Palliative Care Outcome Scale Assessment for Cancer Patients Eligible for Palliative Care: Perspectives on the Relationship between Patient-Reported Outcome and Objective Assessments
(1) Background: The importance of patient-reported outcome (PRO), i.e., prioritizing patient voice, has increased in cancer treatment, as well as palliative and supportive settings. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), a hybrid evaluation consisting of “patient evaluation” (PRO) and...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Current Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1718-7729/29/10/561 |
| Summary: | (1) Background: The importance of patient-reported outcome (PRO), i.e., prioritizing patient voice, has increased in cancer treatment, as well as palliative and supportive settings. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), a hybrid evaluation consisting of “patient evaluation” (PRO) and “peer evaluation” by medical professionals, was developed as a successor version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) in 2013 and has been utilized worldwide. The Japanese version of the IPOS (IPOS-J) was developed and released in 2019. The purpose of this study was to explore the applicability of the IPOS-J to clinical practice in the future. (2) Methods: We conducted the following two studies with terminally ill cancer patients: (i) Can an evaluation with the IPOS-J performed by medical professionals (peer evaluation) replace the STAS-J evaluation? (ii) Can the quality of palliative care improve by combining the IPOS-J patient evaluation with the peer evaluation? (3) Results: The overall intervention rate and urgent intervention rate for the STAS-J and IPOS-J was 34.4 vs. 34.1% (<i>p</i> = 0.91) and 10.4 vs. 9.9% (<i>p</i> = 0.78), respectively. The patients selected “intervention required” but the medical professionals selected “no intervention required” in 47 cases. The medical team performed appropriate intervention after re-assessment. As a result, more than 70% of the patients were “intervention-free” after 1 week of intervention. (4) Conclusions: The IPOS-J peer evaluation was as useful as the STAS-J evaluation. A hybrid type of evaluation, combining patient evaluation (PRO) and peer evaluation, may help us to understand patient needs and improve the quality of palliative care. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1198-0052 1718-7729 |