Background: Helping people achieve their preferred location of care is an important indicator of quality end-of-life (EOL) care. Using a sample of Australian medical oncology outpatients, this study examined (1) their preferred location of EOL care; (2) their perceived benefits and worries of receiving care in that location; (3) the percentage who had discussed preferences with their doctor and/or support person; and (4) whether they wanted their doctor to ask them where they wanted to die. Methods: Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer were approached between September 2015 and January 2016 in the waiting room of an Australian oncology outpatient clinic. Consenting participants completed a home-based pen-and-paper survey indicating preferred location of care, perceived benefits and worries of that location, whether they had discussed preferences with their doctors, and whether they were willing to be asked about their preferences. Results: A total of 203 patients returned the survey (47% of those eligible). Less than half preferred to be cared for at home (47%), 34% preferred a hospice/palliative care unit, and 19% preferred the hospital. Common benefits and worries associated with locations included perceived burden on others, familiarity of environment, availability of expert medical care, symptom management, and likelihood of having wishes respected. More patients had discussed preferences with their support persons (41%) than doctors (7%). Most wanted a doctor to ask them about preferred location of care (87%) and thought it was important to die in the location of their choice (93%). Conclusions: Patients were willing to have clinicians to ask them where they wanted to die, although few had discussed their preferences with doctors. Although home was the most preferred location for many patients, the overall variation suggests that clinicians should adopt a systematic approach to eliciting patient preferences.
Background: Helping people achieve their preferred location of care is an important indicator of quality end-of-life (EOL) care. Using a sample of Australian medical oncology outpatients, this study examined (1) their preferred location of EOL care; (2) their perceived benefits and worries of receiving care in that location; (3) the percentage who had discussed preferences with their doctor and/or support person; and (4) whether they wanted their doctor to ask them where they wanted to die. Methods: Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer were approached between September 2015 and January 2016 in the waiting room of an Australian oncology outpatient clinic. Consenting participants completed a home-based pen-and-paper survey indicating preferred location of care, perceived benefits and worries of that location, whether they had discussed preferences with their doctors, and whether they were willing to be asked about their preferences. Results: A total of 203 patients returned the survey (47% of those eligible). Less than half preferred to be cared for at home (47%), 34% preferred a hospice/palliative care unit, and 19% preferred the hospital. Common benefits and worries associated with locations included perceived burden on others, familiarity of environment, availability of expert medical care, symptom management, and likelihood of having wishes respected. More patients had discussed preferences with their support persons (41%) than doctors (7%). Most wanted a doctor to ask them about preferred location of care (87%) and thought it was important to die in the location of their choice (93%). Conclusions: Patients were willing to have clinicians to ask them where they wanted to die, although few had discussed their preferences with doctors. Although home was the most preferred location for many patients, the overall variation suggests that clinicians should adopt a systematic approach to eliciting patient preferences.
Authors: Natasha Michael; Greta Beale; Clare O'Callaghan; Adelaide Melia; William DeSilva; Daniel Costa; David Kissane; Jeremy Shapiro; Richard Hiscock Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Merel van Klinken; Everlien de Graaf; Rick Bressers; Remco Koorn; Frederieke van der Baan; Saskia Teunissen Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Lone Doris Tuesen; Anne Sophie Ågård; Hans-Henrik Bülow; Erik K Fromme; Hanne Irene Jensen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Karine Dubé; Sara Gianella; Susan Concha-Garcia; Susan J Little; Andy Kaytes; Jeff Taylor; Kushagra Mathur; Sogol Javadi; Anshula Nathan; Hursch Patel; Stuart Luter; Sean Philpott-Jones; Brandon Brown; Davey Smith Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: C Seifart; J Riera Knorrenschild; M Hofmann; Y Nestoriuc; W Rief; P von Blanckenburg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-01-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: John Kanazawa; Sara Gianella; Susanna Concha-Garcia; Jeff Taylor; Andy Kaytes; Christopher Christensen; Hursch Patel; Samuel Ndukwe; Stephen Rawlings; Steven Hendrickx; Susan Little; Brandon Brown; Davey Smith; Karine Dubé Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 3.240