Background: In a patient-centred model of care, referral to early palliative care (EPC) depends on both the prognosis and the complexity of care needs. The PALCOM scale is a 5-domain multidimensional assessment tool developed to identify the level of complexity of palliative care needs of cancer patients. The aim of this study was to validate the PALCOM scale. Patient and methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of cancer patients to compare the PALCOM scale and expert empirical assessment (EA) of the complexity of palliative care needs. The EA had to categorise patients according to their complexity, considering that medium to high levels required priority attention from specialist EPC teams, while those with low levels could be managed by non-specialist teams. Systematically collected multidimensional variables were recorded in an electronic report form and stratified by level of complexity and rating system (PALCOM scale versus EA). The correlation rank (Kendall’s tau test) and accuracy test (F1-score) between the two rating systems were analysed. ROC curve analysis was used to determine the predictive power of the PALCOM scale. Results: A total of 283 advanced cancer patients were included. There were no significant differences in the frequency of the levels of complexity between the EA and the PALCOM scale (low 22.3–23.7%; medium 57.2–59.0%; high 20.5–17.3%). The prevalence of high symptom burden, severe pain, functional impairment, socio-familial risk, existential/spiritual problems, 6-month mortality and in-hospital death was significantly higher (p < 0.001) at the high complexity levels in both scoring systems. Comparative analysis showed a high correlation rank and accuracy between the two scoring systems (Kendall’s tau test 0.81, F1 score 0.84). The predictive ability of the PALCOM scale was confirmed by an area under the curve in the ROC analysis of 0.907 for high and 0.902 for low complexity. Conclusions: In a patient-centred care model, the identification of complexity is a key point to appropriate referral and management of shared care with EPC teams. The PALCOM scale is a high precision tool for determining the level of complexity of palliative care needs.

Introduction: Identifying the complexity of palliative care needs is a key aspect of referral to specialized multidisciplinary early palliative care (EPC) teams. The PALCOM scale is an instrument consisting of five multidimensional assessment domains developed in 2018 and validated in 2023 to identify the level of complexity in patients with advanced cancer. (1) Objectives: The main objective of this study was to determine the degree of instability (likelihood of level change or death), health resource consumption and the survival of patients according to the level of palliative complexity assigned at the baseline visit during a 6-month follow-up. (2) Method: An observational, prospective, multicenter study was conducted using pooled data from the development and validation cohort of the PALCOM scale. The main outcome variables were as follows: (a) instability ratio (IR), defined as the probability of level change or death; (b) emergency department visits; (c) days of hospitalization; (d) hospital death; (e) survival. All the variables were analyzed monthly according to the level of complexity assigned at the baseline visit. (3) Results: A total of 607 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled. According to the PALCOM scale, 20% of patients were classified as low complexity, 50% as medium and 30% as high complexity. The overall IR was 45% in the low complexity group, 68% in the medium complexity group and 78% in the high complexity group (p < 0.001). No significant differences in mean monthly emergency department visits (0.2 visits/ patient/month) were observed between the different levels of complexity. The mean number of days spent in hospital per month was 1.5 in the low complexity group, 1.8 in the medium complexity group and 3.2 in the high complexity group (p < 0.001). The likelihood of in-hospital death was significantly higher in the high complexity group (29%) compared to the medium (16%) and low (8%) complexity groups (p < 0.001). Six-month survival was significantly lower in the high complexity group (24%) compared to the medium (37%) and low (57%) complexity groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: According to the PALCOM scale, more complex cases are associated with greater instability and use of hospital resources and lower survival. The data also confirm that the PALCOM scale is a consistent and useful tool for describing complexity profiles, targeting referrals to the EPC and managing the intensity of shared care.

Introduction: The life experience of patients with advanced cancer and limited life expectancy is unique and profoundly complex, often leading to moral discrepancies among the various individuals involved in decision making. There are no data in the literature on the prevalence of ethical issues in the end-of-life care of patients with advanced cancer. Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to identify the overall and specific prevalence of ethical issues in the end-of-life care process for patients with advanced cancer. Method: We performed a secondary analysis using pooled data from the prospective development and validation cohorts of the PALCOM scale, focusing on the complexity of palliative care needs. This was performed to determine the overall and specific prevalence of ethical issues, describe their evolution over a 6-month follow-up period, and analyze their association with the level of palliative care complexity. Results: A total of 607 patients with advanced cancer and a life expectancy of 6 months or less were included. The consistency in clinical data and the frequencies of the PALCOM scale domains between the development and validation cohorts, conducted in various settings and times, confirmed the reliability of the pooled data sample. Systematic application of the PALCOM scale identified 126 patients (20.7%) who experienced at least one ethical issue. A total of 204 ethical issues (1.6 per patient) were recorded, related to the following: the proportionality of healthcare intervention (15.6%); information (13.0%); research (2.9%); the desire to hasten death (1.8%); and palliative sedation (0.15%). The monthly probability of presenting an ethical issue was significantly higher at the baseline visit (24.0%) compared to the rest of the 6-month follow-up period (14–17%) (p < 0.001). The prevalence of ethical issues was notably higher in patients with greater palliative care complexity as measured by the PALCOM scale: 4.5% in low complexity, 19.5% in medium complexity, and 30.8% in high complexity (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The prevalence of ethical issues in patients with advanced cancer is high. Most of these issues are directly or indirectly related to the preservation of patient autonomy in the decision-making process. The presence of ethical issues is significantly associated with the greater complexity of palliative care needs. In this context, it is crucial for healthcare professionals to strengthen both communication skills and basic competencies to effectively identify, assess, and manage these ethical issues.

Introduction: The life experience of patients with advanced cancer and limited life expectancy is unique and profoundly complex, often leading to moral discrepancies among the various individuals involved in decision-making. There is no data in the literature on the prevalence of ethical issues in the end-of-life care of patients with ad-vanced cancer. Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to identify the overall and specific prevalence of ethical issues in the end-of-life care process for patients with advanced cancer. Method: We conducted a secondary analysis of pooled data from the prospective development and validation cohorts of the PALCOM scale for the complexity of palliative care needs. This was done to determine the overall and specific prevalence of ethical issues, describe their evolution over a 6-month follow-up period, and their association with the level of palliative care complexity. Results: A total of 607 patients with advanced cancer and a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months were included. The absence of significant differences in clinical data and the frequencies of the PALCOM scale domains between the development and validation cohorts, conducted in different settings and times, confirmed the reliability of the pooled data sample. Systematic application of the PALCOM scale identified 126 patients (20.7%) who experienced at least one ethical issue. A total of 204 ethical issues (1.6 per patient) were recorded, related to: proportionality of healthcare intervention (15.6%); information (13.0%); research (2.9%); desire to hasten death (1.8%); palliative sedation (0.15%). The monthly probability of presenting an ethical issue was significantly higher at the baseline visit (24.0%) compared to the rest of the 6-month follow-up period (14-17%) (p< 0.001) The prevalence of ethical issues was significantly higher in patients with greater palliative care complexity according to the PALCOM scale: 4.5% in low complexity; 19.5% in medium complexity; 30.8% in high complexity (p< 0.001). Conclusions: The prevalence of ethical issues in patients with advanced cancer is high. Most of these issues are directly or indirectly related to the preservation of patient autonomy in the decision-making process. The presence of ethical issues is significantly associated with greater complexity of palliative care needs. In this context, it is crucial for healthcare professionals to strengthen both communication skills and basic competencies to effectively identify, assess, and manage these ethical issues.

Introduction: Identifying the complexity of palliative care needs is a key aspect of referral to specialised multidisciplinary early palliative care (EPC) teams. The PALCOM scale is an instrument consisting of five multidimensional assessment domains, developed in 2018 and validated in 2023, to identify the level of complexity in patients with advanced cancer. Objectives: The main objective of this study was to determine the degree of instability (likelihood of level change or death), health resource consumption and survival of patients according to the level of palliative complexity assigned at the baseline visit during a 6-month follow-up. Method: An observational, prospective, multicentre study was conducted using pooled data from the development and validation cohort of the PALCOM scale. The main outcome variables were: a) instability ratio (IR), defined as the probability of level change or death; b) emergency department visits; c) days of hospitalisation; d) hospital death; e) survival. All variables were analysed monthly according to the level of complexity assigned at the baseline visit. Results: A total of 607 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled. According to the PALCOM scale, 20% of patients were classified as low complexity, 50% as medium and 30% as high complexity. The overall IR was 45% in the low complexity group, 68% in the medium complexity group and 78% in the high complexity group (p