Shi-Yi Wang1, Weixiong Dang, Melissa D Aldridge, Maureen Canavan, Emily Cherlin, Elizabeth Bradley. 1. *Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale University School of Public Health †Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT ‡Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York §James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY ∥Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine rates of hospice disenrollment and posthospice hospitalization among patients who are enrolled in hospices that provide continuous home care (CHC) (CHC hospices) compared with patients who are enrolled in hospices that do not offer CHC (non-CHC hospices). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study among Medicare fee-for-service decedents between July and December 2011, who were 66 years and older and had used hospice in their last 6 months of life. We used propensity score matching to account for potential confounding characteristics of hospices. Generalized estimating equation models were applied to estimate between CHC hospices and non-CHC hospices the associations of hospice disenrollment/hospitalization, adjusted for patient characteristics. We also conducted subgroup analyses to examine how the association might have differed by hospice size, and by the percentage of enrollees who received CHC. RESULTS: After matching, we identified 936 pairs of CHC and non-CHC hospices, well balanced in terms of organizational characteristics. In fully adjusted models, compared with non-CHC hospices, CHC hospices had significantly lower disenrollment rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.87), and lower hospitalization rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.95). These associations were significantly more pronounced among larger hospices (those with >175 enrollees during study period), and among hospices in which at least 7.3% of enrollees used CHC. CONCLUSIONS: CHC hospices had significantly lower rates of hospice disenrollment and posthospice hospitalization, suggesting CHC service available may enable higher quality of end-of-life care.
OBJECTIVES: To examine rates of hospice disenrollment and posthospice hospitalization among patients who are enrolled in hospices that provide continuous home care (CHC) (CHC hospices) compared with patients who are enrolled in hospices that do not offer CHC (non-CHC hospices). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study among Medicare fee-for-service decedents between July and December 2011, who were 66 years and older and had used hospice in their last 6 months of life. We used propensity score matching to account for potential confounding characteristics of hospices. Generalized estimating equation models were applied to estimate between CHC hospices and non-CHC hospices the associations of hospice disenrollment/hospitalization, adjusted for patient characteristics. We also conducted subgroup analyses to examine how the association might have differed by hospice size, and by the percentage of enrollees who received CHC. RESULTS: After matching, we identified 936 pairs of CHC and non-CHC hospices, well balanced in terms of organizational characteristics. In fully adjusted models, compared with non-CHC hospices, CHC hospices had significantly lower disenrollment rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.87), and lower hospitalization rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.95). These associations were significantly more pronounced among larger hospices (those with >175 enrollees during study period), and among hospices in which at least 7.3% of enrollees used CHC. CONCLUSIONS:CHC hospices had significantly lower rates of hospice disenrollment and posthospice hospitalization, suggesting CHC service available may enable higher quality of end-of-life care.
Authors: S T Normand; M B Landrum; E Guadagnoli; J Z Ayanian; T J Ryan; P D Cleary; B J McNeil Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: David Casarett; Joan Harrold; Pamela S Harris; Laura Bender; Sue Farrington; Eugenia Smither; Kevin Ache; Joan Teno Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Melissa D A Carlson; Jeph Herrin; Qingling Du; Andrew J Epstein; Colleen L Barry; R Sean Morrison; Anthony L Back; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Melissa D A Carlson; Jeph Herrin; Qingling Du; Andrew J Epstein; Emily Cherlin; R Sean Morrison; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Melissa D Aldridge; Andrew J Epstein; Abraham A Brody; Eric J Lee; Emily Cherlin; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lisa C Lindley; Melanie J Cozad; Jennifer W Mack; Jessica Keim-Malpass; Radion Svynarenko; Pamela S Hinds Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2021-12-04 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: Marco Di Nitto; Marco Artico; Michela Piredda; Maddalena De Maria; Caterina Magnani; Anna Marchetti; Chiara Mastroianni; Roberto Latina; Maria Grazia De Marinis; Daniela D'Angelo Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2022-05-12