Comparing Quality Indicator Rates for Home Care Clients Receiving Palliative and End-of-Life Care Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Background. The consensus among Canadians with regards to end-of-life preferences is that with adequate support the majority prefer to live and die at home. Purpose. To compare quality indicator (QI) rates for home care clients receiving palliative and end-of-life care prior to and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A retrospective population-based cohort design was used. Sixteen QIs informed by existing literature and a preliminary set of QIs recently evaluated by a modified Delphi panel were compared. Data were obtained from the over 280-item interRAI PC instrument for Ontario home care clients for two separate cohorts: the pre-COVID (January 14th, 2019 to March 16th, 2020) and COVID cohort (March 17th, 2020 to May 18th, 2021). A propensity score analysis was used to match on 21 covariates, resulting in a sample size of 2479 unique interRAI PC assessments per cohort. Alternative propensity score methods were explored as part of a sensitivity analysis. Results. After matching the pre-COVID and COVID cohorts (using nearest neighbour matching), five of the 16 QIs had statistically-significant differences in the QI rates. The two alternative propensity score methods produced slightly different results with fewer statistically-significant differences between the cohorts. However, in examining the effect sizes, the results of all propensity score methods were found to be not clinically meaningful. High rates of the prevalence of shortness of breath with activity, no advance directives, and fatigue were observed in both cohorts and across all three propensity score methods. Discussion. This study is the first to examine differences in QI rates for home care clients receiving palliative and end-of-life care before and during COVID in Ontario. Key limitations in interpreting the results include a limited understanding of the typical variation in QI rates over time and reliance on the comparison of a single proportion (the QI) in judging potential differences in quality. Importantly, a strength of this study was that these QIs focused on outcomes of care and were mainly symptom-focused as aspects of high-quality care valued by home care clients and families and in contrast to previous studies focusing on structure and processes of care. These QIs also indicated how frequently quality concerns may be occurring for those receiving palliative and end-of-life home care. Conclusion. It appears that QI rates did not change over the course of the pandemic in this population. Future work should be directed to understanding the temporal variation in these QI rates, risk-adjusting the QI rates for further comparison among jurisdictions, provinces, and countries and in creating benchmarks to project acceptable rates of different QIs.