scholarly journals Predictors of the final place of care of patients with advanced cancer receiving integrated home-based palliative care: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ri Yin Tay ◽  
Rozenne W. K. Choo ◽  
Wah Ying Ong ◽  
Allyn Y. M. Hum

Abstract Background Meeting patients’ preferences for place of care at the end-of-life is an indicator of quality palliative care. Understanding the key elements required for terminal care within an integrated model may inform policy and practice, and consequently increase the likelihood of meeting patients’ preferences. Hence, this study aimed to identify factors associated with the final place of care in patients with advanced cancer receiving integrated, home-based palliative care. Methods This retrospective cohort study included deceased adult patients with advanced cancer who were enrolled in the home-based palliative care service between January 2016 and December 2018. Patients with < 2 weeks’ enrollment in the home-based service, or ≤ 1-week duration at the final place of care, were excluded. The following information were retrieved from patients’ electronic medical records: patients’ and their families’ characteristics, care preferences, healthcare utilization, functional status (measured by the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2)), and symptom severity (measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System). Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify independent predictors of the final place of care. Kappa value was calculated to estimate the concordance between actual and preferred place of death. Results A total of 359 patients were included in the study. Home was the most common (58.2%) final place of care, followed by inpatient hospice (23.7%), and hospital (16.7%). Patients who were single or divorced (OR: 5.5; 95% CI: 1.1–27.8), or had older family caregivers (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.1–8.8), PPSv2 score ≥ 40% (OR: 9.1; 95% CI: 3.3–24.8), pain score ≥ 2 (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 1.3–9.8), and non-home death preference (OR: 23.8; 95% CI: 5.4–105.1), were more likely to receive terminal care in the inpatient hospice. Patients who were male (OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.0–9.9), or had PPSv2 score ≥ 40% (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 2.9–26.0), pain score ≥ 2 (OR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.2–10.3), and non-home death preference (OR: 9.8; 95% CI: 2.1–46.3), were more likely to be hospitalized. Goal-concordance was fair (72.6%, kappa = 0.39). Conclusions Higher functional status, greater pain intensity, and non-home death preference predicted institutionalization as the final place of care. Additionally, single or divorced patients with older family caregivers were more likely to receive terminal care in the inpatient hospice, while males were more likely to be hospitalized. Despite being part of an integrated care model, goal-concordance was sub-optimal. More comprehensive community networks and resources, enhanced pain control, and personalized care planning discussions, are recommended to better meet patients’ preferences for their final place of care. Future research could similarly examine factors associated with the final place of care in patients with advanced non-cancer conditions.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
RiYin Tay ◽  
Rozenne WK Choo ◽  
WahYing Ong ◽  
Allyn YM Hum

Abstract Background Meeting patients' preferences for place of care at the end-of-life is an indicator of quality palliative care. Understanding the elements required for terminal care within an integrated model may inform policy and practice to increase the likelihood of meeting preferences. Hence, this study aims to identify factors associated with the final place of care of advanced cancer patients receiving integrated home-based palliative care.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included deceased adult advanced cancer patients enrolled into the home-based service from January 2016-December 2018. Patients with <2 weeks enrolment or ≤1-week duration at the final place of care were excluded. Independent variables included patients’ and families’ characteristics, care preferences, healthcare utilization, functional status and symptom severity assessed using the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System respectively. The dependent variable was the final place of care. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent determinants and Kappa value evaluated goal-concordance.ResultsOf the 359 eligible patients, home was the most common final place of care (58.2%), followed by inpatient hospice (23.7%) and hospital (16.7%). Single or divorced patients with older family caregivers had a 5.5 (95% CI:1.1-27.8) and 3.1 (95% CI:1.1-8.8) odds respectively of receiving terminal care in inpatient hospice. A PPSv2≥40% and pain score ≥2 increased the odds by 9.1 (95% CI:3.3-24.8) and 3.6 (95% CI:1.3-9.8) times respectively, while non-home death preference increased it by 23.8 (95% CI:5.4-105.1) times. In predicting hospitalization, males had a 3.2 (95% CI:1.0-9.9) odds while a PPSv2≥40% and pain score ≥2 increased the odds by 8.6 (95% CI:2.9-26.0) and 3.5 (95% CI:1.2-10.3) times respectively. Non-home death preference increased it by 9.8 (95% CI:2.1-46.3) times, all p<0.05. Goal-concordance was fair (72.6%, kappa=0.39).ConclusionsHigher functional status, greater pain intensity and non-home death preference predicted institutionalization as the final place of care. Additionally, single or divorced patients with older family caregivers were more likely to receive terminal care in inpatient hospice while males were more likely to be hospitalized. Despite an integrated care model, goal-concordance was suboptimal. More comprehensive community networks and resources, better pain control and personalized care planning discussions are recommended. Future research could examine factors in non-cancer patients.


2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Gagnon ◽  
Cécile Charbonneau ◽  
Pierre Allard ◽  
Colette Soulard ◽  
Serge Dumont ◽  
...  

Delirium, a global brain dysfunction, develops frequently in advanced cancer. It is a leading source of distress for family caregivers. Following recommendations from palliative care professionals and caregivers for terminally ill cancer patients, a psychoeducational intervention was implemented in a palliative care hospice to help family caregivers cope with delirium and, eventually, to contribute to early detection. Prior to receiving information on delirium, the majority of the family caregivers did not know what it was or that it could be treated. Few knew that patients in terminal care could become delirious. For caregivers, receiving the intervention increased their confidence they were making good decisions, and the majority felt that all family caregivers should be informed on the risk of delirium (p<0.009). A specific intervention on delirium, tailored to the needs of the family caregivers, seems beneficial for caregivers and for patients.


2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 620-627
Author(s):  
Daniela D’Angelo ◽  
Marco Di Nitto ◽  
Diana Giannarelli ◽  
Ileana Croci ◽  
Roberto Latina ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Julia Fee Voon Ho ◽  
Nur Syafiqah Marzuki ◽  
Nur Syuhadah Monica Meseng ◽  
Viknaswary Kaneisan ◽  
Yin Khek Lum ◽  
...  

Objectives: Achievement of patients’ preferred place of death is recognized as a component of a good death. This study aimed to investigate the symptom burden in advanced cancer patients, achievement of their place of death preferences and factors associated with home death. Methods: In this retrospective review of 287 patient deaths, we examined patients’ symptom prevalence, preferred and actual place of death and achievement of their place of death preferences using descriptive statistics. Associations between patient factors, home death preference and actual home death were further analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. Results: The most prevalent symptoms were weakness, pain and poor appetite, with a mean of 5.77(SD: 2.37) symptoms per patient. The median interval from palliative care referral to death was 21 (IQR: 74) days. Of the 253 patients with documented place of death preference, 132 (52.1%) preferred home death, 111(43.9%) preferred hospital death, 1 (0.4%) preferred to die at a temple and 9(3.6%) expressed no preference. Overall, 221 of 241(91.7%) patients with known actual place of death achieved their preference. Older patients were more likely to prefer home death (OR 1.021; 95% CI 1.004-1.039, p = 0.018) and die at home (OR 1.023; 95% CI 1.005-1.041, p = 0.014). Gender, marital status, cancer diagnosis and symptoms were not associated with preference for or actual home death. Conclusion: Despite a high symptom burden, most patients preferred and achieved a home death. Late palliative care referral and difficult symptom management contributed to failure to fulfill home death preference. Preference for home death should be considered when managing terminally ill geriatric patients.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Carolina Záu Serpa de Araujo ◽  
Laís Záu Serpa de Araújo ◽  
Antonio Paulo Nassar Junior

Abstract Objective To describe the 5-year practice on palliative sedation in a specialized palliative care unit in a deprived region in Brazil, and to compare survival of patients with advanced cancer who were and were not sedated during their end-of-life care. Method Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital. We described the practice of palliative sedation and compared the survival time between patients who were and were not sedated in their last days of life. Results We included 906 patients who were admitted to the palliative care unit during the study period, of whom, 92 (10.2%) received palliative sedation. Patients who were sedated were younger, presented with higher rates of delirium, and reported more pain, suffering, and dyspnea than those who were not sedated. Median hospital survival of patients who received palliative sedation was 9.30 (CI 95%, 7.51–11.81) days and of patients who were not sedated was 8.2 (CI 95%, 7.3–9.0) days (P = 0.31). Adjusted for age and sex, palliative sedation was not significantly associated with hospital survival (hazard ratio = 0.93; CI 95%, 0.74–1.15). Significance of results Palliative sedation can be accomplished even in a deprived area. Delirium, dyspnea, and pain were more common in patients who were sedated. Median survival was not reduced in patients who were sedated.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-33
Author(s):  
Mudathira Kadu ◽  
Luke Mondor ◽  
Amy Hsu ◽  
Colleen Webber ◽  
Michelle Howard ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document