Background: The concept of palliative care consisting of five distinct, clinically meaningful, phases (stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal and bereavement) was developed in Australia about 20 years ago and is used routinely for communicating clinical status, care planning, quality improvement and funding. Aim: To test the reliability and acceptability of revised definitions of Palliative Care Phase. Design: Multi-centre cross-sectional study involving pairs of clinicians independently rating patients according to revised definitions of Palliative Care Phase. Setting/participants: Clinicians from 10 Australian palliative care services, including 9 inpatient units and 1 mixed inpatient/community-based service. Results: A total of 102 nursing and medical clinicians participated, undertaking 595 paired assessments of 410 patients, of which 90.7% occurred within 2 h. Clinicians rated 54.8% of patients in the stable phase, 15.8% in the unstable phase, 20.8% in the deteriorating phase and 8.7% in the terminal phase. Overall agreement between clinicians' rating of Palliative Care Phase was substantial (kappa = 0.67; 95% confidence interval = 0.61-0.70). A moderate level of inter-rater reliability was apparent across all participating sites. The results indicated that Palliative Care Phase was an acceptable measure, with no significant difficulties assigning patients to a Palliative Care Phase and a good fit between assessment of phase and the definition of that phase. The most difficult phase to distinguish from other phases was the deteriorating phase. Conclusion: Policy makers, funders and clinicians can be confident that Palliative Care Phase is a reliable and acceptable measure that can be used for care planning, quality improvement and funding purposes.

PurposeEvery health care sector including hospice/palliative care needs to systematically improve services using patient-defined outcomes. Data from the national Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration aims to define whether hospice/palliative care patients’ outcomes and the consistency of these outcomes have improved in the last 3 years.MethodsData were analysed by clinical phase (stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal). Patient-level data included the Symptom Assessment Scale and the Palliative Care Problem Severity Score. Nationally collected point-of-care data were anchored for the period July–December 2008 and subsequently compared to this baseline in six 6-month reporting cycles for all services that submitted data in every time period (n = 30) using individual longitudinal multi-level random coefficient models.ResultsData were analysed for 19,747 patients (46 % female; 85 % cancer; 27,928 episodes of care; 65,463 phases). There were significant improvements across all domains (symptom control, family care, psychological and spiritual care) except pain. Simultaneously, the interquartile ranges decreased, jointly indicating that better and more consistent patient outcomes were being achieved.ConclusionThese are the first national hospice/palliative care symptom control performance data to demonstrate improvements in clinical outcomes at a service level as a result of routine data collection and systematic feedback.

The Palliative Care Problem Severity Score is an acceptable measure, with moderate reliability across three domains. Variability in inter-rater reliability across sites and participant feedback indicate that ongoing education is required to ensure that clinicians understand the purpose of the tool and each of its domains. Raters familiar with the patient they were assessing found it easier to assign problem severity, but this did not improve inter-rater reliability.

BackgroundA range of health outcomes at a population level are related to differences in levels of social disadvantage. Understanding the impact of any such differences in palliative care is important. The aim of this study was to assess, by level of socio-economic disadvantage, referral patterns to specialist palliative care and proximity to inpatient services.MethodsAll inpatient and community palliative care services nationally were geocoded (using postcode) to one nationally standardised measure of socio-economic deprivation – Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA; 2006 census data). Referral to palliative care services and characteristics of referrals were described through data collected routinely at clinical encounters. Inpatient location was measured from each person’s home postcode, and stratified by socio-economic disadvantage.ResultsThis study covered July – December 2009 with data from 10,064 patients. People from the highest SEIFA group (least disadvantaged) were significantly less likely to be referred to a specialist palliative care service, likely to be referred closer to death and to have more episodes of inpatient care for longer time. Physical proximity of a person’s home to inpatient care showed a gradient with increasing distance by decreasing levels of socio-economic advantage.ConclusionThese data suggest that a simple relationship of low socioeconomic status and poor access to a referral-based specialty such as palliative care does not exist. Different patterns of referral and hence different patterns of care emerge.

Context In Australia, patients at the end of life with complex symptoms and needs are often referred to palliative care services (PCSs), but little is known about the symptoms of patients receiving palliative care in different settings.Objective To explore patients' levels of pain and other symptoms while receiving care from PCSs.Method PCSs registered through Australia's national Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) were invited to participate in a survey between 2008 and 2011. Patients (or if unable, a proxy) were invited to complete the Palliative Care Outcome Scale.Results Questionnaires were completed for 1800 patients. One-quarter of participants reported severe pain, 20% reported severe 'other symptoms', 20% reported severe patient anxiety, 45% reported severe family anxiety, 66% experienced depressed feelings and 19% reported severe problems with self-worth. Participants receiving care in major cities reported higher levels of depressed feelings than participants in inner regional areas. Participants receiving care in community and combined service settings reported higher levels of need for information, more concerns about wasted time, and lower levels of family anxiety and depressed feelings when compared to inpatients. Participants in community settings had lower levels of concern about practical matters than inpatients. ConclusionsPatients receiving care from Australian PCSs have physical and psychosocial concerns that are often complex and rated as 'severe'. Our findings highlight the importance of routine, comprehensive assessment of patients' concerns and the need for Specialist Palliative Care clinicians to be vigilant in addressing pain and other symptoms in a timely, systematic and holistic manner, whatever the care setting. Questionnaires were completed for 1800 patients. One quarter of participants reported severe pain, 20% reported severe "other symptoms", 20% reported severe patient anxiety, 45% reported severe family anxiety, 66% experienced depressed feelings, and 19% reported severe problems with selfworth. Participants receiving care in major cities reported higher levels of depressed feelings than participants in inner regional areas. Participants receiving care in community and combined service settings reported higher levels of need for information, more concerns about wasted time and lower levels of family anxiety and depressed feelings when compared to inpatients. Participants in community settings had lower levels of concern about practical matters than inpatients. Conclusion:Patients receiving care from Australian PCSs have physical and psychosocial concerns that are often complex and rated as "severe". Our findings highlight the importance of routine, comprehensive assessment of patients' concerns and the need for Specialist Palliative Care clinicians to be vigilant in addressing pain and other symptoms in a timely, systematic and holistic manner, whatever the care setting.