Reine De Bock1, Nele Van Den Noortgate2, Ruth Piers2. 1. 1 Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Ghent University , Ghent, Belgium . 2. 2 Department of Geriatrics, Ghent University Hospital , Ghent, Belgium .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Timely identification of patients in need of palliative care is especially challenging in a geriatric population because of prognostic uncertainty. The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™) aims at facilitating this identification, yet has not been validated in a geriatric population. OBJECTIVE: This study validates the SPICT in a geriatric patient population admitted to the hospital. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Subject were patients admitted to the acute geriatric ward of a Belgian university hospital between January 1 and June 30, 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Data including demographics, functional status, comorbidities, treatment limitation decision (TLD), and one-year mortality were collected. SPICT was measured retrospectively by an independent assessor. RESULTS: Out of 435 included patients, 54.7% had a positive SPICT, using a cut-off value of 2 for the general indicators and a cut-off value of 1 for the clinical questions. SPICT-positive patients were older (p = 0.033), more frequently male (p = 0.028), and had more comorbidities (p = 0.015) than SPICT-negative patients. The overall one-year mortality was 32.2%, 48.7% in SPICT-positive patients, and 11.5% in SPICT-negative patients (p < 0.001). SPICT predicted one-year mortality with a sensitivity of 0.841 and a specificity of 0.579. The area under the curve of the general indicators (0.758) and the clinical indicators of SPICT (0.748) did not differ (p = 0.638). In 71.4% of SPICT-positive cases, a TLD was present versus 26.9% in SPICT-negative cases (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SPICT seems to be valuable for identifying geriatric patients in need of palliative care as it demonstrates significant association with one-year mortality and with clinical survival predictions of experienced geriatricians, as reflected by TLDs given.
BACKGROUND: Timely identification of patients in need of palliative care is especially challenging in a geriatric population because of prognostic uncertainty. The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™) aims at facilitating this identification, yet has not been validated in a geriatric population. OBJECTIVE: This study validates the SPICT in a geriatric patient population admitted to the hospital. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Subject were patients admitted to the acute geriatric ward of a Belgian university hospital between January 1 and June 30, 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Data including demographics, functional status, comorbidities, treatment limitation decision (TLD), and one-year mortality were collected. SPICT was measured retrospectively by an independent assessor. RESULTS: Out of 435 included patients, 54.7% had a positive SPICT, using a cut-off value of 2 for the general indicators and a cut-off value of 1 for the clinical questions. SPICT-positive patients were older (p = 0.033), more frequently male (p = 0.028), and had more comorbidities (p = 0.015) than SPICT-negative patients. The overall one-year mortality was 32.2%, 48.7% in SPICT-positive patients, and 11.5% in SPICT-negative patients (p < 0.001). SPICT predicted one-year mortality with a sensitivity of 0.841 and a specificity of 0.579. The area under the curve of the general indicators (0.758) and the clinical indicators of SPICT (0.748) did not differ (p = 0.638). In 71.4% of SPICT-positive cases, a TLD was present versus 26.9% in SPICT-negative cases (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SPICT seems to be valuable for identifying geriatric patients in need of palliative care as it demonstrates significant association with one-year mortality and with clinical survival predictions of experienced geriatricians, as reflected by TLDs given.
Authors: Xing J Lee; Alison Farrington; Hannah Carter; Carla Shield; Nicholas Graves; Steven M McPhail; Gillian Harvey; Ben P White; Lindy Willmott; Magnolia Cardona; Ken Hillman; Leonie Callaway; Adrian G Barnett Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Matthijs P S van Wijmen; Bart P M Schweitzer; H R Pasman; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Katharina van Baal; Birgitt Wiese; Gabriele Müller-Mundt; Stephanie Stiel; Nils Schneider; Kambiz Afshar Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-04-20