Isseki Maeda1, Mitsunori Miyashita2, Akemi Yamagishi3, Hiroya Kinoshita4, Yutaka Shirahige5, Noriko Izumi6, Takuhiro Yamaguchi7, Miyuki Igarashi2, Masashi Kato8, Tatsuya Morita9. 1. Department of Palliative Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan. Electronic address: isseki@hotmail.com. 2. Division of Palliative Nursing, Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan. 3. Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka, Japan. 4. Department of Palliative Medicine, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwashi, Chiba, Japan. 5. Shirahige Clinic, Nagasaki, Japan. 6. Department of Internal Medicine and Palliative Care Team, Tsuruoka Municipal Shonai Hospital, Tsuruoka, Yamagata, Japan. 7. Division of Biostatistics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan. 8. Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 9. Department of Palliative and Supportive Care, Palliative Care Team, and Seirei Hospice, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan.
Abstract
CONTEXT: A region-based palliative care intervention (Outreach Palliative Care Trial of Integrated Regional Model Study) increased home death, access to specialist palliative care, quality of care, and quality of death and dying. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine changes in palliative care outcomes in different care settings (hospitals, palliative care units, and home) and obtain insights into how to improve region-level palliative care. METHODS: The intervention program was implemented from April 2008 to March 2011. Two bereavement surveys were conducted before and after intervention involving 4228 family caregivers of deceased cancer patients. Family-perceived quality of care (range 1-6), quality of death and dying (1-7), pain relief (1-7), and caregiver burden (1-7) were measured. RESULTS: Response rates were 69% (preintervention) and 66% (postintervention), respectively. Family-perceived quality of care (adjusted mean 4.89, 95% CI 4.54-5.23) and quality of death and dying (4.96, 4.72-5.20) at home were the highest and sustained throughout the study. Palliative care units were at the intermediate level between home and hospitals. In hospitals, both quality of care and quality of death and dying were low at baseline but significantly improved after intervention (quality of care: 4.24, 4.13-4.34 to 4.43, 4.31-4.54, P = 0.002; quality of death and dying: 4.22, 4.09-4.36 to 4.36, 4.22-4.50, P = 0.012). Caregiver burden did not significantly increase after intervention, regardless of place of death. CONCLUSIONS: The dual strategies of transition of place of death to home and improving quality of care in hospitals should be recognized as important targets for improving region-level palliative care.
CONTEXT: A region-based palliative care intervention (Outreach Palliative Care Trial of Integrated Regional Model Study) increased home death, access to specialist palliative care, quality of care, and quality of death and dying. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine changes in palliative care outcomes in different care settings (hospitals, palliative care units, and home) and obtain insights into how to improve region-level palliative care. METHODS: The intervention program was implemented from April 2008 to March 2011. Two bereavement surveys were conducted before and after intervention involving 4228 family caregivers of deceased cancerpatients. Family-perceived quality of care (range 1-6), quality of death and dying (1-7), pain relief (1-7), and caregiver burden (1-7) were measured. RESULTS: Response rates were 69% (preintervention) and 66% (postintervention), respectively. Family-perceived quality of care (adjusted mean 4.89, 95% CI 4.54-5.23) and quality of death and dying (4.96, 4.72-5.20) at home were the highest and sustained throughout the study. Palliative care units were at the intermediate level between home and hospitals. In hospitals, both quality of care and quality of death and dying were low at baseline but significantly improved after intervention (quality of care: 4.24, 4.13-4.34 to 4.43, 4.31-4.54, P = 0.002; quality of death and dying: 4.22, 4.09-4.36 to 4.36, 4.22-4.50, P = 0.012). Caregiver burden did not significantly increase after intervention, regardless of place of death. CONCLUSIONS: The dual strategies of transition of place of death to home and improving quality of care in hospitals should be recognized as important targets for improving region-level palliative care.