Dataset Information

Continuity in palliative care - analysis of intersectoral palliative care based on routine data of a statutory health insurance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Rehner L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8045326 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe provision and quality of end-of-life care (EoLC) in Germany is inconsistent. Therefore, an evaluation of current EoLC based on quality indicators is needed. This study aims to evaluate EoLC in Germany on the basis of quality indicators pertaining to curative overtreatment, palliative undertreatment and delayed palliative care (PC). Results were compared with previous findings.MethodsData from a statutory health insurance provider (AOK Lower Saxony) pertaining to deceased members in the years 2016 and 2017 were used to evaluate EoLC. The main indicators were: chemotherapy for cancer patients in the last month of life, first-time percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) for patients with dementia in the last 3 months of life, number of hospitalisations and days spent in inpatient treatment in the last 6 months of life, and provision of generalist and specialist outpatient PC in the last year of life. Data were analysed descriptively.ResultsData for 64,275 deceased members (54.3% female; 35.1% cancer patients) were analysed. With respect to curative overtreatment, 10.4% of the deceased with cancer underwent chemotherapy in the last month and 0.9% with dementia had a new PEG insertion in the last 3 months of life. The mean number of hospitalisations and inpatient treatment days per deceased member was 1.6 and 16.5, respectively, in the last 6 months of life. Concerning palliative undertreatment, generalist outpatient PC was provided for 28.0% and specialist outpatient PC was provided for 9.0% of the deceased. Regarding indicators for delayed PC, the median onset of generalist and specialist outpatient PC was 47.0 and 24.0 days before death, respectively.ConclusionCompared to data from 2010 to 2014, the data analysed in the present study suggest an ongoing curative overtreatment in terms of chemotherapy and hospitalisation, a reduction in new PEG insertions and an increase in specialist PC. The number of patients receiving generalist PC remained low, with delayed onset. Greater awareness of generalist PC and the early integration of PC are recommended.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00015108 ; 22 January 2019).

Project description:BackgroundSecond medical opinions can give patients confidence when choosing among treatment options and help them understand their diagnosis. Health insurers in several countries, including Germany, offer formal second opinion programs (SecOPs). We systematically collected and analyzed information on German health insurers' approach to SecOPs, how the SecOPs are structured, and to what extent they are evaluated.MethodsIn April 2019, we sent a questionnaire by post to all German statutory (n = 109) and private health insurers (n = 52). In September 2019, we contacted the nonresponders by email. The results were analyzed descriptively. They are presented overall and grouped by type of insurance (statutory/private health insurer).ResultsThirty one of One hundred sixty one health insurers (response rate 19%) agreed to participate. The participating insurers covered approximately 40% of the statutory and 34% of the private health insured people. A total of 44 SecOPs were identified with a median of 1 SecOP (interquartile range (IQR) 1-2) offered by a health insurer. SecOPs were in place mainly for orthopedic (21/28 insurers with SecOPs; 75%) and oncologic indications (20/28; 71%). Indications were chosen principally based on their potential impact on a patient (22/28; 79%). The key qualification criterion for second opinion providers was their expertise (30/44 SecOPs; 68%). Second opinions were usually provided based on submitted documents only (21/44; 48%) or on direct contact between a patient and a doctor (20/44; 45%). They were delivered after a median of 9 days (IQR 5-15). A median of 31 (IQR 7-85) insured persons per year used SecOPs. Only 12 of 44 SecOPs were confirmed to have conducted a formal evaluation process (27%) or, if not, plan such a process in the future (10/22; 45%).ConclusionHealth insurers' SecOPs focus on orthopedic and oncologic indications and are based on submitted documents or on direct patient-physician contact. The formal evaluation of SecOPs needs to be expanded and the results should be published. This can allow the evaluation of the impact of SecOPs on insured persons' health status and satisfaction, as well as on the number of interventions performed. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the low participation rate.