3 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2016 Mar 24, Melissa Garrido commented:

      Thank you for the feedback on the paper. I wanted to respond to the comment about exclusion of post-discharge survival time from the propensity score model.Covariates chosen for inclusion in a propensity score should be those thought to influence both the treatment (here, palliative care consultation) and outcome (hospitalization costs). Because post-discharge survival occurs after both receipt of palliative care and after the period in which the outcome was measured (and thus could not be on any potential causal pathway between palliative care receipt and hospitalization costs), it was not considered as a potential covariate.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    2. On 2016 Mar 22, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

      The Cicely Saunders Institute journal club discussed this paper on Wednesday 2nd March 2016. We agreed that this is an important study that adds to the growing body of evidence on the cost saving effects of palliative care, which has the potential to influence policy and commissioners.

      We enjoyed discussing the prospective cohort design of the study and the use of propensity score matching to address problems of selection bias. We commended the large number of variables that were included in the propensity matching; however we also questioned the impact of omitting some important potential confounders, such as post-discharge survival time. We noted that those with a diagnosis of dementia were excluded from the study. Whilst we acknowledged there may be practical reasons for this, such patients may have higher numbers of comorbidities, higher associated costs and possibly be more likely to benefit from palliative care. We agreed that enabling participation of those who lack capacity by gaining assent via a consultee and obtaining proxy responses would strengthen future studies of this design.

      The study examines the impact of palliative care consultation on hospital costs only without assessing its concurrent impact on patients and carer outcomes, which limits the impact and relevance of the findings. Authors acknowledge this limitation and state that further analyses will assess the effect of palliative care on patient and carer outcomes. We look forward to seeing these findings presented in future publications to strengthen the evidence regarding hospital palliative care consultations.

      Commentary by Nilay Hepgul and Anna Bone


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2016 Mar 22, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

      The Cicely Saunders Institute journal club discussed this paper on Wednesday 2nd March 2016. We agreed that this is an important study that adds to the growing body of evidence on the cost saving effects of palliative care, which has the potential to influence policy and commissioners.

      We enjoyed discussing the prospective cohort design of the study and the use of propensity score matching to address problems of selection bias. We commended the large number of variables that were included in the propensity matching; however we also questioned the impact of omitting some important potential confounders, such as post-discharge survival time. We noted that those with a diagnosis of dementia were excluded from the study. Whilst we acknowledged there may be practical reasons for this, such patients may have higher numbers of comorbidities, higher associated costs and possibly be more likely to benefit from palliative care. We agreed that enabling participation of those who lack capacity by gaining assent via a consultee and obtaining proxy responses would strengthen future studies of this design.

      The study examines the impact of palliative care consultation on hospital costs only without assessing its concurrent impact on patients and carer outcomes, which limits the impact and relevance of the findings. Authors acknowledge this limitation and state that further analyses will assess the effect of palliative care on patient and carer outcomes. We look forward to seeing these findings presented in future publications to strengthen the evidence regarding hospital palliative care consultations.

      Commentary by Nilay Hepgul and Anna Bone


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.