Intra-rater reliability and feasibility of the HexCom advanced disease complexity assessment model.

AIM: To study the intra-rater reliability and feasibility of the HexCom complexity assessment model by analyzing internal consistency, intra-rater reliability and response time. DESIGN: Test-retest study with a selection of 11 clinical situations that cover the full scope of situations assessed by the HexCom model and which are responded to individually. LOCATION: Home care, primary care, hospital and sociosanitary care. Two specialized palliative home care teams (PADES). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 professionals comprising 10 experts in palliative home care (PADES) and 10 professionals from general palliative care (primary care, hospital and sociosanitary care). These professionals came from the fields of family medicine (5), internal medicine (2), geriatrics (2), nursing (9), psychology (1) and social work (1). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Cronbach's alpha, weighted kappa, response time. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 for HexCom-Red and 0.87 for HexCom-Clin. Intra-rater reliability ranging from good to very good for HexCom-Red (kappa: 0.78-1) and from moderate to very good for HexCom-Clin (kappa: 0.58-0.91). Average response time of 0:57 for HexCom-Red and 3:80min for HexComClin. CONCLUSIONS: HexCom-Red and HexCom-Clin are reliable tools and feasible for use by all professionals involved in both general and specialized palliative care at different levels.

Gender and Observed Complexity in Palliative Home Care: A Prospective Multicentre Study Using the HexCom Model.

This study analyses gender differences in the complexity observed in palliative home care through a multicentre longitudinal observational study of patients with advanced disease treated by palliative home care teams in Catalonia (Spain). We used the HexCom model, which includes six dimensions and measures three levels of complexity: high (non-modifiable situation), medium (difficult) and low. Results: N = 1677 people, 44% women. In contrast with men, in women, cancer was less prevalent (64.4% vs. 73.9%) (p < 0.001), cognitive impairment was more prevalent (34.1% vs. 26.6%; p = 0.001) and professional caregivers were much more common (40.3% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.001). Women over 80 showed less complexity in the following subareas: symptom management (41.7% vs. 51,1%; p = 0.011), emotional distress (24.5% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.015), spiritual distress (16.4% vs. 26.4%; p = 0.001), socio-familial distress (62.7% vs. 70.1%; p = 0.036) and location of death (36.0% vs. 49.6%; p < 0.000). Men were more complex in the subareas of "practice" OR = 1.544 (1.25-1.90 p = 0.000) and "transcendence" OR = 1.52 (1.16-1.98 p = 0.002). Observed complexity is related to male gender in people over 80 years of age. Women over the age of 80 are remarkably different from their male counterparts, showing less complexity regarding care for their physical, psycho-emotional, spiritual and socio-familial needs.

Assessing Face Validity of the HexCom Model for Capturing Complexity in Clinical Practice: A Delphi Study.

Capturing complexity is both a conceptual and a practical challenge in palliative care. The HexCom model has proved to be an instrument with strong reliability and to be valid for describing the needs and strengths of patients in home care. In order to explore whether it is also perceived to be helpful in enhancing coordinated and patient-centred care at a practical level, a methodological study was carried out to assess the face validity of the model. In particular, a Delphi method involving a group of 14 experts representing the full spectrum of healthcare professionals involved in palliative care was carried out. The results show that there is a high level of agreement, with a content validity index-item greater than 0.92 both with regard to the complexity model and the HexCom-Red, HexCom-Basic, and the HexCom-Clin instruments, and higher than 0.85 regarding the HexCom-Figure and the HexCom-Patient instruments. This consensus confirms that the HexCom model and the different instruments that are derived from it are valued as useful tools for a broad range of healthcare professional in coordinately capturing complexity in healthcare practice.