Paid Care for People with Functional Impairment and Serious Illness: Results from the Health and Retirement Study.

BACKGROUND: Paid caregivers (e.g., home health aides) care for individuals living at home with functional impairment and serious illnesses (health conditions with high risk of mortality that impact function and quality of life). OBJECTIVE: To characterize those who receive paid care and identify factors associated with receipt of paid care in the context of serious illness and socioeconomic status. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling participants ≥ 65 years enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) between 1998 and 2018 with new-onset functional impairment (e.g., bathing, dressing) and linked fee-for-service Medicare claims (n = 2521). MAIN MEASURES: Dementia was identified using HRS responses and non-dementia serious illness (e.g., advanced cancer, end-stage renal disease) was identified using Medicare claims. Paid care support was identified using HRS survey report of paid help with functional tasks. KEY RESULTS: While about 27% of the sample received paid care, those with both dementia and non-dementia serious illnesses in addition to functional impairment received the most paid care (41.7% received ≥ 40 h of paid care per week). In multivariable models, those with Medicaid were more likely to receive any paid care (p < 0.001), but those in the highest income quartile received more hours of paid care (p = 0.05) when paid care was present. Those with non-dementia serious illness were more likely to receive any paid care (p < 0.001), but those with dementia received more hours of care (p < 0.001) when paid care was present. CONCLUSIONS: Paid caregivers play a significant role in meeting the care needs of those with functional impairment and serious illness and high paid care hours are common among those with dementia in particular. Future work should explore how paid caregivers can collaborate with families and healthcare teams to improve the health and well-being of the seriously ill throughout the income spectrum.

Improving the Approach to Defining, Classifying, Reporting and Monitoring Adverse Events in Seriously Ill Older Adults: Recommendations from a Multi-stakeholder Convening.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are needed to study topics relevant to older adults with serious illness. Investigators conducting clinical trials with this population are challenged by how to appropriately define, classify, report, and monitor serious and non-serious adverse events (SAEs/AEs), given that some traditionally reported AEs (pressure ulcers, delirium) and SAEs (death, hospitalization) are common in persons with serious illness, and may be consistent with their goals of care. OBJECTIVES: A multi-stakeholder group convened to establish greater clarity on and new approaches to address this critical issue. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two study investigators, members of regulatory and sponsor agencies, and patient stakeholders took part. APPROACH: The group met virtually four times and, using a collaborative approach, conducted a survey, select interviews, and reviewed regulatory guidance to collectively define the problem and identify a new approach. RESULTS: SAE/AE challenges fell into two areas: (1) definitions and classifications, including (a) implausible relationships, (b) misalignment with patient-centered care goals, and (c) well-known associations, and (2) reporting and monitoring, including (a) limited guidance, (b) inconsistent standards across regulators, and (c) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member knowledge gaps. Problems largely reflected practice norms rather than regulatory requirements that already support context-specific and aggregate reporting. Approaches can be improved by adopting principles that better align strategies for addressing adverse events with the type of intervention being tested, favoring routine and aggregate over expedited reporting, and prioritizing how SAE/AEs relate to patient-centered care goals. Reporting plans and decisions should follow an algorithm underpinned by these principles. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the proposed approach-and supporting it with education and better alignment with regulatory guidance and procedures-could improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials' safety involving older adults with serious illness and other vulnerable populations.

Non-Concordance between Patient and Clinician Estimates of Prognosis in Advanced Heart Failure.

IMPORTANCE: Despite efforts to enhance serious illness communication, patients with advanced heart failure (HF) lack prognostic understanding. OBJECTIVES: To determine rate of concordance between HF patients' estimation of their prognosis and their physician's estimate of the patient's prognosis, and to compare patient characteristics associated with concordance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with 24-month follow-up and analysis completed on 09/01/2020. Patients were enrolled in inpatient and outpatient settings between September 2011 to February 2016 and data collection continued until the last quarter of 2017. SETTING: Six teaching hospitals in the U.S. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced HF and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) at high risk of death. Of 537 patients in the parent study, 407 had complete data for this analysis. INTERVENTION: A multi-component communication intervention on conversations between HF clinicians and their patients regarding ICD deactivation and advance care planning. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Patient self-report of prognosis and physician response to the "surprise question" of 12-month prognosis. Patient-physician prognostic concordance (PPPC) measured in percentage agreement and kappa. Bivariate analyses of characteristics of patients with and without PPPC. RESULTS: Among 407 patients (mean age 62.1 years, 29.5% female, 42.4% non-white), 300 (73.7%) dyads had non-PPPC; of which 252 (84.0%) reported a prognosis >1 year when their physician estimated <1 year. Only 107 (26.3%) had PPPC with prognosis of ≤ 1 year (n=20 patients) or > 1 year (n=87 patients); (Κ = -0.20, p = 1.0). Of those with physician estimated prognosis of < 1 year, non-PPPC was more likely among patients with lower symptom burden- number and severity (both p ≤.001), without completed advance directive (p=.001). Among those with physician prognosis estimate > 1 year, no patient characteristic was associated with PPPC or non-PPPC. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Non-PPPC between HF patients and their physicians is high. HF patients are more optimistic than clinicians in estimating life expectancy. These data demonstrate there are opportunities to improve the quality of prognosis disclosure between patients with advanced HF and their physicians. Interventions to improve PPPC might include serious illness communication training.

Associations between informal care costs, care quality, carer rewards, burden and subsequent grief: the international, access, rights and empowerment mortality follow-back study of the last 3 months of life (IARE I study).

BACKGROUND: At the end of life, formal care costs are high. Informal care (IC) costs, and their effects on outcomes, are not known. This study aimed to determine the IC costs for older adults in the last 3 months of life, and their relationships with outcomes, adjusting for care quality. METHODS: Mortality follow-back postal survey. SETTING: Palliative care services in England (London), Ireland (Dublin) and the USA (New York, San Francisco). PARTICIPANTS: Informal carers (ICrs) of decedents who had received palliative care. DATA: ICrs reported hours and activities, care quality, positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and completed the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG). ANALYSIS: All costs (formal, informal) were calculated by multiplying reported hours of activities by country-specific costs for that activity. IC costs used country-specific shadow prices, e.g. average hourly wages and unit costs for nursing care. Multivariable logistic regression analysis explored the association of potential explanatory variables, including IC costs and care quality, on three outcomes: positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and subsequent grief. RESULTS: We received 767 completed surveys, 245 from London, 282 Dublin, 131 New York and 109 San Francisco. Most respondents were women (70%); average age was 60 years. On average, patients received 66-76 h per week from ICrs for 'being on call', 52-55 h for ICrs being with them, 19-21 h for personal care, 17-21 h for household tasks, 15-18 h for medical procedures and 7-10 h for appointments. Mean (SD) IC costs were as follows: USA $32,468 (28,578), England $36,170 (31,104) and Ireland $43,760 (36,930). IC costs accounted for 58% of total (formal plus informal) costs. Higher IC costs were associated with less grief and more positive perspectives of caregiving. Poor home care was associated with greater caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: Costs to informal carers are larger than those to formal care services for people in the last three months of life. If well supported ICrs can play a role in providing care, and this can be done without detriment to them, providing that they are helped. Improving community palliative care and informal carer support should be a focus for future investment.

Drivers of care costs and quality in the last 3 months of life among older people receiving palliative care: A multinational mortality follow-back survey across England, Ireland and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Care costs rise towards the end of life. International comparison of service use, costs and care experiences can inform quality and improve access. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare health and social care costs, quality and their drivers in the last 3 months of life for older adults across countries. Null hypothesis: no difference between countries. DESIGN: Mortality follow-back survey. Costs were calculated from carers' reported service use and unit costs. SETTING: Palliative care services in England (London), Ireland (Dublin) and the United States (New York, San Francisco). PARTICIPANTS: Informal carers of decedents who had received palliative care participated in the study. RESULTS: A total of 767 questionnaires were returned: 245 in England, 282 in Ireland and 240 in the United States. Mean care costs per person with cancer/non-cancer were US$37,250/US$37,376 (the United States), US$29,065/US$29,411 (Ireland), US$15,347/US$16,631 (England) and differed significantly (F = 25.79/14.27, p < 0.000). Cost distributions differed and were most homogeneous in England. In all countries, hospital care accounted for > 80% of total care costs; community care 6%-16%, palliative care 1%-15%; 10% of decedents used ~30% of total care costs. Being a high-cost user was associated with older age (>80 years), facing financial difficulties and poor experiences of home care, but not with having cancer or multimorbidity. Palliative care services consistently had the highest satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Poverty and poor home care drove high costs, suggesting that improving community palliative care may improve care value, especially as palliative care expenditure was low. Major diagnostic variables were not cost drivers. Care costs in the United States were high and highly variable, suggesting that high-cost low-value care may be prevalent.

QALY-time: experts' view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a review. The aim was to report on and draw conclusions from two expert meetings that reflected on earlier mapped issues in order to reach consensus, and to advise on the QALY's future use in palliative care. METHODS: A nominal group approach was used. In order to facilitate group decision making, three statements regarding the use of the QALY in palliative care were discussed in a structured way. Two groups of international policymakers, healthcare professionals and researchers participated. Data were analysed qualitatively using inductive coding. RESULTS: 1) Most experts agreed that the recommended measurement tool for the QALYs 'Q' component, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), is inappropriate for palliative care. A more sensitive tool, which might be based on the capabilities approach, could be used or developed. 2) Valuation of time should be incorporated in the 'Q' part, leaving the linear clock time in the 'LY' component. 3) Most experts agreed that the QALY, in its current shape, is not suitable for palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Although the EQ-5D does not suffice, a generic tool is needed for the QALY. As long as no suitable alternative is available, other tools can be used besides or serve as basis for the EQ-5D because of issues in conceptual overlap. 2) Future research should further investigate the valuation of time issue, and how best to integrate it in the 'Q' component. 3) A generic outcome measure of effectiveness is essential to justly allocate healthcare resources. However, experts emphasized, the QALY is and should be one of multiple criteria for choices in the healthcare insurance package.

Homebound Status and the Critical Role of Caregiving Support.

The homebound population relies on both paid and family caregivers to meet their complex care needs. In order to examine the association between intensity of caregiving support and leaving the home, we identified a population of community-dwelling, homebound Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 (n = 1,852) enrolled in the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study and measured the support they received from paid and family caregivers. Those who had ≥20 h of caregiving support per week had 50% less odds of being "exclusively homebound" (rarely or never leave home) (OR 0.56, p < .01). Policies that facilitate increased support for family caregivers and better access to paid caregivers may allow homebound individuals who would otherwise be isolated at home to utilize existing community-based long-term care services and supports.

Projected Costs of Informal Caregiving for Cardiovascular Disease: 2015 to 2035: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

INTRODUCTION: In a recent report, the American Heart Association estimated that medical costs and productivity losses of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are expected to grow from $555 billion in 2015 to $1.1 trillion in 2035. Although the burden is significant, the estimate does not include the costs of family, informal, or unpaid caregiving provided to patients with CVD. In this analysis, we estimated projections of costs of informal caregiving attributable to CVD for 2015 to 2035. METHODS: We used data from the 2014 Health and Retirement Survey to estimate hours of informal caregiving for individuals with CVD by age/sex/race using a zero-inflated binomial model and controlling for sociodemographic factors and health conditions. Costs of informal caregiving were estimated separately for hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke, and other heart disease. We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 16 731 noninstitutionalized adults ≥54 years of age. The value of caregiving hours was monetized by the use of home health aide workers' wages. The per-person costs were multiplied by census population counts to estimate nation-level costs and to be consistent with other American Heart Association analyses of burden of CVD, and the costs were projected from 2015 through 2035, assuming that within each age/sex/racial group, CVD prevalence and caregiving hours remain constant. RESULTS: The costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD were estimated to be $61 billion in 2015 and are projected to increase to $128 billion in 2035. Costs of informal caregiving of patients with stroke constitute more than half of the total costs of CVD informal caregiving ($31 billion in 2015 and $66 billion in 2035). By age, costs are the highest among those 65 to 79 years of age in 2015 but are expected to be surpassed by costs among those ≥80 years of age by 2035. Costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD represent an additional 11% of medical and productivity costs attributable to CVD. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of informal caregiving for patients with CVD is significant; accounting for these costs increases total CVD costs to $616 billion in 2015 and $1.2 trillion in 2035. These estimates have important research and policy implications, and they may be used to guide policy development to reduce the burden of CVD on patients and their caregivers.

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA.

Background: patient empowerment, through which patients become self-determining agents with some control over their health and healthcare, is a common theme across health policies globally. Most care for older people is in the acute setting, but there is little evidence to inform the delivery of empowering hospital care. Objective: we aimed to explore challenges to and facilitators of empowerment among older people with advanced disease in hospital, and the impact of palliative care. Methods: we conducted an ethnography in six hospitals in England, Ireland and the USA. The ethnography involved: interviews with patients aged ≥65, informal caregivers, specialist palliative care (SPC) staff and other clinicians who cared for older adults with advanced disease, and fieldwork. Data were analysed using directed thematic analysis. Results: analysis of 91 interviews and 340 h of observational data revealed substantial challenges to empowerment: poor communication and information provision, combined with routinised and fragmented inpatient care, restricted patients' self-efficacy, self-management, choice and decision-making. Information and knowledge were often necessary for empowerment, but not sufficient: empowerment depended on patient-centredness being enacted at an organisational and staff level. SPC facilitated empowerment by prioritising patient-centred care, tailored communication and information provision, and the support of other clinicians. Conclusions: empowering older people in the acute setting requires changes throughout the health system. Facilitators of empowerment include excellent staff-patient communication, patient-centred, relational care, an organisational focus on patient experience rather than throughput, and appropriate access to SPC. Findings have relevance for many high- and middle-income countries with a growing population of older patients with advanced disease.

Cost analysis of a prospective multi-site cohort study of palliative care consultation teams for adults with advanced cancer: Where do cost-savings come from?

BACKGROUND: Studies report cost-savings from hospital-based palliative care consultation teams compared to usual care only, but drivers of observed differences are unclear. AIM: To analyse cost-differences associated with palliative care consultation teams using two research questions: (Q1) What is the association between early palliative care consultation team intervention, and intensity of services and length of stay, compared to usual care only? (Q2) What is the association between early palliative care consultation team intervention and day-to-day hospital costs, compared to a later intervention? DESIGN: Prospective multi-site cohort study (2007-2011). Patients who received a consultation were placed in the intervention group, those who did not in the comparison group. Intervention group was stratified by timing, and groups were matched using propensity scores. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted to three US hospitals with advanced cancer. Principle analytic sample contains 863 patients ( nUC = 637; nPC EARLY = 177; nPC LATE = 49) discharged alive. RESULTS: Cost-savings from early palliative care accrue due to both reduced length of stay and reduced intensity of treatment, with an estimated 63% of savings associated with shorter length of stay. A reduction in day-to-day costs is observable in the days immediately following initial consult but does not persist indefinitely. A comparison of early and late palliative care consultation team cost-effects shows negligible difference once the intervention is administered. CONCLUSION: Reduced length of stay is the biggest driver of cost-saving from early consultation for patients with advanced cancer. Patient- and family-centred discussions on goals of care and transition planning initiated by palliative care consultation teams may be at least as important in driving cost-savings as the reduction of unnecessary tests and pharmaceuticals identified by previous studies.

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.

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'.

Current status of palliative care--clinical implementation, education, and research.

Palliative and end-of-life care is changing in the United States. This dynamic field is improving care for patients with serious and life-threatening cancer through creation of national guidelines for quality care, multidisciplinary educational offerings, research endeavors, and resources made available to clinicians. Barriers to implementing quality palliative care across cancer populations include a rapidly expanding population of older adults who will need cancer care and a decrease in the workforce available to give care. Methods of integrating current palliative care knowledge into care of patients include multidisciplinary national education and research endeavors, and clinician resources. Acceptance of palliative care as a recognized medical specialty provides a valuable resource for improvement of care. Although compilation of evidence for the importance of palliative care specialities is in its initial stages, national research grants have provided support to build the knowledge necessary for appropriate palliative care. Opportunities are available to clinicians for understanding and applying appropriate palliative and end-of-life care to patients with serious and life-threatening cancers.

Spatiotemporal Patterns of Hospitalizations Among Older Adults With Co-Presence of Cancer and Dementia in US Counties: 2013-2018.

We assessed the spatiotemporal patterns of hospitalization with comorbid cancer and dementia. Using the 2013-2018 inpatient claims data for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, we calculated hospitalization rates by dividing the total admissions from individuals with the co-presence of a major cancer (breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal) and dementia diagnoses with the total counts of FFS beneficiaries aged 65 or older. We identified 22 hotspots with high hospitalization rates that showed heterogeneous spatial and temporal utilization patterns. The odds of a county being a hotspot increased significantly with the county-level percentage of dual Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries (aOR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.04-1.07) and the prevalence of cancer (aOR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.59-1.89), while decreased significantly with increasing degree of rurality (aOR .82; 95% CI: .79-.85) and decreased yearly over time (aOR .72; 95% CI: .68-.75). The identified hotspots and factors at the county-level may help understand healthcare utilization patterns and assess resource allocation for this unique patient group.

Specialist Palliative Care Use and End-of-Life Care in Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

CONTEXT: For patients with advanced cancer, high intensity treatment at the end of life is measured as a reflection of the quality of care. Use of specialist palliative care has been promoted to improve care quality, but whether its use is associated with decreased treatment intensity on a population-level is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether receipt of specialist palliative care use is associated with differences in end-of-life quality metrics in patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: Retrospective propensity-matched cohort of patients age ≥ 65 who died with metastatic cancer in U.S. hospitals with palliative care programs that participated in the National Palliative Care Registry in 2018-2019. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the impact of specialist palliative care on use of chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life, use of intensive care unit (ICU) in the last 30 days of life, use of hospice, and hospice enrollment ≥ three days. RESULTS: After 1:2 matching, our cohort consisted of 15,878 exposed and 31,756 unexposed patients. Receipt of specialist palliative care was associated with a decrease in use of chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.59 [0.50-0.70]) and ICU at the end of life (aHR 0.86 [0.80-0.92]), and an increase in hospice use (aHR 1.92 [1.85-1.99]) and hospice enrollment for ≥three days (aHR 2.00 [1.93-2.07]). CONCLUSION: On a population-level, use of specialist palliative care was associated with improved metrics for quality end-of-life care for patients dying with metastatic cancer, underscoring the importance of its integration into cancer care.

Variation in Hospice Aide Care by Residential Setting.

Background: Hospice care frequently includes hands-on care from hospice aides, but the need for hospice aide care may vary in residential settings (e.g., assisted livings and nursing homes). Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare hospice aide use and factors associated with use across residential settings. Design: This longitudinal cohort study used data from Medicare beneficiaries in the United States enrolled in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) who died between 2010 and 2019 and had hospice claims and available residential setting data in MCBS (n = 1,915). Analysis: Decedent hospice aide use was compared by residential settings; multivariable models controlling for sociodemographic, clinical/functional, and hospice characteristics examined factors associated with hospice aide care in different residential settings. Results: Hospice aide visits were least common in the community setting (64.4% vs. 76.6% vs. 72.6% with any hospice aide visits in community, assisted living, and nursing home, respectively, p = 0.001). In adjusted models, factors associated with hospice aide visits did not significantly differ by residential settings. Conclusions: Despite staff providing hands-on support in assisted livings and nursing homes, hospice aide visits were more common in residential as opposed to community settings, and factors associated with hospice aide visits were similar among settings. To maximize the potentially positive impact of hospice aides on overall care, additional work is needed to understand when hospice aides are used and how hospice aides collaborate with families and care teams. This will help to ensure that hospice care is appropriately tailored to individual care needs in all residential settings.

Place of Death for Adults Receiving Specialist Palliative Care in Their Last 3 Months of Life: Factors Associated With Preferred Place, Actual Place, and Place of Death Congruence.

Objectives: Congruence between the preferred and actual place of death is recognised as an important quality indicator in end-of-life care. However, there may be complexities about preferences that are ignored in summary congruence measures. This article examined factors associated with preferred place of death, actual place of death, and congruence for a sample of patients who had received specialist palliative care in the last three months of life in Ireland. Methods: This article analysed merged data from two previously published mortality follow-back surveys: Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care in Ireland (EEPCI); Irish component of International Access, Rights and Empowerment (IARE I). Logistic regression models examined factors associated with (a) preferences for home death versus institutional setting, (b) home death versus hospital death, and (c) congruent versus non-congruent death. Setting: Four regions with differing levels of specialist palliative care development in Ireland. Participants: Mean age 77, 50% female/male, 19% living alone, 64% main diagnosis cancer. Data collected 2011-2015, regression model sample sizes: n = 342-351. Results: Congruence between preferred and actual place of death in the raw merged dataset was 51%. Patients living alone were significantly less likely to prefer home versus institution death (OR 0.389, 95%CI 0.157-0.961), less likely to die at home (OR 0.383, 95%CI 0.274-0.536), but had no significant association with congruence. Conclusions: The findings highlight the value in examining place of death preferences as well as congruence, because preferences may be influenced by what is feasible rather than what patients would like. The analyses also underline the importance of well-resourced community-based supports, including homecare, facilitating hospital discharge, and management of complex (eg, non-cancer) conditions, to facilitate patients to die in their preferred place.

A randomized controlled trial of a novel home-based palliative care program: A report of a trial that could not be completed.

BACKGROUND: In response to a growing need for accessible, efficient, and effective palliative care services, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a novel palliative care at home (PC@H) model for people with serious illness that is centered around a community health worker, a registered nurse, and a social worker, with an advanced practice nurse and a physician for support. Our objectives were to measure the impact of receipt of PC@H on patient symptoms, quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs. METHODS: We enrolled 136 patients with serious illness in this parallel, randomized controlled trial. Our primary outcome was change in symptom burden at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in symptom burden at 3 months, change in quality of life at 6 weeks and 3 months, estimated using a group t-test. In an exploratory aim, we examined the impact of PC@H on healthcare utilization and cost using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: PC@H resulted in a greater improvement in patient symptoms at 6 weeks (1.30 score improvement, n = 37) and 3 months (3.14 score improvement, n = 21) compared with controls. There were no differences in healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a loss of funding, the trial was not able to be completed as originally intended. CONCLUSIONS: A palliative care at home model that leverages community health workers, registered nurses, and social workers as the primary deliverers of care may result in improved patient symptoms and quality of life compared with standard care. We did not demonstrate significant differences in healthcare utilization and cost associated with receipt of PC@H, likely due to inability to reach the intended sample size and insufficient statistical power, due to elements beyond the investigators' control such as the COVID-19 public health emergency and changes in grant funding.