Is palliative care a utopia for older patients with organ failure, dementia or frailty? A qualitative study through the prism of emergency department admission.

BACKGROUND: Nearly three out of four older people will use the emergency department (ED) during their last year of life. However, most of them do not benefit from palliative care. Providing palliative care is a real challenge for ED clinicians who are trained in acute, life-saving medicine. Our aim is to understand the ED's role in providing palliative care for this population. METHODS: We designed a qualitative study based on 1) interviews - conducted with older patients (≥ 75 years) with a palliative profile and their informal caregivers - and 2) focus groups - conducted with ED and primary care nurses and physicians. Palliative profiles were defined by the Supportive and Palliative Indicators tool (SPICT). Qualitative data was collected in French-speaking Belgium between July 2021 and July 2022. We used a constant inductive and comparative analysis. RESULTS: Five older patients with a palliative profile, four informal caregivers, 55 primary and ED caregivers participated in this study. A priori, the participants did not perceive any role for the ED in palliative care. In fact, there is widespread discomfort with caring for older patients and providing palliative care. This is explained by multiple areas of tensions. Palliative care is an approach fraught with pitfalls, i.e.: knowledge and know-how gaps, their implementation depends on patients'(co)morbidity profile and professional values, experiences and type of practice. In ED, there are constant tensions between emergency and palliative care requirements, i.e.: performance, clockwork and needs for standardised procedures versus relational care, time and diversity of palliative care projects. However, even though the ED's role in palliative care is not recognised at first sight, we highlighted four roles assumed by ED caregivers: 1) Investigator, 2) Objectifier, 3) Palliative care provider, and 4) Decision-maker on the intensity of care. A common perception among participants was that ED caregivers can assist in the early identification of patients with a palliative profile. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is widespread discomfort regarding ED caregivers caring for older patients and providing palliative care. Nonetheless, ED caregivers play four roles in palliative care for older patients. In the future, ED caregivers might also perform the role of early identifier.

SPICT as a predictive tool for risk of 1-year health degradation and death in older patients admitted to the emergency department: a bicentric cohort study in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Older patients are increasingly showing multi-comorbidities, including advanced chronic diseases. When admitted to the emergency department (ED), the decision to pursue life-prolonging treatments or to initiate a palliative care approach is a challenge for clinicians. We test for the first time the diagnostic accuracy of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) in the ED to identify older patients at risk of deteriorating and dying, and timely address palliative care needs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective bicentric cohort study on 352 older patients (≥ 75 years) admitted to two EDs in Belgium between December 2019 and March 2020 and between August and November 2020. SPICT (French version, 2019) variables were collected during the patients' admission to the ED, along with socio-demographic, medical and functional data. The palliative profile was defined as a positive SPICT assessment. Survival, symptoms and health degradation (≥ 1 point in ADL Katz score or institutionalisation and death) were followed at 12 months by phone. Main accuracy measures were sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR) as well as cox regression, survival analysis using the Kaplan Meier method, and ordinal regression. RESULTS: Out of 352 patients included in the study (mean age 83 ± 5.5 years, 43% male), 167 patients (47%) had a positive SPICT profile. At one year follow up, SPICT positive patients presented significantly more health degradation (72%) compared with SPICT negative patients (35%, p < 0.001). SPICT positivity was correlated with 1-year health degradation (OR 4.9; p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of SPICT to predict health degradation were 0.65 (95%CI, 0.57-0.73) and 0.72 (95%CI, 0.64-0.80) respectively, with a negative LR of 0.48 (95%CI, 0.38-0.60) and a positive LR of 2.37 (1.78-3.16). The survival time was shorter in SPICT positive patients than in SPICT negative ones (p < 0.001), the former having a higher 1-year mortality rate (HR = 4.21; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SPICT successfully identifies older patients at high risk of health degradation and death. It can support emergency clinicians to identify older patients with a palliative profile and subsequently initiate a palliative care approach with a discussion on goals of care.

Palliative profile, one-year mortality and quality of life in older inpatients according to Be-PICT: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A palliative care approach (PCA), including advanced care planning (ACP), should be considered for patients with limited life expectancy. The Belgian Palliative Care Indicators Tool (Be-PICT) has been released to help identify patients who may benefit from such approach. This study aimed at measuring 1-year mortality and describe the quality of life in older inpatients, according to baseline Be-PICT results. METHODS: Prospective multicentre cohort study in older patients (≥ 75 years) admitted at geriatrics and cardiology wards of four Belgian hospitals. The palliative profile was defined as a positive Be-PICT.1, defined by the presence of its three criteria, i.e. a negative physician's answer to the surprise question 'would you be surprised if this patient dies in the 6-12 next months?', ≥ 1 poor health indicator and ≥ 1 life-limiting condition. RESULTS: Of the 379 patients (50% aged ≥85 years; 51% female), 52 (14%) presented a palliative profile and 83 (23%) died within 1 year. Be-PICT.1 showed the following characteristics to predict 1-year mortality: sensitivity 0.54, specificity 0.83, positive and negative predictive values 0.48 and 0.86, positive and negative likelihood ratios 3.22 and 0.55. The patients with a palliative profile were at higher mortality risk (hazard ratio 4.79 p < 0.001) and 1-year mortality rate (45%). Not using the SQ allowed to improve sensitivity to include a larger number of patients who may benefit from ACP and PCA. CONCLUSIONS: Be-PICT.1 is a simple case-finding tool to identify older inpatients being at high mortality risk and candidates for ACP and PCA.

Prognostic value of the Surprise Question for one-year mortality in older patients: a prospective multicenter study in acute geriatric and cardiology units.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognostic value of the Surprise Question (SQ) in older persons. METHODS: A multicenter prospective study, including patients aged 75 years or older admitted to acute geriatric (AGU) or cardiology unit (CU). The SQ was answered by the treating physician. Patients or relatives were contacted after 1 year to determine 1-year survival. Logistic regression was used to explore parameters associated with SQ. Summary ROC curves were constructed to obtain the pooled values of sensitivity and specificity based on a bivariate model. RESULTS: The SQ was positive (death within 1 year is no surprise) in 34.7% AGU and 33.3% CU patients (p = 0.773). Parameters associated with a positive SQ were more severe comorbidity, worse functionality, significant weight loss, refractory symptoms and the request for palliative care by patient or family. One-year mortality was, respectively, 24.9% and 20.2% for patients hospitalized on AGU and CU (p = 0.319). There was no difference in sensitivity or specificity, respectively, 64% and 77% (AUC 0.635) for AGU versus 63% and 76% (AUC 0.758) for CU (p = 0.870). A positive SQ is associated with a significant shorter time until death (HR 5.425 (95% CI 3.332-8.834), p < 0.001) independently from the ward. CONCLUSION: The Surprise Question is moderately accurate to predict 1-year mortality in older persons hospitalized on acute geriatric and cardiologic units.