ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Comparing quality indicator rates for home care clients receiving palliative and end-of-life care before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe consensus among Canadians with regards to end-of-life preferences is that with adequate support the majority prefer to live and die at home. PURPOSE: To compare quality indicator (QI) rates for home care clients receiving palliative and end-of-life care prior to and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsA retrospective population-based cohort design was used. Sixteen QIs informed by existing literature and a preliminary set of QIs recently evaluated by a modified Delphi panel were compared. Data were obtained from the interRAI Palliative Care instrument for Ontario home care clients for two separate cohorts: the pre-COVID (January 14, 2019 to March 16, 2020) and COVID cohort (March 17, 2020 to May 18, 2021). A propensity score analysis was used to match (using nearest neighbour matching) on 21 covariates, resulting in a sample size of 2479 unique interRAI Palliative Care assessments in each cohort. Alternative propensity score methods were explored as part of a sensitivity analysis.
resultsAfter matching the pre-COVID and COVID cohorts, five of the 16 QIs had statistically significant differences in the QI rates (change from pre-COVID to COVID): decrease in prevalence of severe or excruciating daily pain (p = 0.03, effect size=-0.08), decrease in prevalence of caregiver distress (p = 0.02, effect size=-0.06), decrease in prevalence of negative mood (p = 0.003, effect size=- 0.17), decrease in prevalence of a delirium-like syndrome (p = 0.001, effect size=-0.25) and decrease in prevalence of nausea or vomiting (p = 0.04, effect size=-0.06). While the alternative propensity score methods produced slightly different results, no clinically meaningful differences were seen between the cohorts when effect sizes were examined. All methods were in agreement regarding the highest QI rates, which included the prevalence of shortness of breath with activity, no advance directives, and fatigue.
conclusionThis study is the first to examine differences in QI rates for home care clients receiving palliative and end-of-life care before and during COVID in Ontario. It appears that QI rates did not change over the course of the pandemic in this population. Future work should be directed to understanding the temporal variation in these QI rates, risk-adjusting the QI rates for further comparison among jurisdictions, provinces, and countries, and in creating benchmarks for determining acceptable rates of different QIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.