Journal of palliative medicine
-
Background: Public and private hospitals treat different patient populations, which may impact resources to deliver palliative care (PC). Objectives: Compare public and private hospital PC service structures, processes, and treatment outcomes. Design: Retrospective data analysis of the Palliative Care Quality Network between 2018 and 2019. ⋯ Conclusions: Public hospital PC teams treat a more diverse symptomatic population. Yet, they achieved comparable outcomes with similar staffing to private hospitals. These findings have important ramifications for policy makers and public institution leaders.
-
Background: More than 50% of patients worldwide die in hospitals and end-of-life care is costly. We aimed to explore whether support from the palliative team can influence end-of-life costs. Methods: This was a descriptive retrospective case-control study conducted at a Czech tertiary hospital. ⋯ The average daily costs were three times lower in the palliative group (4392.4 CZK per day = 171.3 EUR) than in the nonpalliative group (13992.8 CZK per day = 545.8 EUR), and the difference was probably associated with the shorter time spent in the ICU (16% vs. 33% of hospital days). Conclusions: We showed that the integration of the palliative care team in the dying phase can be cost saving. These data could support the implementation of hospital palliative care in developing countries.
-
The past 25 years have proved that palliative care is effective in improving care of seriously ill patients. Research attention must pivot to focus on policy changes and systems and models of care that ensure easy access to quality palliative care to all patients who need it. ⋯ The question of whether incentives should be used has arisen. Should we design treatment algorithms, such as for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, where palliative care is part of standard care and requires an "opt out"? Should payers pay more to health care organizations who demonstrate they provide universal access to palliative care and how can we control for unintended consequences? Should provision of specialist palliative care be required for a health care organization to be accredited? How can we advance the state of the science and best support the workforce?
-
Background: To compare serious illness programs (SIPs) using recently developed patient experience measures, adjustment must be made for patient characteristics not under control of the programs. Objectives: To develop a case-mix adjustment model to enable fair comparison of patient experience between SIPs by investigating the roles of patient characteristics, proxy response, and mode of survey administration (mail-only vs. mail with telephone follow-up) in survey responses. Methods: Using survey data from 2263 patients from 32 home-based SIPs across the United States, we fit regression models to assess the association between patient-level variables and scores for seven quality measures (Communication, Care Coordination, Help for Symptoms, Planning for Care, Support for Family and Friends, and two global assessments of care). ⋯ We also recommend adjusting for mode of survey administration. We find that up to 12 percent of pairs of programs would have their rankings reversed by adjustment. Conclusions: To ensure fair comparison of programs, scores should be case-mix adjusted for variables that influence patients' reports about care quality, but are not under the control of the program administering care.
-
Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. ⋯ Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.