RESUMO
Background: Palliative Care (PC) encompasses an integrated health care philosophy of care for individuals with serious illnesses and their families. Referrals to palliative care often come from other healthcare clinicians who lack the time and skill required to address the needs of the patient and their caregivers. At its heart, palliative care is individualized to the values, beliefs, and goals of the patient. The process of eliciting values, beliefs, and goals takes time and expertise, and correspondingly, palliative care is labor intensive. To date, there has been no concentrated focus on how to accurately capture the productivity or work of palliative care clinicians. As a result, there is not a universally accepted method of measuring the effort which includes impact, activity, composition, and productivity of a palliative care program. Objective: This paper reviews results obtained during a telephone survey of similar hospital-based palliative care programs on how they measure productivity. Currently, based on the survey, there are two focused methods for benchmarking: work relative value units (wRVU) and consult volume. This paper highlights the variability of wRVUs and the challenge of using them to compare different PC programs. Design: The design was an open-ended question telephone survey. Using the characteristics of our hospital program, the team created a composite of descriptions to consider for comparison. Then, various hospital-based palliative care teams were selected based on publicly reported data through Vizient, a national benchmarking organization. Based on a literature review, an open-ended question survey was created. These questions explored program composition, clinician productivity and performance benchmarks. Data was collected manually and stored in a confidential file. Result: Ninety-four programs were queried that met the following composite: (1) participated in Vizient program and (2) self-reported a hospital-based, inpatient palliative program. Forty-one programs responded to the request to participate. Of these, 32 programs consisted of facilities who had hospitalists who provided palliative care, but there was not a dedicated palliative care team. Nine programs had a dedicated palliative care team with clinicians who only practiced palliative medicine. Inquiry to these programs revealed that within these nine programs-two methods of capturing clinician productivity were used-five sites used a wRVU metric and four sites used a consult volume metric. Conclusion: Preliminary findings support the complexity of benchmarking PC programs against peer institutions with a standard productivity model based on the variability in program composition.
