In a patient population referred for specialist palliative care consultation with diverse diagnoses and a wide range of CES, time-based categorization of survival estimates along with PPS and possibly gender could be used to inform the CES process for individual patients. Intentionally incorporating these objective elements into what has historically been the subjective process of CES may lead to improvements in accuracy.

Performance scales are used by clinicians to objectively represent a patient's level of function and have been shown to be important predictors of response to therapy and survival. Four different scales are commonly used in the palliative care setting, two of which were specifically developed to more accurately represent this population. It remains unclear which scale is best suited for this setting. The objectives of this study were to determine the correlations among the four scales and concurrently compare interrater reliability for each. Patients were each assessed at the same point in time by three different health care professionals, and all four scales were used to rate each patient. Spearman correlation coefficient values and both weighted and unweighted kappa values were calculated to determine correlation and interrater reliability. The results confirmed highly significant linear correlation among and between all four scales. Whether using a reliability measure that incorporates the concept of "partial credit" for "near misses" or a measure reflecting exact rater agreement, no one scale emerged as having a significantly higher likelihood of agreement among raters. We propose that what may be more important than clinical experience or rater profession is the level of training an individual health care professional rater receives on the administration of any particular performance scale. In addition, given that low levels of exact rater agreement could have substantial clinical implications for patients, we suggest that this parameter be considered in the design of future comparative studies.

Although end of life (EoL) care has been identified as an area for quality improvement in hospitals, the quality of care Canadian patients receive at the end of life is not well-evidenced. National statistics indicate that Canadians would prefer to die at home, yet more than 50% die in acute care hospital settings. Busy and often highly specialised acute care units may be perceived as a distressing place of death for both patients and their families. Furthermore, many clinicians are not trained in diagnosing imminent dying, managing symptoms at the end of life or supporting dying patients and their families. As such, to improve the experience of EoL care, a corporate, institution-wide strategy entitled the Quality Dying Initiative was introduced and implemented across a tertiary care academic teaching hospital. A primary focus of this initiative was the implementation of a comprehensive Comfort Measures Strategy. This strategy involved the development of an evidence-based order set, which included elements of symptom assessment and management, patient and family education, and spiritual and emotional support. Staff education and mentoring was also a critical element of the larger Comfort Measures Strategy, as well as an evaluative component.