Deborah P Waldrop1, Mary Ann Meeker2, Jean S Kutner3. 1. University at Buffalo School of Social Work, Buffalo, New York, USA. Electronic address: dwaldrop@buffalo.edu. 2. University at Buffalo School of Nursing, Buffalo, New York, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Hospice enrollment for less than one month has been considered too late by some caregivers and at the right time for others. Perceptions of the appropriate time for hospice enrollment in cancer are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to identify contributing factors of hospice utilization in cancer for ≤7 days, to describe and compare caregivers' perceptions of this as "too late" or at the "right time." METHODS: Semistructured, in-depth, in-person interviews were conducted with a sample subgroup of 45 bereaved caregivers of people who died from cancer within seven days of hospice enrollment. Interviews were transcribed and entered into Atlas.ti for coding. Data were grouped by participants' perceptions of the enrollment as "right time" or "too late." RESULTS: Overall, the mean length of enrollment was MLOE = 3.77 (SD = 1.8) days and ranged from three hours to seven days. The "right time" group (N = 25 [56%]) had a MLOE = 4.28 (SD = 1.7) days. The "too late" group (N = 20 [44%]) had a MLOE = 3.06 (SD = 1.03) days. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.029). Precipitating factors included: late-stage diagnosis, continuing treatment, avoidance, inadequate preparation, and systems barriers. The "right time" experience was characterized by: perceived comfort, family needs were met, preparedness for death. The "too late" experience was characterized by perceived suffering, unprepared for death, and death was abrupt. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that one more day of hospice care may increase perceived comfort, symptom management, and decreased suffering and signal the need for rapid response protocols.
CONTEXT: Hospice enrollment for less than one month has been considered too late by some caregivers and at the right time for others. Perceptions of the appropriate time for hospice enrollment in cancer are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to identify contributing factors of hospice utilization in cancer for ≤7 days, to describe and compare caregivers' perceptions of this as "too late" or at the "right time." METHODS: Semistructured, in-depth, in-person interviews were conducted with a sample subgroup of 45 bereaved caregivers of people who died from cancer within seven days of hospice enrollment. Interviews were transcribed and entered into Atlas.ti for coding. Data were grouped by participants' perceptions of the enrollment as "right time" or "too late." RESULTS: Overall, the mean length of enrollment was MLOE = 3.77 (SD = 1.8) days and ranged from three hours to seven days. The "right time" group (N = 25 [56%]) had a MLOE = 4.28 (SD = 1.7) days. The "too late" group (N = 20 [44%]) had a MLOE = 3.06 (SD = 1.03) days. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.029). Precipitating factors included: late-stage diagnosis, continuing treatment, avoidance, inadequate preparation, and systems barriers. The "right time" experience was characterized by: perceived comfort, family needs were met, preparedness for death. The "too late" experience was characterized by perceived suffering, unprepared for death, and death was abrupt. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that one more day of hospice care may increase perceived comfort, symptom management, and decreased suffering and signal the need for rapid response protocols.
Authors: Laetitia Veerbeek; Lia Van Zuylen; Siebe J Swart; Gerrieke Jongeneel; Paul J Van Der Maas; Agnes Van Der Heide Journal: J Palliat Care Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.250
Authors: Tracy M Robinson; Stewart C Alexander; Margie Hays; Amy S Jeffreys; Maren K Olsen; Keri L Rodriguez; Kathryn I Pollak; Amy P Abernethy; Robert Arnold; James A Tulsky Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David J Casarett; Jessica M Fishman; Hien L Lu; Peter J O'Dwyer; Frances K Barg; Mary D Naylor; David A Asch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-12-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Lara Traeger; Jennifer A Shin; Helen Knight; Kristina Mirabeau-Beale; Joel Fishbein; Harry H Vandusen; Vicki A Jackson; Angelo E Volandes; Jennifer S Temel Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Hannah R Abrams; Ryan D Nipp; Lara Traeger; Mitchell W Lavoie; Matthew J Reynolds; Nneka N Ufere; Annie C Wang; Kofi Boateng; Thomas W LeBlanc; Areej El-Jawahri Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-07-26
Authors: Victor Wei-Che Shen; Che Yang; Li-Ling Lai; Ying-Ju Chen; Hsien-Hao Huang; Shih-Hung Tsai; Teh-Fu Hsu; David Hung-Tsang Yen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390