Development and Implementation of a Real-Time Inpatient Palliative Care Screening Process to Promote Earlier Palliative Care Referrals.

Despite the previous development of criteria for palliative screening tools, there remains a lack of validated and practical screening processes for the general hospitalized patient population for everyday clinical use. This quality improvement project's aim was to implement a practical institution-based adult inpatient palliative care screening tool embedded into the electronic medical record with an automated alert process to assist in identifying patients earlier within hospital admission. The project used a preimplementation and postimplementation design and followed the Plan-Do-Study-Act process to measure the effectiveness of the tool and alert process in decreasing time from admission to palliative care referral and impact on referring patterns. During the project period, 1851 palliative care referrals were completed, and minimal difference (0.6%) was noted in the average time from admission to referral preimplementation and postimplementation ( P = .939). There was a 3.7% increase in referrals postimplementation and a shift in referring service patterns ( P = .321). Although the expected outcome of earlier palliative referrals during admissions was not met, the development and implementation of the tool and alert process is a step toward the creation of a standard practical tool for the general hospitalized patient population.

Efficacy of models of palliative care delivered beyond the traditional physician-led, subspecialty consultation service model: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of non-physician provider-led palliative care (PC) interventions in the management of adults with advanced illnesses on patient-reported outcomes and advance care planning (ACP). METHODS: We included randomised trials and cluster trials published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov searched until July 2021 that examined individuals ≥18 years with a diagnosis of advanced, life-limiting illness and received a PC intervention led by a non-physician (nurse, advance practitioner or social worker). Our primary outcome was quality of life (QOL), which was extracted as unadjusted or adjusted estimates and measures of variability. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression and ACP. RESULTS: Among the 21 studies (2370 subjects), 13 included patients with cancer, 3 with heart failure, 4 with chronic respiratory disease and 1 with chronic kidney disease. The interventions were diverse and varied with respect to team composition and services offered. For QOL, the standardised mean differences suggested null effects of PC interventions compared with usual care at 1-2 months (0.04; 95% CI=-0.14 to 0.23, n=10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) and 6-7 months (0.10; 95% CI=-0.15 to 0.34, n=6 RCTs). The results for anxiety and depression were not significant also. For the ACP, there was a strong benefit for the PC intervention (absolute increase of 0.32% (95% CI=0.06 to 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, PC interventions delivered by non-physician were not associated with improvement in QOL, anxiety or depression but demonstrated an impact on the ACP discussion and documentation.