Context

Palliative care can improve the lives of people with serious illness, yet clear operational definitions of this population do not exist. Prior efforts to identify this population have not focused on Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial health plan enrollees.

Objectives

We aimed to operationalize our conceptual definition of serious illness to identify those with serious medical conditions (SMC) among commercial insurance and MA enrollees, and to compare the populations identified through electronic health record (EHR) or claims data sources.

Methods

We used de-identified claims and EHR data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (2016-2017), to identify adults age ≥18 with SMC and examine their utilization and mortality. Within the subset found in both data sources, we compared the performance of claims and EHR data.

Results

Within claims, SMC was identified among 10% of those aged ≥18 (5.4% ages 18-64, 27% age ≥65). Within EHR, SMC was identified among 9% of those aged ≥18 (5.6% ages 18-64, 21% ages ≥65). Hospital, emergency department and mortality rates were similar between the EHR and claims-based groups. Only 50% of people identified as having SMC were recognized by both data sources.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate the feasibility of identifying adults with SMC in a commercially insured population, including MA enrollees; yet separate use of EHR or claims result in populations that differ. Future research should examine methods to combine these data sources to optimize identification and support population management, quality measurement, and research to improve the care of those living with serious illness.

Context

Measuring What Matters (MWM) for palliative care has prioritized data collection efforts for evaluating quality in clinical practice. How these measures can be implemented across diverse clinical settings using point-of-care data collection on quality is unknown.

Objectives

To evaluate the implementation of MWM measures by exploring documentation of quality measure adherence across six diverse clinical settings inherent to palliative care practice.

Methods

We deployed a point-of-care quality data collection system, the Quality Data Collection Tool, across five organizations within the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group. Quality measures were recorded by clinicians or assistants near care delivery.

Results

During the study period, 1989 first visits were included for analysis. Our population was mostly white, female, and with moderate performance status. About half of consultations were seen on hospital general floors. We observed a wide range of adherence. The lowest adherence involved comprehensive assessments during the first visit in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit (2.71%); the highest adherence across all settings, with an implementation of >95%, involved documentation of management of moderate/severe pain. We observed differences in adherence across clinical settings especially with MWM Measure #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms, range 45.7%-81.8%); MWM Measure #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs, range 46.1%-96.1%); and MWM Measure #6 (Documentation of Spiritual/Religious Concerns, range 0-69.6%).

Conclusion

Variations in clinician documentation of adherence to MWM quality measures are seen across clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to better understand benchmarks and acceptable ranges for adherence tailored to various clinical settings.