RESUMO
Objectives: ICD-10-based approaches often provide the basis for retrospective estimation of potential palliative care need. Applying the ICD-10-based Murtagh et al. classification from 2014 (Murtagh classification), developed using mortality data, to administrative claims data leads to inconsistencies in estimating palliative care need. The aim of the study was to refine the classification for palliative care need estimation in deceased individuals with cancer and non-cancer diagnosis. Methods: A retrospective population-based study comparing Murtagh classification to a new ICD-10-based classification (revised by expert opinion) was conducted using outpatient and inpatient claims data, including billing codes for palliative care. Palliative care need was estimated for diagnoses groups and was contrasted with palliative care utilization rates in the last year of life. Our dataset included records of 417,405 individuals who deceased in 2016-2019. Results: Out of individuals deceased in 2019 (n = 117,436), 81.4% had at least one diagnosis from the new classification, while 97.0% had at least one diagnosis from the Murtagh classification. Classification revision thus identified fewer individuals as potentially in need of palliative care. Among individuals with cancer, 70.7% (vs. 55.7% via Murtagh classification) received palliative care. In non-cancer subgroups, the utilization rate was considerably lower, with a maximum of 36.7% (vs. 33.7% via Murtagh classification) in 2019. Similar results were observed for the other years. Conclusion: Compared to the ICD10-based Murtagh classification, the revised ICD-10-based classification enables more realistic estimations if the cause of death is unavailable and reveals higher rates of palliative care coverage and differences especially in cancer versus non-cancer diseases. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00024133).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) contributes to improved end-of-life care for patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) and solid tumors (ST) by addressing physical and psychological symptoms and spiritual needs. Research on PC in HM vs. ST patients is fragmented and suggests less use. METHODS: We analyzed claims data of all deceased members of a large German health insurance provider for the year before death. First, we analyzed the frequency and the beginning of different types of PC and compared patients with HM vs. ST. Second, we analyzed the adjusted impact of PC use on several end-of-life quality outcomes in patients with HM vs. ST. We performed simple and multiple (logistic) regression analysis, adjusted for relevant covariates, and standardized for age and sex. RESULTS: Of the 222,493 deceased cancer patients from 2016 to 2020, we included 209,321 in the first analysis and 165,020 in the second analysis. Patients with HM vs. ST received PC less often (40.4 vs. 55.6%) and later (34 vs. 50 days before death). PC use significantly improved all six quality indicators for good end-of-life care. HM patients had worse rates in five of the six indicators compared with ST patients. Interaction terms revealed that patients with ST derived greater benefit from PC in five of six quality indicators than those with HM. CONCLUSION: The data highlight the need to integrate PC more often, earlier, and more effectively into the care of patients with HM.