An Australian casemix classification for palliative care: lessons and policy implications of a national study

Abstract

Objectives: To provide a nontechnical discussion of the development of a palliative care casemix classification and some policy implications of its implementation. Sample: 3866 palliative care patients who, in a three month period, had 4596 episodes of care provided by 58 palliative care services in Australia and New Zealand. Method: A detailed clinical and service utilization profile was collected on each patient with staff time and other resources measured on a daily basis. A statistical summary of the clinical variables was compiled as the first stage of the analysis. Results: Palliative care phase was found to be a good predictor of resource use, with patients fairly evenly distributed across the five categories. Clients treated in an inpatient setting had poorer function and higher symptom severity scores than those treated in an ambulatory setting, a result that is not surprising in this Australian setting. Discussion: Implementation of the resultant AN-SNAP classification has been proceeding since 1998 in some Australian jurisdictions. The development and implementation of a classification such as AN-SNAP provides the possibility of having a consistent approach to collecting palliative care data in Australia as well as a growing body of experience on how to progressively improve the classification over time.

Keywords

ambulatory care case mix casemix classi”cation palliative care stage of illness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Eagar K , Gordon R , Hodkinson A , et al. The Australian National Sub-Acute and Non-Acute Patient (AN-SNAP) Casemix Classi” cation: report of the National Sub-Acute and Non-Acute Casemix Classi” cation Study. Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong, 1997, http://www.uow.edu.au/commerce/chsd/Publications/snapstudy1997.pdf

Eagar K . The Australian National Sub-Acute and Non-Acute Patient (AN-SNAP) Casemix Classi” cation. Aust Health Rev 1999; 22: 180-195.

Lee L , Eagar K , Smith M . Sub-acute and non-acute casemix in Australia. Med J Aust 169: s22-s25.

Eagar K , Green J , Gordon R . An Australian casemix classi” cation for palliative care: technical development and results. Palliat Med 2004; 18: 217-226.

Smith M , Firns P . Palliative Care Casemix Classi” cation / testing a model in a variety of palliative care settingspreliminary results. Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Casemix Conference, 1994, Aug 29-31; Hobart, Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.

Lee L , Goor E , Kennedy C , Walters S , Kirby L . Non-acute casemix in the Illawarra. J Qual Clin Pract 1994; 14: 23-30.

Hindle D . The Victorian Palliative Care Casemix Project: statistical analysis and funding recommendations. Wollongong: Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong, 1995.

Eagar K , Cromwell D , Kennedy C , Lee L . Classifying sub-acute and non-acute patients: results of the NSW Casemix Area Network Study. Aust Health Rev 1997; 20: 56-74.

Eagar K , Innes K . Standard de” nitions and source data for hospitals in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Service, 1992.

10.

Eagar K , Innes K . Principal diagnosis and episodes of care: turning the corner in patient information. Aust Med Rec J 1993; 23: 47-49.

11.

Smith M . Palliative Care Casemix Classi” cation First Draft. In Notes from the Palliative Care Workshop, Australian Association for Hospice and Palliative Care, 1993.

12.

Smith M , Firns P . Palliative Care Casemix Classi” cation / testing a model in a variety of palliative care settingspreliminary results. In Conference Proceedings from the 6th National Casemix Conference. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.

13.

Hindle D . The Victorian Palliative Care Casemix Project: statistical analysis and funding recommendations. Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong, 1995.

14.

Eagar K , Cromwell D , Kennedy C , Lee L . Classifying sub-acute and non-acute patients: results of the NSW Casemix Area Network Study. Aust Health Rev 1997; 20: 56-74.

15.

Smith M . Palliative care casemix-stage 2 development: a national classi” cation for any site of care. In Proceedings of the 8th National Casemix Conference. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1996.

16.

Toscani F . Classi” cation and staging of terminal cancer patients: rationale and objectives of a multicentre cohort prospective study and methods used. The Italian Co-operative Research Group on Palliative Medicine. Support Care Cancer 1996; 4: 56-60.

17.

Cassel C , Vladeck B . ICD-9 Code for Palliative or Terminal Care. N Engl J Med 1996; 335.

18.

Fries BE , Scheider DP , Foley WJ , Gavazzi M , Burke R , Cornelius E . Re” ning a case-mix measure for nursing homes: Resource Utilisation Groups (RUG-III). Med Care 1994; 23: 668-685.