The frequency and time point of outpatient palliative care integration for people before death: an analysis of health insurance data in Lower Saxony, Germany

Aim This study aimed to analyse the number of deceased people who received different types of outpatient palliative care, the length of time prior to death that care was initiated, and their palliative care trajectory including the rate of hospital death. Subject and methods Data on 35,514 adults insured by the statutory health insurance who died in 2017 in Lower Saxony, Germany, were analysed. The study examined the provision of three different types of outpatient palliative care: general (GPC), intermediate (IPC) and specialised palliative care (SPC). In addition, oncological palliative care services (OS) were considered. Descriptive analyses include frequencies, timing and duration of these services, the number of inpatient hospital stays and hospital deaths. Results Prior to death, 31.4% of the deceased received outpatient palliative care: 21.3% GPC, 6.4% GPC with IPC and/or SPC and/or OS; and 3.7% IPC and/or SPC and/or OS, but no GPC. On average, GPC and OS were initiated 9 months and SPC 3 months prior to death. Six percent of the analytic sample received outpatient palliative care more than 2 years before death. Compared to those without outpatient palliative care, patients who received outpatient palliative care had more and longer inpatient hospital stays, but less frequently died in hospital. Conclusion Early outpatient palliative care took place in a minor percentage of deceased. Outpatient palliative care starts late before death for most patients, but enables more people not to die in hospital. However, significantly fewer people receive outpatient palliative care relative to current demand estimates. This is particularly true of general outpatient palliative care.

Implementation of treatment escalation plans in an old age psychiatry inpatient hospital

A treatment escalation plan (TEP) enables timely and appropriate decision making in the management of deteriorating patients. The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated the widespread use of TEPs in acute care settings throughout the National Health Service (NHS) to facilitate safe and effective decision making. TEP proformas have not been developed for the inpatient psychiatric setting. This is particularly concerning in old age psychiatry inpatient wards where patients often have multiple compounding comorbidities and complex decisions regarding capacity are often made. Our aim for this quality improvement project was to pilot a novel TEP proforma within a UK old age psychiatry inpatient hospital. We first adapted a TEP proforma used in our partner acute tertiary hospital and implemented it on our old age psychiatry wards. We then further refined the form and gathered data about uptake, length of time to complete a TEP and the ceiling of care documented in the TEP. We also explored staff, patient and family views on the usefulness of TEP proformas using questionaries. TEP decisions were documented in 54% of patient records at baseline. Following revision and implementation of a TEP proforma this increased to 100% on our two wards. The mean time taken to complete a TEP was reduced from 7.1 days to 3.2 days following inclusion of the TEP proforma in admission packs. Feedback from staff showed improvements in understanding about TEP and improved knowledge of where these decisions were documented. We advocate the use of TEP proformas on all old age psychiatry inpatient wards to offer clear guidance to relatives and treating clinicians about the ceilings of care for patients. There are potentially wider benefits to healthcare systems by reducing inappropriate transfers between psychiatry and acute NHS hospitals.

COVID-19 and risk of subsequent life-threatening secondary infections: a matched cohort study in UK Biobank

Background With the increasing number of people infected with and recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the extent of major health consequences of COVID-19 is unclear, including risks of severe secondary infections. Methods Based on 445,845 UK Biobank participants registered in England, we conducted a matched cohort study where 5151 individuals with a positive test result or hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in the exposed group. We then randomly selected up to 10 matched individuals without COVID-19 diagnosis for each exposed individual (n = 51,402). The life-threatening secondary infections were defined as diagnoses of severe secondary infections with high mortality rates (i.e., sepsis, endocarditis, and central nervous system infections) from the UK Biobank inpatient hospital data, or deaths from these infections from mortality data. The follow-up period was limited to 3 months after the initial COVID-19 diagnosis. Using a similar study design, we additionally constructed a matched cohort where exposed individuals were diagnosed with seasonal influenza from either inpatient hospital or primary care data between 2010 and 2019 (6169 exposed and 61,555 unexposed individuals). After controlling for multiple confounders, Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of life-threatening secondary infections after COVID-19 or seasonal influenza. Results In the matched cohort for COVID-19, 50.22% of participants were male, and the median age at the index date was 66 years. During a median follow-up of 12.71 weeks, the incidence rate of life-threatening secondary infections was 2.23 (123/55.15) and 0.25 (151/600.55) per 1000 person-weeks for all patients with COVID-19 and their matched individuals, respectively, which corresponded to a fully adjusted HR of 8.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.33–10.59). The corresponding HR of life-threatening secondary infections among all patients with seasonal influenza diagnosis was 4.50, 95% CI 3.34–6.08 (p for difference < 0.01). Also, elevated HRs were observed among hospitalized individuals for life-threatening secondary infections following hospital discharge, both in the COVID-19 (HR = 6.28 [95% CI 4.05–9.75]) and seasonal influenza (6.01 [95% CI 3.53–10.26], p for difference = 0.902) cohorts. Conclusion COVID-19 patients have increased subsequent risks of life-threatening secondary infections, to an equal extent or beyond risk elevations observed for patients with seasonal influenza.

End-stage organ disease–Healthcare utilisation: Impact of palliative medicine

ObjectivesAlthough patients living with end-stage organ disease (ESOD) suffer unmet needs from the physical and emotional burdens of living with chronic illness, they are less likely to receive palliative care.The aims of the study were to determine if palliative care referrals reduced healthcare utilisation and if impact on healthcare utilisation was dependent on the timing of the referral.MethodsPatients with ESOD who received palliative care support were matched with those who did not using coarsened exact matching and propensity score matching, and compared in this retrospective cohort study. Primary outcomes of interests were reduction in all-cause emergency department (ED) visits and costs, reduction in all-cause tertiary hospital admissions, length of hospital stay and inpatient hospital costs.ResultsPatients with ESOD referred to palliative care experienced a reduction in the frequency of all cause ED visits and inpatient hospital admissions. Significant impact of a palliative care referral was at 3 months, rather than 1 month prior to death with a greater reduction in the frequency of ED visits, inpatient hospital admissions, length of stay and charges (p all <0.05). The most common ESOD referred to palliative care for 1110 matched patients was end-stage renal failure (57.7%), and least commonly for respiratory failure (7.6%).ConclusionPalliative care can reduce healthcare utilisation, with reduction greatest when the referral is timed earlier in the disease trajectory. Cost savings can be judiciously redirected to the development of palliative care resources for integrated support of patients and caregivers.

Measuring hospital spatial accessibility using the enhanced two-step floating catchment area method to assess the impact of spatial accessibility to hospital and non-hospital care on the length of hospital stay

Background Optimal healthcare access improves the health status and decreases health inequalities. Many studies demonstrated the importance of spatial access to healthcare facilities in health outcomes, particularly using the enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method. The study objectives were to build a hospital facility access indicator at a fine geographic scale, and then to assess the impact of spatial accessibility to inpatient hospital and non-hospital care services on the length of hospital stay (LOS). Methods Data concerning older adults (≥75 years) living in the Nord administrative region of France were used. Hospital spatial accessibility was computed with the E2SFCA method, and the LOS score was calculated from the French national hospital activity and patient discharge database. The relationship between LOS and spatial accessibility to inpatient hospital care and to three non-hospital care types (general practitioners, physiotherapists, and home-visiting nurses) was analyzed with linear regression models. Results The mean number (standard deviation) of beds per 10,000 inhabitants was 19.0 (10.69) in Medical, Surgical and Obstetrics (MCO) facilities and 5.58 (2.19) in Postoperative and Rehabilitation Care (SSR) facilities, highlighting important variations within the region. Accessibility to hospital services was higher in large urban areas, despite the dense population and higher demand. In 2014, the mean LOS scores were 0.26 for MCO and 0.85 for SSR, but their geographical repartition was non-homogeneous. The linear regression analysis revealed a strong negative and significant association between LOS and non-hospital care accessibility. Conclusions This is the first study to measure spatial accessibility to inpatient hospital care in France using the E2SFCA method, and to investigate the relationship between healthcare utilization (LOS score) and spatial accessibility to inpatient hospital care facilities and three types of non-hospital care services. Our findings might help to make decisions about deploying additional beds and to identify the best locations for non-hospital care services. They might also contribute to improve access, and to ensure the best coordination and sustainability of inpatient and outpatient services, in order to better cover the population’s healthcare needs. International studies using multiple consensual indicators of healthcare outcomes and accessibility and sophisticated modeling methods are needed.