A call to action: improving value by emphasizing patient-centered care at the end of life

Immediate versus delayed short-term integrated palliative care for advanced long-term neurological conditions: the OPTCARE Neuro RCT

Background

Palliative care is recommended to help meet the needs of patients with progressive non-cancer conditions, such as long-term neurological conditions. However, few trials have tested palliative care in this population.

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of short-term integrated palliative care in improving symptoms, improving patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes and reducing hospital use for people severely affected by long-term neurological conditions.

Design

Pragmatic, randomised controlled, multicentre, fast-track trial, with an embedded qualitative component and surveys.

Setting

Seven UK centres (South London, Nottingham, Liverpool, Cardiff, Brighton, Ashford and Sheffield) with multiprofessional palliative care teams and neurology services.

Participants

People living with multiple sclerosis, idiopathic Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple system atrophy or progressive supranuclear palsy, with unresolved symptoms and/or complex psychosocial needs. The qualitative study involved patients, caregivers and health-care staff.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to receive short-term integrated palliative care, delivered by multiprofessional teams, immediately or after a 12-week wait (standard care group).

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was a combined score of eight symptoms measured by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Neurological conditions 8 symptom subscale (IPOS Neuro-S8) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included patients’ other physical and psychological symptoms, quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version), care satisfaction, caregiver burden, service use and cost, and harms. Data were analysed using multiple imputation, generalised linear mixed models, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (threshold was the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) and cost-effectiveness planes. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.

Results

We recruited 350 patients and 229 caregivers. There were no significant between-group differences for primary or secondary outcomes. Patients receiving short-term integrated palliative care had a significant improvement, from baseline to 12 weeks, on the primary outcome IPOS Neuro-S8 (–0.78, 95% confidence interval –1.29 to –0.26) and the secondary outcome of 24 physical symptoms (–1.95, 99.55% confidence interval –3.60 to –0.30). This was not seen in the control group, in which conversely, care satisfaction significantly reduced from baseline to 12 weeks (–2.89, 99.55% confidence interval –5.19 to –0.59). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were smaller than the set threshold (EuroQol-5 Dimensions index score –£23,545; IPOS Neuro-S8 –£1519), indicating that the intervention provided cost savings plus better outcomes. Deaths, survival and hospitalisations were similar between the two groups. Qualitative data suggested that the impact of the intervention encompassed three themes: (1) adapting to losses and building resilience, (2) attending to function, deficits and maintaining stability, and (3) enabling caregivers to care.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that short-term integrated palliative care provides improvements in patient-reported physical symptoms at a lower cost and without harmful effects when compared with standard care.

Limitations

Outcome measures may not have been sensitive enough to capture the multidimensional changes from the intervention. Our surveys found that the control/standard and intervention services were heterogeneous.

Future work

Refining short-term integrated palliative care and similar approaches for long-term neurological conditions, focusing on better integration of existing services, criteria for referral and research to improve symptom management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18337380.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Community-Partnered Collaboration to Build an Integrated Palliative Care Clinic

Background:

We partnered with patients, families, and palliative care clinicians to develop an integrated urology–palliative care clinic for patients with metastatic cancer. We assessed clinician satisfaction with a multidisciplinary palliative care clinic model.

Methods:

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 clinicians who practice in our integrated clinic. We analyzed transcripts using a multistage, cutting-and-sorting technique in an inductive approach based on grounded theory analysis. Finally, we administered a validated physician job satisfaction survey.

Results:

Clinicians found that referring a patient to palliative care in the urology clinic was feasible and appropriate. Patients were receptive to supportive care, and clinicians perceived that quality of care improved following the intervention.

Conclusion:

An integrated, patient-centered model for individuals with advanced urologic malignancies is feasible and well received by practitioners.

Professionalism and patient education in urologic surgery

Medical professionalism provides the guidelines that govern the patient-physician relationship. This implicit contract requires that patients be informed before making decisions regarding their medical care. Educating patients about diagnostic and treatment decisions is critical to an informed decision-making process. Shared decision-making is a recent paradigm shift in patient education that allows patients to make decisions based both on the counsel of their physicians and according to their own preferences and values. This approach moves away from previous models that focused on physicians or third-party payers as the arbiters of diagnostic and treatment choices. Urologic surgeons have been at the forefront of shared decision-making research and continue to promote this concept in the most recent American Urological Association Guideline on Detection of Prostate Cancer. Unfortunately, the fee-for-service financial structure that predominates in the United States’ health care system provides a disincentive for shared decision-making. By promoting patient volume rather than time spent with patients, this system rewards physicians who spend less time educating patients about diagnostic and treatment options. Therefore, to promote adherence to the educational responsibility inherent in medical professionalism, we recommend physician payment reform that rewards physicians for time spent with patients rather than the volume of patients seen.