Understanding patient and family utilisation of community-based palliative care services out-of-hours: Additional analysis of systematic review evidence using narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Community-based out-of-hours services are an integral component of end-of-life care. However, there is little understanding of how patients and families utilise these services. This additional analysis of a systematic review aims to understand and identify patterns of out-of-hours service use and produce recommendations for future service design.

METHOD

Data on service use was extracted and secondary analysis undertaken, from a systematic review of models of community out-of-hours services. Narrative synthesis was completed, addressing four specific aspects of service use: 1.Times when patients/families/healthcare professionals need to contact out-of-hours services; 2. Who contacts out-of-hours services; 3. Whether a telephone call, centre visit or home visit is provided; 4. Who responds to out-of-hours calls.

RESULTS

Community-based out-of-hours palliative care services were most often accessed between 5pm and midnight, especially on weekdays (with reports of 69% of all calls being made out-of-hours). Family members and carers were the most frequent callers to of the services (making between 60% and 80% of all calls). The type of contact (telephone, centre visit or home visit) varied based on what was offered and on patient need. Over half of services were led by a single discipline (nurse).

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-hours services are highly used up to midnight, and particularly by patients' family and carers. Recommendations to commissioners and service providers are to: • Increase provision of out-of-hours services between 5pm and midnight to reflect the increased use at these times. • Ensure that family and carers are provided with clear contact details for out-of-hours support. • Ensure patient records can be easily accessed by health professionals responding to calls, making the triage process easier. • Listen to patients, family and carers in the design of out-of-hours services, including telephone services. • Collect data systematically on out-of-hours-service use and on outcomes for patients who use the service.

Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis

Background: In England, Integrated Care Systems have been established to improve integration of care, as part of the NHS Long Term Plan.  For people near the end of life, palliative care can improve integration of care. We aimed to understand whether and how palliative and end of life care was included in Integrated Care System strategies, and to consider priorities for strengthening this. Methods: Documentary analysis of Integrated Care System (ICS) strategies, using summative content analysis, was performed. Google searches were used to identify NHS Trust, Clinical Commissioning Group or ICS websites. We searched these websites to identify strategies. Key terms were used to identify relevant content. Themes were mapped onto an adapted logic model for integrated care. Results: 23 Integrated Care System strategy documents were identified. Of these, two did not mention any of the key terms, and six highlighted palliative and end of life care as either a priority, area of focus, or an ambition. While most (19/23) strategies included elements that could be mapped onto the adapted logic model for integrated care, the thread from enablers and components, to structures, processes, outcomes, and impact was incomplete. Conclusions: Greater prioritisation of palliative and end of life care within recently established Integrated Care Systems could improve outcomes for people near the end of life, as well as reduce reliance on acute hospital care. Integrated Care Systems should consider involving patients, the public and palliative care stakeholders in the ongoing development of strategies. For strategies to be effective, our adapted logic model can be used to outline how different components of care fit together to achieve defined outcomes and impact.

Considerations on equity in management of end-stage kidney disease in low- and middle-income countries

Achievement of equity in health requires development of a health system in which everyone has a fair opportunity to attain their full health potential. The current, large country-level variation in the reported incidence and prevalence of treated end-stage kidney disease indicates the existence of system-level inequities. Equitable implementation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) programs must address issues of availability, affordability, and acceptability. The major structural factors that impact equity in KRT in different countries are the organization of health systems, overall health care spending, funding and delivery models, and nature of KRT prioritization (transplantation, hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, and conservative care). Implementation of KRT programs has the potential to exacerbate inequity unless equity is deliberately addressed. In this review, we summarize discussions on equitable provision of KRT in low- and middle-income countries and suggest areas for future research.

Time to Improve Informed Consent for Dialysis: An International Perspective

The literature reveals that current nephrology practice in obtaining informed consent for dialysis falls short of ethical and legal requirements. Meeting these requirements represents a significant challenge, especially because the benefits and risks of dialysis have shifted significantly with the growing number of older, comorbid patients. The importance of informed consent for dialysis is heightened by several concerns, including: (1) the proportion of predialysis patients and patients on dialysis who lack capacity in decision making and (2) whether older, comorbid, and frail patients understand their poor prognosis and the full implications to their independence and functional status of being on dialysis. This article outlines the ethical and legal requirements for a valid informed consent to dialysis: (1) the patient was competent, (2) the consent was made voluntarily, and (3) the patient was given sufficient information in an understandable manner to make the decision. It then considers the application of these requirements to practice across different countries. In the process of informed consent, the law requires a discussion by the physician of the material risks associated with dialysis and alternative options. We argue that, legally and ethically, this discussion should include both the anticipated trajectory of the illness and the effect on the life of the patient with particular regard to the outcomes most important to the individual. In addition, a discussion should occur about the option of a conservative, nondialysis pathway. These requirements ensure that the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy is honored in the context of dialysis. Nephrologists need to be open to, comfortable with, and skillful in communicating this information. From these clear, open, ethically, and legally valid consent discussions, a significant dividend will hopefully flow for patients, families, and nephrologists alike.

Conservative Management and End-of-Life Care in an Australian Cohort with ESRD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the proportion of patients who switched to dialysis after confirmed plans for conservative care and compare survival and end-of-life care among patients choosing conservative care with those initiating RRT.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A cohort study of 721 patients on incident dialysis, patients receiving transplants, and conservatively managed patients from 66 Australian renal units entered into the Patient Information about Options for Treatment Study from July 1 to September 30, 2009 were followed for 3 years. A two-sided binomial test assessed the proportion of patients who switched from conservative care to RRT. Cox regression, stratified by center and adjusted for patient and treatment characteristics, estimated factors associated with 3-year survival.

RESULTS

In total, 102 of 721 patients planned for conservative care, and median age was 80 years old. Of these, 8% (95% confidence interval, 3% to 13%), switched to dialysis, predominantly for symptom management. Of 94 patients remaining on a conservative pathway, 18% were alive at 3 years. Of the total 721 patients, 247 (34%) died by study end. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with all-cause mortality included older age (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.36 to 1.77), baseline serum albumin <3.0 versus 3.7-5.4 g/dl (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.72 to 6.81), and management with conservative care compared with RRT (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 3.40). Of 247 deaths, patients managed with RRT were less likely to receive specialist palliative care (26% versus 57%; P<0.001), more likely to die in the hospital (66% versus 42%; P<0.001) than home or hospice, and more likely to receive palliative care only within the last week of life (42% versus 15%; P<0.001) than those managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival after 3 years of conservative management is common, with relatively few patients switching to dialysis. Specialist palliative care services are used more frequently and at an earlier time point for conservatively managed patients, a practice associated with better symptom management and quality of life.

Supportive Care: Comprehensive Conservative Care in End-Stage Kidney Disease

Comprehensive conservative (nondialytic) kidney care is widely recognized and delivered but until recently, has not been clearly defined. We provide a clear definition of comprehensive conservative care. This includes interventions to delay progression of kidney disease and minimize complications as well as detailed communication, shared decision making, advance care planning, and psychologic and family support. It does not include dialysis. Limited epidemiologic evidence from Australia and Canada indicates that, for every new person diagnosed with ESRD who receives dialysis or transplant, there is one new person who is managed conservatively (either actively or not). For older patients (those >75 or 80 years old) who have higher levels of comorbidity (such as diabetes and heart disease) and poorer functional status, the survival advantage of dialysis may be limited, and comprehensive conservative management may be considered; however, robust comparative evidence remains limited. Considerations of symptoms, quality of life, and hospital-free days are as or sometimes more important for patients and families than survival. There is some evidence that communication about possible conservative management options is generally insufficient, even where comprehensive conservative care pathways are already established. Symptom control and the cost-effectiveness of interventions are addressed in the companion papers within this Moving Points in Nephrology series. There is almost no evidence about which models of care and which interventions might be most beneficial in this population; future research on these areas is much needed. Meanwhile, consistency in definition of comprehensive conservative care and basing interventions on existing evidence about survival, symptoms, quality of life, and experience will maximize patient-centered and holistic care.

How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting

Despite the potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and experience measures (PREMs) to enhance understanding of patient experiences and outcomes they have not, to date, been widely incorporated into renal registry datasets. This report summarizes the main points learned from an ERA-EDTA QUEST-funded consensus meeting on how to routinely collect PROMs and PREMs in renal registries in Europe. In preparation for the meeting, we surveyed all European renal registries to establish current or planned efforts to collect PROMs/PREMs. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Publications reporting barriers and/or facilitators to PROMs/PREMs collection by registries were identified and a narrative synthesis undertaken. A group of renal registry representatives, PROMs/PREMs experts and patient representatives then met to (i) share any experience renal registries in Europe have in this area; (ii) establish how patient-reported data might be collected by understanding how registries currently collect routine data and how patient-reported data is collected in other settings; (iii) harmonize the future collection of patient-reported data by renal registries in Europe by agreeing upon preferred instruments and (iv) to identify the barriers to routine collection of patient-reported data in renal registries in Europe. In total, 23 of the 45 European renal registries responded to the survey. Two reported experience in collecting PROMs and three stated that they were actively exploring ways to do so. The systematic review identified 157 potentially relevant articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed for barriers and facilitators to routine PROM/PREM collection. Thirteen themes were identified and mapped to a three-stage framework around establishing the need, setting up and maintaining the routine collection of PROMs/PREMs. At the consensus meeting some PROMs instruments were agreed for routine renal registry collection (the generic SF-12, the disease-specific KDQOL™-36 and EQ-5D-5L to be able to derive quality-adjusted life years), but further work was felt to be needed before recommending PREMs. Routinely collecting PROMs and PREMs in renal registries is important if we are to better understand what matters to patients but it is likely to be challenging; close international collaboration will be beneficial.

The "no dialysis" option

Increasing numbers of patients are starting dialysis who have limited prognoses for 6-month survival. The presence of multiple comorbidities, aging, and frailty contributes to this phenomenon. The rate of dialysis withdrawal has been accelerating over the past decade, and this calls into question the condition of patients who are initiating dialysis. One option is to consider and discuss the "no dialysis" option with patients and family. Patients need to be identified who may benefit from this option, and their medical management needs to be reviewed.