Palliative care symptoms, concerns and well-being of older people with frailty and complex care needs upon hospital discharge: a cross-sectional study

The Association of Unmet Palliative Care Needs and Physical Frailty With Clinical Outcomes: A Prospective Study of Adults With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

People with heart failure, particularly those who are physically frail, experience complex needs that can be addressed by palliative care (PC). However, we have a limited understanding of how the intersection of unmet PC needs and physical frailty contributes to health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and risk for hospitalization or mortality.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we sought to examine the association of unmet PC needs and physical frailty with clinical outcomes (baseline HRQOL and hospitalizations or mortality at 6 months).

METHODS

We recruited a convenience sample of community-dwelling persons with heart failure from an urban hospital system who were older than 50 years and hospitalized in the last year. We measured physical frailty using the FRAIL scale (nonfrail, 0-2; frail, 3-5), PC needs using the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (range, 0-58; higher scores indicating higher needs), and HRQOL using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate higher HRQOL). We performed multivariable linear regression to test the relationships between physical frailty, PC needs, and HRQOL, and multivariable logistic regression for associations with all-cause 6-month hospitalization or mortality. We also performed an exploratory analysis of 4 PC needs/frailty groups (high PC needs/frail, high PC needs/nonfrail, low PC needs/frail, low PC needs/nonfrail) with outcomes.

RESULTS

In our overall sample (n = 298), mean (SD) age was 68 (9.8) years, 37% were women (n = 108), 28% identified as Black/African American (n = 84), and 65% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (n = 194). Mean PC needs score was 19.7, and frail participants (n = 130, 44%) had a significantly higher mean PC needs score than nonfrail participants (P < .001). Those with higher PC needs (Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale ≥ 20) had significantly worse HRQOL (P < .001) and increased odds of hospitalization or mortality (odds ratio, 2.5; P < .01) compared with those with lower PC needs, adjusting for covariates. Physically frail participants had significantly worse HRQOL (P < .001) and higher odds of hospitalization or mortality at 6 months (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .01) than nonfrail participants, adjusting for covariates. In an exploratory analysis, physically frail participants with high PC needs had the lowest HRQOL score, with an average score of 28.6 points lower (P < .001) and 4.6 times higher odds of hospitalization or mortality (95% confidence interval, 2.03-10.43; P < .001) than low-needs/nonfrail participants.

CONCLUSION

Higher unmet PC needs and physical frailty, separately and in combination, were associated with lower HRQOL and higher odds of hospitalization or mortality. Self-reported PC needs and physical frailty assessment in clinical settings may improve identification of patients at the highest risk for poor HRQOL and hospitalization or mortality amenable to PC intervention.

Understanding the extent to which PROMs and PREMs used with older people with severe frailty capture their multidimensional needs: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Older people with severe frailty are nearing the end of life but their needs are often unknown and unmet. Systematic ways to capture and measure the needs of this group are required. Patient reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) & Patient reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are possible tools to assist this.

AIM

To establish whether, and in what ways, the needs of older people living with severe frailty are represented within existing PROMs and PREMs and to examine the extent to which the measures have been validated with this patient group.

DESIGN

The scoping review follows the method of Arksey and O'Malley.

RESULTS

Seventeen papers from 9 countries meeting the inclusion criteria and 18 multi-dimensional measures were identified: 17 PROMs, and 1 PROM with PREM elements. Seven out of the 18 measures had evidence of being tested for validity with those with frailty. No measure was developed specifically for a frail population. Using the adapted framework of palliative need, five measures covered all five domains of palliative need (IPOS, ICECAP-SCM, PDI, WHOQOL-BREF, WHOQOL-OLD). The coverage of items within the domains varied between the measures.

CONCLUSION

Existing PROMs and PREMs are not well designed for what we know about the needs of older people with severe frailty. Future research should firstly focus on adapting and validating the existing measures to ensure they are fit for purpose, and secondly on developing a better understanding of how measures are used to deliver/better person-centred care.

What Aspects of Quality of Life are Important from Palliative Care Patients' Perspectives? A Framework Analysis to Inform Preference-Based Measures for Palliative and End-of-Life Settings

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Preference-based outcome measures are commonly applied in economic analyses to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. Few preference-based outcome measures have been specifically developed for palliative and end-of-life settings. This study aimed to identify which quality-of-life domains are most important to Australians receiving specialised palliative care services to help determine if the development of a new condition-specific preference-based outcome measure is warranted.

METHODS

In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 18 participants recruited from palliative care services in South Australia. Data were analysed using a framework analysis drawing on findings from a systematic review of international qualitative studies investigating the quality-of-life preferences of patients receiving palliation (domains identified included cognitive, emotional, healthcare, personal autonomy, physical, preparatory, social, spiritual). Participants identified missing or irrelevant domains in the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D questionnaires and ranked the importance of domains.

RESULTS

A priori domains were refined into cognitive, environmental, financial, independence, physical, psychological, social and spiritual. The confirmation of the eight important quality-of-life domains across multiple international studies suggests there is a relatively high degree of convergence on the perspectives of patients in different countries. Four domains derived from the interviews are not covered by the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D (cognitive, environmental, financial, spiritual), including one of the most important (spiritual).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing, popular, preference-based outcome measures such as the EQ-5D do not incorporate the most important, patient-valued, quality-of-life domains in the palliative and end-of-life settings. Development of a new, more relevant and comprehensive preference-based outcome measure could improve the allocation of resources to patient-valued services and have wide applicability internationally.