Dataset Information

Patients in palliative care-Development of a predictive model for anxiety using routine data.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Anxiety is one of the most common psychological symptoms in patients in a palliative care situation. This study aims to develop a predictive model for anxiety using data from the standard documentation routine.

Methods

Data sets of palliative care patients collected by the German quality management benchmarking system called Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) from 2007 to 2011 were randomly divided into a training set containing two-thirds of the data and a test set with the remaining one-third. We dichotomized anxiety levels, proxy rated by medical staff using the validated HOPE Symptom and Problem Checklist, into two groups with no or mild anxiety versus moderate or severe anxiety. Using the training set, a multivariable logistic regression model was developed by backward stepwise selection. Predictive accuracy was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) based on the test set.

Results

An analysis of 9924 data sets suggests a predictive model for anxiety in patients receiving palliative care which contains gender, age, ECOG, living situation, pain, nausea, dyspnea, loss of appetite, tiredness, need for assistance with activities of daily living, problems with organization of care, medication with sedatives/anxiolytics, antidepressants, antihypertensive drugs, laxatives, and antibiotics. It results in a fair predictive value (AUC = 0.72).

Conclusions

Routinely collected data providing individual-, disease- and therapy-related information contain valuable information that is useful for the prediction of anxiety risks in patients receiving palliative care. These findings could thus be advantageous for providing appropriate support for patients in palliative care settings and should receive special attention in future research.

SUBMITTER: Hofmann S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5542653 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients in palliative care-Development of a predictive model for anxiety using routine data.

Hofmann Sonja S Hess Stephanie S Klein Carsten C Lindena Gabriele G Radbruch Lukas L Ostgathe Christoph C

PloS one 20170803 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Anxiety is one of the most common psychological symptoms in patients in a palliative care situation. This study aims to develop a predictive model for anxiety using data from the standard documentation routine.<h4>Methods</h4>Data sets of palliative care patients collected by the German quality management benchmarking system called Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) from 2007 to 2011 were randomly divided into a training set containing two-thirds of the data and a ...[more]

PMID: 28771478

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe goal of palliative care is to prevent and alleviate a suffering of incurable ill patients. A continuous intersectoral palliative care is important. The aim of this study is to analyse the continuity of palliative care, particularly the time gaps between hospital discharge and subsequent palliative care as well as the timing of the last palliative care before the patient's death.MethodsThe analysis was based on claims data from a large statutory health insurance. Patients who received their first palliative care in 2015 were included. The course of palliative care was followed for 12 months. Time intervals between discharge from hospital and first subsequent palliative care as well as between last palliative care and death were analysed. The continuity in palliative care was defined as an interval of less than 14 days between palliative care. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Chi-Square.ResultsIn 2015, 4177 patients with first palliative care were identified in the catchment area of the statutory health insurance. After general inpatient palliative care, 415 patients were transferred to subsequent palliative care, of these 67.7% (n = 281) received subsequent care within 14 days. After a stay in a palliative care ward, 124 patients received subsequent palliative care, of these 75.0% (n = 93) within 14 days. Altogether, 147 discharges did not receive subsequent palliative care. During the 12-months follow-up period, 2866 (68.7%) patients died, of these 78.7% (n = 2256) received palliative care within the last 2 weeks of life. Of these, 1223 patients received general ambulatory palliative care, 631 patients received specialised ambulatory palliative care, 313 patients received their last palliative care at a hospital and 89 patients received it in a hospice.ConclusionsThe majority of the palliative care patients received continuous palliative care. However, there are some patients who did not receive continuous palliative care. After inpatient palliative care, each patient should receive a discharge management for a continuation of palliative care. Readmissions of patients after discharge from inpatients palliative care can be an indication for a lack of support in the ambulatory health care setting and for an insufficient discharge management. Palliative care training and possibilities for palliative care consultations by specialists should strengthen the GPs in palliative care.

Project description:Introduction: Improving end-of-life (EOL) care is a priority worldwide as this population experiences poor outcomes and accounts disproportionately for costs. In clinical practice, physician judgement is the core method of identifying EOL care needs but has important limitations. Machine learning (ML) is a subset of artificial intelligence advancing capacity to identify patterns and make predictions using large datasets. ML approaches have the potential to improve clinical decision-making and policy design, but there has been no systematic assembly of current evidence. Methods: We conducted a rapid review, searching systematically seven databases from inception to December 31st, 2018: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, WOS, SCOPUS and ECONLIT. We included peer-reviewed studies that used ML approaches on routine data to improve palliative and EOL care for adults. Our specified outcomes were survival, quality of life (QoL), place of death, costs, and receipt of high-intensity treatment near end of life. We did not search grey literature and excluded material that was not a peer-reviewed article. Results: The database search identified 426 citations. We discarded 162 duplicates and screened 264 unique title/abstracts, of which 22 were forwarded for full text review. Three papers were included, 18 papers were excluded and one full text was sought but unobtainable. One paper predicted six-month mortality, one paper predicted 12-month mortality and one paper cross-referenced predicted 12-month mortality with healthcare spending. ML-informed models outperformed logistic regression in predicting mortality but poor prognosis is a weak driver of costs. Models using only routine administrative data had limited benefit from ML methods. Conclusion: While ML can in principle help to identify those at risk of adverse outcomes and inappropriate treatment near EOL, applications to policy and practice are formative. Future research must not only expand scope to other outcomes and longer timeframes, but also engage with individual preferences and ethical challenges.

Project description:Backgroundfrailty is an especially problematic expression of population ageing. International guidelines recommend routine identification of frailty to provide evidence-based treatment, but currently available tools require additional resource.Objectivesto develop and validate an electronic frailty index (eFI) using routinely available primary care electronic health record data.Study design and settingretrospective cohort study. Development and internal validation cohorts were established using a randomly split sample of the ResearchOne primary care database. External validation cohort established using THIN database.Participantspatients aged 65-95, registered with a ResearchOne or THIN practice on 14 October 2008.Predictorswe constructed the eFI using the cumulative deficit frailty model as our theoretical framework. The eFI score is calculated by the presence or absence of individual deficits as a proportion of the total possible. Categories of fit, mild, moderate and severe frailty were defined using population quartiles.Outcomesoutcomes were 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission.Statistical analysishazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using bivariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Calibration was assessed using pseudo-R(2) estimates.Resultswe include data from a total of 931,541 patients. The eFI incorporates 36 deficits constructed using 2,171 CTV3 codes. One-year adjusted HR for mortality was 1.92 (95% CI 1.81-2.04) for mild frailty, 3.10 (95% CI 2.91-3.31) for moderate frailty and 4.52 (95% CI 4.16-4.91) for severe frailty. Corresponding estimates for hospitalisation were 1.93 (95% CI 1.86-2.01), 3.04 (95% CI 2.90-3.19) and 4.73 (95% CI 4.43-5.06) and for nursing home admission were 1.89 (95% CI 1.63-2.15), 3.19 (95% CI 2.73-3.73) and 4.76 (95% CI 3.92-5.77), with good to moderate discrimination but low calibration estimates.Conclusionsthe eFI uses routine data to identify older people with mild, moderate and severe frailty, with robust predictive validity for outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission. Routine implementation of the eFI could enable delivery of evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group.

Project description:BackgroundThe care of palliative patients takes place as non-specialized and specialized care, in outpatient and inpatient settings. However, palliative care is largely provided as General Outpatient Palliative Care (GOPC). This study aimed to investigate whether the survival curves of GOPC patients differed from those of the more intensive palliative care modalities and whether GOPC palliative care was appropriate in terms of timing.MethodsThe study is based on claims data from a large statutory health insurance. The analysis included 4177 patients who received palliative care starting in 2015 and who were fully insured 1 year before and 1 year after palliative care or until death. The probability of survival was observed for 12 months. Patients were classified into group A, which consisted of patients who received palliative care only with GOPC, and group B including patients who received inpatient or specialized outpatient palliative care. Group A was further divided into two subgroups. Patients who received GOPC on only 1 day were assigned to subgroup A1, and patients who received GOPC on two or more days were assigned to subgroup A2. The survival analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier curves. The median survival times were compared with the log-rank test.ResultsThe survival curves differed between groups A and B, except in the first quartile of the survival distribution. The median survival was significantly longer in group A (137 days, n = 2763) than in group B (47 days, n = 1424, p < 0.0001) and shorter in group A1 (35 days, n = 986) than in group A2 (217 days, n = 1767, p < 0.0001). The survival rate during the 12-month follow-up was higher in group A (42%) than in group B (11%) and lower in group A1 (38%) than in group A2 (44%).ConclusionsThe results of the analysis revealed that patients who received the first palliative care shortly before death suspected insufficient care, especially patients who received GOPC for only 1 day and no further palliative care until death or 12-month follow-up. Palliative care should start as early as necessary and be continuous until the end of life.

Dataset Information

Patients in palliative care-Development of a predictive model for anxiety using routine data.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patients in palliative care-Development of a predictive model for anxiety using routine data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets