Minimal clinically important difference in days at home up to 30 days after surgery.

Patient-centred outcomes are increasingly recognised as crucial measures of healthcare quality. Days alive and at home up to 30 days after surgery (DAH30 ) is a validated and readily obtainable patient-centred outcome measure that integrates much of the peri-operative patient journey. However, the minimal difference in DAH30 that is clinically important to patients is unknown. We designed and administered a 28-item survey to evaluate the minimal clinically important difference in DAH30 among adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery. Patients were approached pre-operatively or within 2 days postoperatively. We did not study patients undergoing day surgery or nursing home residents. Patients ranked their opinions on the importance of discharge home using a Likert scale (from 1, not important at all to 6, extremely important) and the minimum number of extra days at home that would be meaningful using this scale. We recruited 104 patients; the survey was administered pre-operatively to 45 patients and postoperatively to 59 patients. The mean (SD) age was 53.5 (16.5) years, and 51 (49%) patients were male. Patients underwent a broad range of surgery of mainly intermediate (55%) to major (33%) severity. The median minimal clinically important difference for DAH30 was 3 days; this was consistent across a broad range of scenarios, including earlier discharge home, complications delaying hospital discharge and the requirement for admission to a rehabilitation unit. Discharge home earlier than anticipated and discharge home rather than to a rehabilitation facility were both rated as important (median score = 5). Empirical data on the minimal clinically important difference for DAH30 may be useful to determine sample size and to guide the non-inferiority margin for future clinical trials.

An evaluation of the outcome metric 'days alive and at home' in older patients after hip fracture surgery.

'Days alive and at home' is a validated measure that estimates the time spent at home, defined as the place of residence before admission to hospital. We evaluated this metric in older adults after hip fracture surgery and assessed two follow-up durations, 30 and 90 days. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent hip fracture surgery were identified retrospectively via hospital admission and government mortality records. Patients who successfully returned home and were still alive within 90 days of surgery were distinguished from those who were not. Regression models were used to examine which variables were associated with failure to return home and number of days at home among those who did return, within 90 days of surgery. We analysed the records of 825 patients. Median (IQR [range]) number of days at home within 90 days (n = 788) was 54 (0-76 [0-88]) days and within 30 days (n = 797) it was 2 (0-21 [0-28]) days. Out of these, 274 (35%) patients did not return home within 90 days and 374 (47%) within 30 days after surgery. Known peri-operative risk-factors such as older age, pre-operative anaemia and postoperative acute renal impairment were associated with failure to return home. This study supports days alive and at home as a useful patient-centred outcome measure in older adults after hip fracture surgery. We recommend that this metric should be used in clinical trials and measured at 90, rather than 30, postoperative days. As nearly half of this patient population did not return home within 30 days, the shorter time-period catches fewer meaningful events.

Validation and cultural adaptation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for the Portuguese population.

BACKGROUND: To culturally adapt and validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale to European Portuguese. METHODS: Multi-centred observational study with 2 assessment points. Data were collected in nine centres using consecutive sampling. All patients were screened for eligibility. INCLUSION CRITERIA: ≥18 years, mentally fit to give consent, diagnosed with an incurable, potentially life-threatening illness, read, write and understand Portuguese. Translation and back translation with independent native speakers blind to the original measure created a Portuguese version, which was culturally adapted using cognitive interviews. For psychometric testing, the COSMIN checklist was followed. Reliability and content validity were assessed for patient and staff versions. Construct and criterion validity were tested for patient version. RESULTS: 1703 individuals were screened between July 1st 2015 and February 2016, 135 (7.9%) were included. Mean age was 66.8 years (SD 12.7), 58 (43%) were female. Most patients (109; 80.7%) had a cancer diagnosis. Cronbach's alpha showed good internal consistency, 0.657 for patient, 0.705 for staff versions. Intraclass correlation coefficient testing reproducibility revealed very good reliability, 0.794-0.950 for patient and 0.456-0.925 for staff versions. There was good content validity and significant results for construct validity. Physical symptoms were better detected by females. IPOS could discriminate: practical issues in different places of care, based on cancer diagnosis, physical and emotional symptoms based on life expectancy both for patient and professional dimensions, physical and emotional symptoms based on phase of illness, for professional dimensions, and physical symptoms from the patients' viewpoint. CONCLUSIONS: The Portuguese IPOS is a reliable and valid measure.

Determining the prevalence of palliative needs and exploring screening accuracy of depression and anxiety items of the integrated palliative care outcome scale - a multi-centre study.

BACKGROUND: patients with palliative needs often experience high symptom burden which causes suffering to themselves and their families. Depression and psychological distress should not be considered a "normal event" in advanced disease patients and should be screened, diagnosed, acted on and followed-up. Psychological distress has been associated with greater physical symptom severity, suffering, and mortality in cancer patients. A holistic, but short measure should be used for physical and non-physical needs assessment. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is one such measure. This work aims to determine palliative needs of patients and explore screening accuracy of two items pertaining to psychological needs. METHODS: multi-centred observational study using convenience sampling. Data were collected in 9 Portuguese centres. INCLUSION CRITERIA: ≥18 years, mentally fit to give consent, diagnosed with an incurable, potentially life-threatening illness. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: patient in distress ("unable to converse for a period of time"), cognitively impaired. Descriptive statistics used for demographics. Receiving Operator Characteristics curves and Area Under the Curve for anxiety and depression discriminant properties against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: 1703 individuals were screened between July 1st, 2015 and February 2016. A total of 135 (7.9%) were included. Main reason for exclusion was being healthy (75.2%). The primary care centre screened most individuals, as they have the highest rates of daily patients and the majority are healthy. Mean age is 66.8 years (SD 12.7), 58 (43%) are female. Most patients had a cancer diagnosis 109 (80.7%). Items scoring highest (=4) were: family or friends anxious or worried (36.3%); feeling anxious or worried about illness (13.3%); feeling depressed (9.6%). Using a cut-off score of 2/3, Area Under the Curve for depression and anxiety items were above 70%. CONCLUSIONS: main palliative needs were psychological, family related and spiritual. This suggests that clinical teams may better manage physical issues and there is room for improvement regarding non-physical needs. Using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale systematically could aid clinical teams screening patients for distressing needs and track their progress in assisting patients and families with those issues.

Phase of Illness in palliative care: Cross-sectional analysis of clinical data from community, hospital and hospice patients.

BACKGROUND: Phase of Illness describes stages of advanced illness according to care needs of the individual, family and suitability of care plan. There is limited evidence on its association with other measures of symptoms, and health-related needs, in palliative care. AIMS: The aims of the study are as follows. (1) Describe function, pain, other physical problems, psycho-spiritual problems and family and carer support needs by Phase of Illness. (2) Consider strength of associations between these measures and Phase of Illness. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of patient-level data; a total of 1317 patients in three settings. Function measured using Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale. Pain, other physical problems, psycho-spiritual problems and family and carer support needs measured using items on Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale. RESULTS: Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale items varied significantly by Phase of Illness. Mean function was highest in stable phase (65.9, 95% confidence interval = 63.4-68.3) and lowest in dying phase (16.6, 95% confidence interval = 15.3-17.8). Mean pain was highest in unstable phase (1.43, 95% confidence interval = 1.36-1.51). Multinomial regression: psycho-spiritual problems were not associated with Phase of Illness ( χ2 = 2.940, df = 3, p = 0.401). Family and carer support needs were greater in deteriorating phase than unstable phase (odds ratio (deteriorating vs unstable) = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.49). Forty-nine percent of the variance in Phase of Illness is explained by Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale. CONCLUSION: Phase of Illness has value as a clinical measure of overall palliative need, capturing additional information beyond Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale. Lack of significant association between psycho-spiritual problems and Phase of Illness warrants further investigation.

Implementing a patient-centred outcome measure in daily routine in a specialist palliative care inpatient hospital unit: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Gathering clinical evidence data on patients' palliative care needs is paramount to identify changes in outcomes over time and maintaining on-going quality improvement. Implementation of patient-centred outcome measures has been widely recommended. The routine use of these instruments in daily practice is challenging and not widespread. AIM: To implement a patient-centred outcome measure in daily practice and fulfil one quality indicator: improve pain during the 72 h after admission, in at least 75% of patients. DESIGN: An observational prospective study. The Palliative care Outcome Scale was used at admission (T0), third day (T1) and weekly. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Hospital palliative care unit with 17 individual rooms. All patients admitted to the unit were included in the study. RESULTS: Preliminary results ( N = 84) revealed inconsistent and missing data (14%). Symptoms were sub-optimally controlled by T1. Processes changed, and only a team member could apply Palliative care Outcome Scale. Doctors were encouraged to grasp the meaning of Palliative care Outcome Scale results for each patient. The post-pilot included 317 patients. No missing data occurred. There was an improvement in most items between T0 and T1: 'pain' and 'other symptoms' presented statistical significant differences ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Implementing a patient-centred outcome measure in a hospital palliative care service is feasible and improves quality of care. Controlling high pain at T0 improved (>80%) by T1. Results became more consistent and symptom control was improved overall. Patients are evaluated based on holistic domains by an interdisciplinary team and we have added a much needed measure to help guide improvement of the quality of care provided.

The Quality of Life of Children Facing Life-Limiting Conditions and That of Their Parents in Belgium: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric palliative care (PPC) aims to improve children's quality of life, but this outcome is rarely measured in clinical care. PPC is provided in Belgium through six transmural paediatric liaison teams (PLTs) ensuring continuity of care for children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions (LLC/LTC). This study aims to measure the quality of life (QoL) of children with LLC/LTC followed-up by PLTs and the QoL of their parents. METHODS: During interviews, an original socio demographic questionnaire, the Children palliative outcome scale-version 2 (CPOS-2), the Fragebogen für Kinder und Jugendliche zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität (KINDL) and the Quality of life in life-threatening Illness-Family caregiver (QOLLTI-F) were filled in by PLT members. Statistics were used to investigate significant differences between scores. Results were discussed and interpreted with six PLTs. RESULTS: 73 children aged 1-18 were included in the study. Especially for items focusing on emotional items, children reported their QoL as higher than their parents did. The QoL scores were not significantly associated with the child's condition's severity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides, for the first time, an overview of the QoL of children and parents followed-up by PLTs in Belgium.

Outcome measurement-a scoping review of the literature and future developments in palliative care clinical practice.

The aim of this scoping review is to give an overview and appraisal of the development of outcome measurement throughout time and its present importance to healthcare and specifically to palliative care clinical practice. It is based on a search and search results of a published systematic review on implementing patient reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice. Medline, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase and British Nursing Index were systematically searched from 1985. Hand searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles was performed. A total of 3,863 articles were screened. Sixty were included in this scoping review. Outcome measurement has a long history in health care and some of the strongest advocates were Florence Nightingale for using patient outcomes besides mortality rates, Codman for the "end result idea" of evaluating the patient status one year after orthopaedic surgery, and Donabedian for taking Codman's work further and developing the structure-process-outcome model. The contribution of patient-centred outcome measurement is vast and paramount in education, audit and as an informative tool for healthcare professionals and decision makers. It is possible to collect these data nationwide which would then allow for cross country comparisons, as well as, economic evaluations in palliative care interventions to contribute to appropriate resource allocation.

Current palliative chemotherapy trials in the elderly neglect patient-centred outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: The elderly comprise the majority of patients newly diagnosed with cancer. Despite this, little evidence-based data are available on the care of the growing number of older patients with cancer. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the characteristics and outcome measures of current clinical trials on palliative chemotherapy in elderly patients. METHODS: Fourteen international clinical trials registries were searched using the terms "cancer" and "elderly" to identify clinical palliative chemotherapy trials designed specifically for patients aged 70+ years. From the trial protocol, data were extracted on trial characteristics and outcome measures. RESULTS: Of 127 trials, 81% formulated one or more stringent criteria with respect to organ function; 32% excluded patients with WHO performance status (PS) 2 and 83% with PS3. Functional outcomes, health care utilisation, cognitive function after treatment, and quality of life were reported in 6%, 3%, 6%, and 31% of trials, respectively. In only 16% of trials on palliative cancer treatment, a geriatric assessment was performed at baseline. CONCLUSION: Although recent years have seen a growing evidence base regarding fit older patients, our study suggests a lack of representative cohorts of older patients and patient-centred outcome measures in current palliative treatment trials for the elderly. Research addressing alternative outcome measures, including quality of life and impact of therapy on general functioning, cognition, and preservation of independence, and incorporation of a geriatric assessment are needed to provide elderly patients with cancer and their treating physicians with realistic information about palliative chemotherapy.