OBJECTIVES: To describe the trajectory of functional decline after an individual is referred to hospice. DESIGN: Electronic health record-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three hospice programs in the U.S. southeast, northeast, and midwest. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals in hospice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) scores measured at intervals between hospice enrollment and death, on a scale from 10 to 100. RESULTS: In 8,669 decedents, there was an average 13.8-point decline in PPS score. After adjusting for baseline PPS score and length of stay in hospice, three distinct trajectories were identified, each of which consisted of two diagnoses whose rates of decline had 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that overlapped. The most rapid decline was observed for individuals with cancer (adjusted decline 8.44 points/wk; 95% CI = 8.03-8.82) and stroke (adjusted decline 7.67 points/wk, 95% CI = 7.08-8.29). A significantly slower decline was observed in individuals with pulmonary disease (adjusted decline 5.02 points/wk, 95% CI = 4.24-5.75) and cardiac disease (adjusted decline 4.53 points/wk, 95% CI = 4.05-5.05). Individuals with debility (adjusted decline 1.86 points/wk, 95% CI = 0.95-2.78) and dementia (adjusted decline 1.98 points/wk, 95% CI = 1.01-2.89) had the slowest decline. In an inverse probability-weighted sample of individuals who had a PPS score recorded in the last day of life (n = 1,959, 22.6%), 35.9% had a PPS score of at least 40, indicating some oral intake, variable mental status, limited self-care, and an ability to get out of bed for at least part of the day. CONCLUSION: Although functional status generally declines in individuals in hospice, this decline is heterogeneous. Some individuals retain some physical and cognitive function until the last day of life.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the trajectory of functional decline after an individual is referred to hospice. DESIGN: Electronic health record-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three hospice programs in the U.S. southeast, northeast, and midwest. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals in hospice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) scores measured at intervals between hospice enrollment and death, on a scale from 10 to 100. RESULTS: In 8,669 decedents, there was an average 13.8-point decline in PPS score. After adjusting for baseline PPS score and length of stay in hospice, three distinct trajectories were identified, each of which consisted of two diagnoses whose rates of decline had 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that overlapped. The most rapid decline was observed for individuals with cancer (adjusted decline 8.44 points/wk; 95% CI = 8.03-8.82) and stroke (adjusted decline 7.67 points/wk, 95% CI = 7.08-8.29). A significantly slower decline was observed in individuals with pulmonary disease (adjusted decline 5.02 points/wk, 95% CI = 4.24-5.75) and cardiac disease (adjusted decline 4.53 points/wk, 95% CI = 4.05-5.05). Individuals with debility (adjusted decline 1.86 points/wk, 95% CI = 0.95-2.78) and dementia (adjusted decline 1.98 points/wk, 95% CI = 1.01-2.89) had the slowest decline. In an inverse probability-weighted sample of individuals who had a PPS score recorded in the last day of life (n = 1,959, 22.6%), 35.9% had a PPS score of at least 40, indicating some oral intake, variable mental status, limited self-care, and an ability to get out of bed for at least part of the day. CONCLUSION: Although functional status generally declines in individuals in hospice, this decline is heterogeneous. Some individuals retain some physical and cognitive function until the last day of life.
Authors: Susan L Mitchell; Susan C Miller; Joan M Teno; Dan K Kiely; Roger B Davis; Michele L Shaffer Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joan Harrold; Elizabeth Rickerson; Janet T Carroll; Jennifer McGrath; Knashawn Morales; Jennifer Kapo; David Casarett Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Hans F Stabenau; Laura J Morrison; Evelyne A Gahbauer; Linda Leo-Summers; Heather G Allore; Thomas M Gill Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Matthew Allen Davis; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Mousumi Banerjee; Julie P W Bynum Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Shayan Cheraghlou; Evelyne A Gahbauer; Linda Leo-Summers; Hans F Stabenau; Sarwat I Chaudhry; Thomas M Gill Journal: Am J Med Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Djin L Tay; Eli Iacob; Maija Reblin; Kristin G Cloyes; Miranda Jones; Megan C Thomas Hebdon; Kathleen Mooney; Anna C Beck; Lee Ellington Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Susan M Hailpern; Nancy L Keating; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Ann M O'Hare Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Roberta I Jordan; Matthew J Allsop; Yousuf ElMokhallalati; Catriona E Jackson; Helen L Edwards; Emma J Chapman; Luc Deliens; Michael I Bennett Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 8.775