance Status; (III) educational component about the measure and how to use results: team meetings and team retreat with introduction of outcome measurement in palliative care, chosen measures and role plays with use of measures; (IV) selection of responsible consultant on the ward as coordinator and facilitator for outcome measurement; (V) who applies the measure and its periodicity. Implementation of outcome measurement in clinical routine is feasible following a structured process. Nevertheless, it is a time consuming and long-lasting process which needs continuous attention. However, the benefits outweigh the burden of implementation and it is a task worthwhile undertaking.