Literature DB >> 20871496

A retrospective analysis of preferred and actual place of death for hospice patients.

Laura Holdsworth1, Simon Fisher.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore recording rates of preferences, and the preferred and actual place of death among hospice patients. Data was collected retrospectively from a group of three hospices over a 6-month period. Of 298 patients, 174 patients (58.4%) had no expressed preference for place of death. The congruence of preferred and actual place of death was: home 52.5%; hospice 86.2%; hospital 100%; and care home 50%. The overall congruence was 61.7% and kappa value was 0.38 (0.23-0.52, 95% confidence interval). The low rate of expressed preferences suggests that congruence of preferred and actual place of death was a suitable outcome measurement for less than half of hospice patients. A wider range of patient-focused indicators for identifying the quality of end-of life services is needed as preferred place of death may not be the only suitable indicator for all patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20871496     DOI: 10.12968/ijpn.2010.16.9.78634

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Palliat Nurs        ISSN: 1357-6321


  11 in total

1.  Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review.

Authors:  Barbara Gomes; Natalia Calanzani; Marjolein Gysels; Sue Hall; Irene J Higginson
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 3.234

2.  The impact of advance care planning of place of death, a hospice retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Julian Abel; Andy Pring; Alison Rich; Tariq Malik; Julia Verne
Journal:  BMJ Support Palliat Care       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 3.568

3.  Actual and preferred place of death of home-dwelling patients in four European countries: making sense of quality indicators.

Authors:  Maaike L De Roo; Guido Miccinesi; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Nele Van Den Noortgate; Lieve Van den Block; Andrea Bonacchi; Gé A Donker; Jose E Lozano Alonso; Sarah Moreels; Luc Deliens; Anneke L Francke
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The Hospice Information System and its association with the congruence between the preferred and actual place of death.

Authors:  Huang-Ren Lin; Jen-Hung Wang; Jyh-Gang Hsieh; Ying-Wei Wang; Sheng-Lun Kao
Journal:  Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2017 Oct-Dec

5.  Archaeology and contemporary death: Using the past to provoke, challenge and engage.

Authors:  Karina Croucher; Lindsey Büster; Jennifer Dayes; Laura Green; Justine Raynsford; Louise Comerford Boyes; Christina Faull
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Do Patients Want to Die at Home? A Systematic Review of the UK Literature, Focused on Missing Preferences for Place of Death.

Authors:  Sarah Hoare; Zoë Slote Morris; Michael P Kelly; Isla Kuhn; Stephen Barclay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Factors influencing communication and decision-making about life-sustaining technology during serious illness: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Jennifer Kryworuchko; P H Strachan; E Nouvet; J Downar; J J You
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Testing an unconventional mortality information source in the canton of Geneva Switzerland.

Authors:  Emmanuel Kabengele Mpinga; Véronique Delley; Emilien Jeannot; Joachim Cohen; Philippe Chastonay; Donna M Wilson
Journal:  Glob J Health Sci       Date:  2013-09-26

9.  A poststructural rethinking of the ethics of technology in relation to the provision of palliative home care by district nurses.

Authors:  Maurice Nagington; Catherine Walshe; Karen A Luker
Journal:  Nurs Philos       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 1.279

10.  Preferred and actual place of death in haematological malignancy.

Authors:  D A Howell; H I Wang; E Roman; A G Smith; R Patmore; M J Johnson; A Garry; M Howard
Journal:  BMJ Support Palliat Care       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 3.568

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.