Exploring the costs, consequences and efficiency of three types of palliative care day services in the UK: a pragmatic before-and-after descriptive cohort study

Palliative Care Costs in Different Ambulatory-Based Settings: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cost-of-illness studies in palliative care are of growing interest in health economics. There is no standard methodology to capture direct and non-direct healthcare and non-healthcare expenses incurred by health services, patients and their caregivers in the course of the ambulatory palliative care process.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the type of healthcare and non-healthcare expenses incurred by patients with cancer and non-cancer patients and their caregivers for palliative care in ambulatory-based settings and the methodology used to capture the data.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies on the costs of ambulatory-based palliative care in patients with cancer (breast, lung, colorectal) and non-cancer conditions (chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia) found in six bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE [via Ovid], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EconLit, the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database at the University of York, and Google Scholar). The studies were published between January 2000 and December 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for study selection and assessed study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021250086).

RESULTS

Of 1434 identified references, 43 articles met the inclusion criteria. The primary data source was databases. More than half of the articles presented data from public healthcare systems (65.12%) were retrospective (60.47%), and entailed a bottom-up costing analysis (93.2%) made from a healthcare system perspective (53.49%). The sociodemographic characteristics of patients and families/caregivers were similar across the studies. Cost outcomes reports were heterogeneous; almost all of the studies collected data on direct healthcare costs (97.67%). The main driver of costs was inpatient care (55.81%), which increased during the end-of-life period. Nine studies (20.97%) recorded costs due to productivity losses for caregivers and three recorded such costs for patients. Caregiving costs were explored through an opportunity cost analysis in all cases, based on interviews conducted with and questionnaires administered to patients and caregivers, mainly via telephone calls (23.23%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review reveals that studies on the costs of ambulatory-based palliative care are increasing. These studies are mostly conducted from a healthcare system perspective, which leaves out costs related to patients'/caregivers' economic burden. There is a need for prospective studies to assess this financial burden and evaluate, with strong evidence, the interventions and actions designed to improve the quality of life of palliative care patients. Future studies should propose cost calculation approaches using a societal perspective to better estimate the economic burden imposed on patients in ambulatory-based palliative care.

A think-aloud study of the feasibility of patients with end-stage organ failure completing the ICECAP-SCM

BACKGROUND

The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (SCM) is a self-complete measure developed to inform economic decision making at the end-of-life. Previous research has demonstrated its feasibility in hospice and nursing home settings. This is the first study of its use with patients on the organ failure trajectory.

AIM

To determine the feasibility of using the ICECAP-SCM with patients experiencing end-stage organ failure in a hospital setting.

DESIGN

Participants were asked to 'think aloud' when completing the ICECAP-SCM, ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L measures. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and examined for errors in comprehension, retrieval, judgement, and response by five raters. Qualitative data were collected to explore reasons for errors in completing the measures and participants' views about the measures.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Sixty patients (with end-stage renal failure n = 18; end-stage heart failure n = 21; end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease n = 21) participated. Senior clinicians applied prognostic criteria to determine eligibility.

RESULTS

Participants reported that the measures were acceptable, clear, and easy to complete. Error rates in completing the measures were low (ICECAP-A = 3%,and ICECAP-SCM = 5.7% and EQ-5D-5L = 6.3%). There was some variation in responses between patients with different end-stage conditions, particularly those with symptom fluctuation. Some patients had not considered their end-of-life (i.e. advance care planning) and reported finding questions about this difficult to answer.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to use the ICECAP-SCM with patients with end-stage organ failure receiving care in hospital settings. This study provides evidence for researchers and policy makers involved in measuring end-of-life care globally. The ICECAP-SCM can be recommended for research with patients in end-stage organ failure to appropriately capture the broader benefits of end-of-life care.

Feasibility of Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Psychosocial Palliative Care: Observational Cohort Study of Hospice Day Care and Social Support Groups

Palliative care patients can be at risk of social isolation or loneliness. Interventions that can provide effective social support, and particularly emotional support, could facilitate healthy coping that bolsters quality of life and reduces depression in palliative care patients. This is an observational cohort study which recruited thirty patients (n = 30) from the day services of four independent hospices in England. Participants completed patient reported outcome measures in perceived social support, loneliness, and depression, at up to three time points. Age range was 56-91 years, males and females were equally represented, and the sample was 93% white British. In participants that provided two or more timepoints, perceived social support increased, and loneliness and depression decreased. Largest changes with the least variation between participants was in emotional support (p = 0.165) and loneliness (p = 0.104). These results suggest that the psychosocial patient reported outcome measures used (MOS-SS, UCLA, BEDS) could be sensitive to change aligned with the goals of this intervention in palliative care. Participants in this study were observed to derive psychosocial benefit from attending the hospice day service.

A survey of hospice day services in the United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland : how did hospices offer social support to palliative care patients, pre-pandemic?

INTRODUCTION

Social support is described by patients and other stakeholders to be a valuable component of palliative day care. Less is known about the range of hospice services that have been used in practice that facilitate social support. An online survey aimed to gain an overview of all hospice day services that facilitated social support for adults outside of their own homes.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed via email to people involved in managing hospice day services. Questions were asked on hospice characteristics, including staff and volunteer roles. Respondents were asked to identify services they felt offered social support to patients. Data collection took place between August 2017 and May 2018.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 103 hospices in the UK and ROI (response rate 49.5%). Results provide an overview of hospice day and outpatient services that offer social support to patients. These are: multi-component interventions, activity groups, formal support groups, befriending, and informal social activities. Multi-component interventions, such as palliative day care, were the most commonly reported. Their stated aims tend to focus on clinical aspects, but many survey respondents considered these multicomponent interventions to be the 'most social' service at their hospice. The survey also identified a huge variety of activity groups, as well as formal therapeutic support groups. Informal 'social-only' activities were present, but less common. Over a third of all the services were described as 'drop in'. Most responding hospices did not routinely use patient reported outcome measures in their 'most social' services.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey documents hospice activity in facilitating social support to be diverse and evolving. At the time of data collection, many hospices offered multiple different services by which a patient might obtain social support outside of their own home and in the presence of other patients.

An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting

BACKGROUND

For outcome measures to be useful in health and care decision-making, they need to have certain psychometric properties. The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM), a seven attribute measure (1. Choice, 2. Love and affection, 3. Physical suffering, 4. Emotional suffering, 5. Dignity, 6. Being supported, 7. Preparation) developed for use in economic evaluation of end-of-life interventions, has face validity and is feasible to use. This study aimed to assess the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice inpatient and outpatient settings.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of data collated from two studies, one focusing on palliative care day services and the other on constipation management, undertaken in the same national hospice organisation across three UK hospices, was conducted. Other quality of life and wellbeing outcome measures used were the EQ-5D-5L, McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire - Expanded (MQOL-E), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Palliative Outcomes Scale Symptom list (POS-S). The construct validity of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed, following hypotheses generation, by calculating correlations between: (i) its domains and the domains of other outcome measures, (ii) its summary score and the other measures' domains, (iii) its summary score and the summary scores of the other measures. The responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed using anchor-based methods to understand change over time. Statistical analysis consisted of Spearman and Pearson correlations for construct validity and paired t-tests for the responsiveness analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight participants were included in the baseline analysis. Five strong correlations were found with ICECAP-SCM attributes and items on the other measures: four with the Emotional suffering attribute (Anxiety/depression on EQ-5D-5L, Psychological and Burden on MQOL-E and Feeling down, depressed or hopeless on PHQ-2), and one with Physical suffering (Weakness or lack of energy on POS-S). ICECAP-SCM attributes and scores were most strongly associated with the MQOL-E measure (0.73 correlation coefficient between summary scores). The responsiveness analysis (n = 36) showed the ICECAP-SCM score was responsive to change when anchored to changes on the MQOL-E over time (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides initial evidence of construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice settings and suggests its potential for use in end-of-life care research.

What makes palliative care needs "complex"? A multisite sequential explanatory mixed methods study of patients referred for specialist palliative care

BACKGROUND

Specialist palliative care (SPC) providers tend to use the term 'complex' to refer to the needs of patients who require SPC. However, little is known about complex needs on first referral to a SPC service. We examined which needs are present and sought the perspectives of healthcare professionals on the complexity of need on referral to a hospice service.

METHODS

Multi-site sequential explanatory mixed method study consisting of a case-note review and focus groups with healthcare professionals in four UK hospices.

RESULTS

Documentation relating to 239 new patient referrals to hospice was reviewed; and focus groups involving 22 healthcare professionals conducted. Most patients had two or more needs documented on referral (96%); and needs were recorded across two or more domains for 62%. Physical needs were recorded for 91% of patients; psychological needs were recorded for 59%. Spiritual needs were rarely documented. Referral forms were considered limited for capturing complex needs. Referrals were perceived to be influenced by the experience and confidence of the referrer and the local resource available to meet palliative care needs directly.

CONCLUSIONS

Complexity was hard to detail or to objectively define on referral documentation alone. It appeared to be a term used to describe patients whom primary or secondary care providers felt needed SPC knowledge or support to meet their needs. Hospices need to provide greater clarity regarding who should be referred, when and for what purpose. Education and training in palliative care for primary care nurses and doctors and hospital clinicians could reduce the need for referral and help ensure that hospices are available to those most in need of SPC input.