Hua May, Guo Ling, Ing Caleb, Wang Shuang, Morrison R Sean
Department of Anesthesiology (M.H., C.I.), College of Physicians and Surgeons, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Department of Anesthesiology (L.G.), College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2025 Jan;69(1):23-33.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.10.021. Epub 2024 Oct 22.
While specialist palliative care is associated with improved end-of-life quality metrics for patients with advanced cancer, its effectiveness may differ between hospitals.
To examine variation in palliative care program performance on end-of-life care quality metrics.
Retrospective cohort study of palliative care programs that participated in the National Palliative Care Registry, 2018-2019. Medicare data for patients age ≥65 who died with metastatic cancer were aggregated on a program-level. Variation in program performance on outcomes (use of hospice, hospice enrollment ≥3 days, use of intensive care in the last 30 days of life, and use of chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life) was quantified by risk-standardized outcome rates (RSOR) and adjusted median odds ratios (aMOR).
The cohort comprised 235 palliative care programs who delivered care to 33,015 patients. There was substantial variation in use of hospice (median RSOR 65.6%, interquartile range (IQR) 57.5%-74.3%), hospice enrollment ≥3 days (median RSOR 53.6%, IQR 48.6%-58.2%), and use of intensive care (median RSOR 14.1%, IQR 13.1%-15.3%), but not use of chemotherapy (median RSOR 1.5%, IQR 1.4%-1.5%). Variation was greatest for hospice use (aMOR 1.48 [1.39-1.57]), suggesting that patients at programs with high hospice use would be 48% more likely to use hospice than if they received care at programs with low use.
We found variation in most end-of-life quality metrics for patients with metastatic cancer. Further work is needed to better understand why variations exist and whether such variations reflect a difference in quality of care.
虽然专科姑息治疗与改善晚期癌症患者的临终生活质量指标相关,但其有效性在不同医院可能存在差异。
研究姑息治疗项目在临终护理质量指标方面的表现差异。
对2018 - 2019年参与国家姑息治疗登记处的姑息治疗项目进行回顾性队列研究。汇总了年龄≥65岁死于转移性癌症患者的医疗保险数据,并按项目级别进行分析。通过风险标准化结局率(RSOR)和调整后的中位数优势比(aMOR)对项目在结局方面的表现差异(临终关怀的使用、临终关怀登记≥3天、生命最后30天内重症监护的使用以及生命最后14天内化疗的使用)进行量化。
该队列包括235个姑息治疗项目,为33,015名患者提供了护理。临终关怀的使用(中位数RSOR 65.6%,四分位间距(IQR)57.5% - 74.3%)、临终关怀登记≥3天(中位数RSOR 53.6%,IQR 48.6% - 58.2%)以及重症监护的使用(中位数RSOR 14.1%,IQR 13.1% - 15.3%)存在显著差异,但化疗的使用(中位数RSOR 1.5%,IQR 1.4% - 1.5%)没有差异。临终关怀使用的差异最大(aMOR 1.48 [1.39 - 1.57]),这表明临终关怀使用率高的项目中的患者使用临终关怀的可能性比在使用率低的项目中接受护理的患者高48%。
我们发现转移性癌症患者的大多数临终质量指标存在差异。需要进一步开展工作,以更好地理解差异存在的原因以及这些差异是否反映了护理质量的差异。