Tania Maree Shelby-James

The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]

BackgroundThe Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is a gold standard scale. The Thorne-modified KPS (TKPS) focuses on community-based care and has been shown to be more relevant to palliative care settings than the original KPS. The Australia-modified KPS (AKPS) blends KPS and TKPS to accommodate any setting of care.MethodsPerformance status was measured using all three scales for palliative care patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial in South Australia. Care occurred in a range of settings. Survival was defined from enrollment to death.ResultsRatings were collected at 1600 timepoints for 306 participants. The median score on all scales was 60. KPS and AKPS agreed in 87% of ratings; 79% of disagreements occurred within 1 level on the 11-level scales. KPS and TKPS agreed in 76% of ratings; 85% of disagreements occurred within one level. AKPS and TKPS agreed in 85% of ratings; 87% of disagreements were within one level. Strongest agreement occurred at the highest levels (70–90), with greatest disagreement at lower levels (≤40). Kappa coefficients for agreement were KPS-TKPS 0.71, KPS-AKPS 0.84, and AKPS-TKPS 0.82 (all p < 0.001). Spearman correlations with survival were KPS 0.26, TKPS 0.27 and AKPS 0.26 (all p < 0.001). AKPS was most predictive of survival at the lower range of the scale. All had longitudinal test-retest validity. Face validity was greatest for the AKPS.ConclusionThe AKPS is a useful modification of the KPS that is more appropriate for clinical settings that include multiple venues of care such as palliative care.

Preference for place of care and place of death in palliative care: are these different questions?

Place of death is at times suggested as an outcome for palliative care services. This study aimed to describe longitudinal preferences for place of care and place of death over time for patients and their caregivers. Longitudinal paired data of patient/caregiver dyads from a prospective unblinded cluster randomised control trial were used. Patients and caregivers were separately asked by the palliative care nurse their preference at that time for place of care and place of death. Longitudinal changes over time for both questions were mapped; patterns of agreement (patient and caregiver; and preference for place of death when last asked and actual placed of death) were analysed with kappa statistics. Seventy-one patient/caregiver dyads were analysed. In longitudinal preferences, preferences for both the place of care (asked a mean of >6 times) and place of death (asked a mean of >4 times) changed for patients (28% and 30% respectively) and caregivers (31% and 30%, respectively). In agreement between patients and caregivers, agreement between preference of place of care and preferred place of death when asked contemporaneously for patients and caregivers was low [56% (κ 0.33) and 36% (κ 0.35) respectively]. In preference versus actual place of death, preferences were met for 37.5% of participants for home death; 62.5% for hospital; 76.9% for hospice and 63.6% for aged care facility. This study suggests that there are two conversations: preference for current place of care and preference for care at the time of death. Place of care is not a euphemism for place of death; and further research is needed to delineate these. Patient and caregiver preferences may not change simultaneously. Implications of any mismatch between actual events and preferences need to be explored.

Prescribing in palliative care as death approaches.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how prescribing for comorbid illnesses and symptom control changes during the palliative phase of a terminal illness.

Delivery Strategies to Optimize Resource Utilization and Performance Status for Patients With Advanced Life-Limiting Illness: Results From the “Palliative Care Trial” [ISRCTN 81117481]

CONTEXT Evidence-based approaches are needed to improve the delivery of specialized palliative care. OBJECTIVES The aim of this trial was to improve on current models of service provision. METHODS This 2×2×2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted at an Australian community-based palliative care service, allowing three simultaneous comparative effectiveness studies. Participating patients were newly referred adults, experiencing pain, and who were expected to live >48 hours. Patients enrolled with their general practitioners (GPs) and were randomized three times: 1) individualized interdisciplinary case conference including their GP vs. control, 2) educational outreach visiting for GPs about pain management vs. control, and 3) structured educational visiting for patients/caregivers about pain management vs. control. The control condition was current palliative care. Outcomes included Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) and pain from 60 days after randomization and hospitalizations. RESULTS There were 461 participants: mean age 71 years, 50% male, 91% with cancer, median survival 179 days, and median baseline AKPS 60. Only 47% of individuals randomized to the case conferencing intervention received it; based on a priori-defined analyses, 32% of participants were included in final analyses. Case conferencing reduced hospitalizations by 26% (least squares means hospitalizations per patient: case conference 1.26 [SE 0.10] vs. control 1.70 [SE 0.13], P=0.0069) and better maintained performance status (AKPS case conferences 57.3 [SE 1.5] vs. control 51.7 [SE 2.3], P=0.0368). Among patients with declining function (AKPS <70), case conferencing and patient/caregiver education better maintained performance status (AKPS case conferences 55.0 [SE 2.1] vs. control 46.5 [SE 2.9], P=0.0143; patient/caregiver education 54.7 [SE 2.8] vs. control 46.8 [SE 2.1], P=0.0206). Pain was unchanged. GP education did not change outcomes. CONCLUSION A single case conference added to current specialized community-based palliative care reduced hospitalizations and better maintained performance status. Comparatively, patient/caregiver education was less effective; GP education was not effective.

Aggregating single patient (n-of-1) trials in populations where recruitment and retention was difficult: the case of palliative care.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating new interventions. Different RCT designs apply depending on the patient population, clinical setting, and intervention being evaluated. A design that may help to generate evidence in some clinical areas where recruitment is a challenge is aggregated n-of-1 trials. N-of-1 trials are randomized, double-blind, and multiple crossover comparisons of an intervention and a control treatment. Methodologically robust n-of-1 trials provide an objective means of testing the effectiveness of treatments within individual participants. Aggregation of multiple cycle identically conducted n-of-1 trials yield a population estimate of effect, which potentially commensurate with that derived from other RCT designs. Trial participants contribute data for both intervention and control treatments creating matched data sets while using generally smaller sample sizes than conventional RCT trials. Careful choice of symptoms and medications are required for n-of-1 trials to be feasible. A validated and reliable outcome measure sensitive to change is still required. This article reviews the utility and limitations of aggregated n-of-1 trials to gather evidence in populations where conducting formal RCTs is difficult because of the low prevalence of the underlying condition or the clinical condition making recruitment and retention difficult. The article examines a proposed palliative care trial as a test case.

Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too

BackgroundThe use of handheld computers in medicine has increased in the last decade, they are now used in a variety of clinical settings. There is an underlying assumption that electronic data capture is more accurate that paper-based data methods have been rarely tested. This report documents a study to compare the accuracy of hand held computer data capture versus more traditional paper-based methods.MethodsClinical nurses involved in a randomised controlled trial collected patient information on a hand held computer in parallel with a paper-based data form. Both sets of data were entered into an access database and the hand held computer data compared to the paper-based data for discrepancies.ResultsError rates from the handheld computers were 67.5 error per 1000 fields, compared to the accepted error rate of 10 per 10,000 field for paper-based double data entry. Error rates were highest in field containing a default value.ConclusionWhile popular with staff, unacceptable high error rates occurred with hand held computers. Training and ongoing monitoring are needed if hand held computers are to be used for clinical data collection.

Designing and conducting randomized controlled trials in palliative care: A summary of discussions from the 2010 clinical research forum of the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative

Rigorous clinical research in palliative care is challenging but achievable. Trial participants are likely to have deteriorating performance status, co-morbidities and progressive disease. It is difficult to recruit patients, and attrition unrelated to the intervention being trialled is high. The aim of this paper is to highlight practical considerations from a forum held to discuss these issues by active palliative care clinical researchers. To date, the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) has randomized more than 500 participants across 12 sites in 8 Phase III studies. Insights from the 2010 clinical research forum of the PaCCSC are reported. All active Australian researchers in palliative care were invited to present their current research and address three specific questions: (1) What has worked well? (2) What didn’t work well? and (3) How should the research be done differently next time? Fourteen studies were presented, including six double-blind, randomized, controlled, multi-site trials run by the PaCCSC. Key recommendations are reported, including guidance on design; methodologies; and strategies for maximizing recruitment and retention. These recommendations will help to inform future trial design and conduct in palliative care.

Planning phase III multi-site clinical trials in palliative care: the role of consecutive cohort audits to identify potential participant populations

Goals of workMultiple sites enable more successful completion of adequately powered phase III studies in palliative care. Audits of the frequency and distribution of the symptoms of interest can better inform research planning by determining realistic recruitment goals for each site. The proposed studies are to improve the evidence-base for registration and subsidy applications for frequently encountered symptoms where current pharmacological interventions are being used ‘off-licence’.MethodsSix services participated in a standardised, retrospective, consecutive cohort audit of five symptoms of their inpatient populations to inform the design of double blind randomised controlled phase III studies to which each site would recruit simultaneously. The audit covered all deaths in a 3-month period for people who were referred to a specialist palliative care service who had at least one inpatient admission between referral and death, regardless of when the person was referred to the service. The audits were based around inclusion and exclusion criteria for the proposed studies.Main resultsOf the 468 people whose medical records were reviewed, potential study participant rates varied by symptom having accounted for general and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria: pain 17.7%; delirium 5.8%; anorexia 5.1%; bowel obstruction 2.8% and cholestatic itch 0%. For those people with a symptom of interest, it was noted at the beginning of the inpatient admission more than half the time. Of all inpatients, fewer than one third would be eligible to participate in at least one study.ConclusionsThese data provide a baseline estimate of potential people to approach about clinical trials in supportive care but do not account for clinician ‘gate-keeping’, lack of interest in participating nor withdrawal from the study once initiated. The data are retrospective and therefore, limited by clinical documentation. The audit directly informed an increase in the number of participating sites.

Integration, Coordination and Multidisciplinary Care: What can These Approaches Offer to Australian Primary Health Care?

Australias population is ageing and the consequential burden of chronic disease increasingly challenges the health system. This has raised interest in, and awareness of, approaches built on multidisciplinary teams and integrated and coordinated care in managing the complex care needs of patient groups such as the chronically ill or frail aged. A systematic investigation of the literature relating to these approaches provided the opportunity to explore the meaning of these terms and their potential application and relevance to the Australian primary health care setting. Five systematic reviews of a sentinel condition and an exemplar approach to coordinated and multidisciplinary care were completed. Common learnings from the individual reviews were identified. The literature suggests that approaches encouraging a coordinated and multidisciplinary plan of care for individual patients and/or particular populations may improve a variety of outcomes. There are many methodological considerations in conducting reviews of complex interventions and in assessing their applicability to the Australian health system.

The impact of conducting a regional palliative care clinical study.

End-of-life care must be informed by methodologically rigorous, high-quality research, but well-documented barriers make the conduct of palliative care clinical trials difficult. With careful consideration to study design and procedures, these barriers are surmountable. This paper discusses the approach used in a large scale, randomised, controlled trial of service-based interventions in a regional palliative care service in South Australia, and the impact of this trial on palliative care research more broadly, the changes to the service in which it was conducted, and on health policy beyond palliative care. The Palliative Care Trial evaluated three interventions in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomised design: case conferences, general practitioner education, and patient education. Main outcomes were performance status, pain intensity, and resource utilisation. A total of 461 patients were enrolled in the study. Pre-study planning and piloting is crucial, and accurately estimated withdrawal and death rates in the study. Other study design elements that facilitated this research included assessment of three interventions at one time, a dedicated recruitment role, a single clinical triage point, embedding data collection into routine clinical assessments, and meaningful outcome measures. Recruitment and retention of participants is possible if barriers are systematically identified and addressed. This study challenged and developed the research culture within our clinical team and subsequently translated into further research.