| Literature DB >> 32660621 |
Sharon Kaasalainen1, Tamara Sussman2, Genevieve Thompson3, Lynn McCleary4, Paulette V Hunter5, Lorraine Venturato6, Abigail Wickson-Griffiths7, Jenny Ploeg8, Deborah Parker9, Shane Sinclair6, Vanina Dal Bello-Haas10, Marie Earl11, John J You12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increased annual mortality in long-term care (LTC) homes, research has shown that care of dying residents and their families is currently suboptimal in these settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate resident and family outcomes associated with the Strengthening a Palliative Approach in LTC (SPA-LTC) program, developed to help encourage meaningful end of life discussions and planning.Entities:
Keywords: End-of-life care; Long-term care; Palliative approach; Palliative care
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32660621 PMCID: PMC7358198 DOI: 10.1186/s12904-020-00599-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Palliat Care ISSN: 1472-684X Impact factor: 3.234
Fig. 1The Strengthening a Palliative Approach in Long Term Care (SPA-LTC) Program
Comparison of Sites
| Site | Profit/Not-for-profit | # of beds | Administrator Turnover rate | Diversity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| For-profit | 206 | Moderate | Culturally diverse, various faiths | |
| For-profit | 169 | High | Culturally diverse | |
| For-profit | 64 | Moderate | Many residents without family/once homeless | |
| Not-for-profit | 112 | Low | Operates within the context of Jewish culture and values |
Fig. 2Participant Flow Diagram
Characteristics of Participating Residents (N = 39)
| Characteristic | n (%) | Mean (SD)a |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 16 (41) | |
| Female | 23 (59) | |
| Age at the time of enrolment (years) | 84.6 (10.9) | |
| Length of Stay in LTC (years) | 5.6 (3.3) | |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index | 7.1 (2.00) | |
| Palliative Performance Scale | ||
| • < 30% | 3 (7.7) | |
| • 30–40% | 36 (92.3) | |
aStandard Deviation
Site of Death and Emergency Department (ED) Visits in the Last Year of Life at Baseline (All Residents) and Post Implementation (Participating Residents Only)
| OUTCOME | Pre | Post | RRRa | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | 21 (80.7) | – | – | |
| 40 (28.4) | 2 (7.7) | 72% | 0.05, 0.93 | |
| 92 (65.3) | 8 (30.8) | 54% | 0.15, 0.73 |
Notes: aRRR Relative Risk Reduction
Responses of Families who Attended a Palliative Care Conference (N = 14)
| Questiona | Mean (SD)b |
|---|---|
| 1. How helpful was the Palliative Care Conference (PCC)? | 9.0 (1.2) |
| 2. How supported did you feel by staff during the PCC? | 8.9 (1.1) |
| 3. How well were your concerns about your friend/relative’s end-of-life care addressed at the PCC? | 8.7 (1.4) |
| 4. How comfortable did you feel about making end-of-life arrangements or decisions after the PCC? | 8.7 (1.5) |
aLikert scale ranged from 0 (not at all) to 10 (a great deal)
bStandard Deviation