| Literature DB >> 34035620 |
Astha Koolwal Kapoor1, Sushma Bhatnagar1, Rajni Mutneja2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our hospice caters to referrals from the wide areas in the northern Indian territory. A descriptive analysis of hospice admissions can bring to light, the status of palliative care in the region overall. AIM: The aim was to assess the clinical and demographic profile of hospice admissions in New Delhi during the time period 2016-2017.Entities:
Keywords: Dysphagia; hospice; incontinence; marital status; pain
Year: 2021 PMID: 34035620 PMCID: PMC8121229 DOI: 10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_43_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Palliat Care ISSN: 0973-1075
Figure 1STROBE chart
Demographic characteristics
| Category | Females ( | males ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| <30 | 5 (5.4) | 4 (6.4) | 0.79 |
| 30- 50 | 47 (51.1) | 16 (25.8) | 0.002 |
| 50- 70 | 33 (35.9) | 31 (50.0) | 0.08 |
| >70 | 8 (8.7) | 11 (17.7) | 0.09 |
| Marital status | |||
| Single | 10 (10.9) | 7 (11.3) | 0.93 |
| Married | 63 (68.5) | 43 (69.4) | 0.90 |
| Divorced/separated | 19 (20.7) | 12 (19.4) | 0.84 |
| Referred from | |||
| Delhi and NCR | 76 (82.6) | 50 (80.6) | 0.75 |
| Other distant states | 16 (17.4) | 12 (19.4) | 0.75 |
| Hospital referring the patients | |||
| AIIMS/Safadurjang | 58 | 32 | |
| Private hospitals | 9 (9.8) | 9 (12.9) | 0.54 |
| Government hospitals | 23 (25) | 21 (33.9) | 0.32 |
| Days spent | |||
| 30- 60 | 56 (60.9) | 37 (59.7) | 0.88 |
| <30 | 14 (15.2) | 19 (30.6) | 0.02 |
| >60 | 22 (23.9) | 6 (9.7) | 0.02 |
| Religion | |||
| Hindu | 76 (82.6) | 46 (74.2) | 0.20 |
| Others | 16 (17.4) | 16 (24.2) | 0.30 |
| Employment status | |||
| Professional (Class I) | 1 (1.1) | 1 (1.6) | 0.77 |
| Technical/managerial (Class II) | 16 (17.4) | 21 (33.9) | 0.02 |
| Skilled (Class III) | 0 (0) | 3 (4.8) | 0.03 |
| Semi-skilled (Class IV) | 6 (6.5) | 15 (24.2) | 0.002 |
| Unskilled (Class V) | 2 (2.2) | 3 (4.8) | 0.36 |
| Unemployed | 67 (72.8) | 19 (30.6) | 0.000 |
| Accompanying relative | |||
| Male | 68 (73.9) | 39 (62.9) | 0.14 |
| Female | 20 (21.7) | 22 (35.5) | 0.08 |
| Next of kin | |||
| Son | 30 (33.3) | 17 (27.4) | 0.25 |
| Daughter | 6 (6.7) | 7 (11.3) | 0.25 |
| Spouse | 31 (33.7) | 17 (27.4) | 0.41 |
| In-laws | 2 (2.2) | 3 (4.8) | 0.36 |
| Parents | 10 (10.9) | 8 (12.9) | 0.70 |
| Relatives | 3 (3.3) | 5 (8.1) | 0.18 |
| Sibling | 6 (6.5) | 4 (6.5) | 0.98 |
| Diagnosis | |||
| Brain | 4 (4.3) | 3 (4.8) | 0.88 |
| Breast | 23 (25) | 0 | 0.000 |
| GI | 15 (16.3) | 12 (19.4) | 0.62 |
| GU | 13 (14.1) | 2 (3.2) | 0.02 |
| Nonsolid | 2 | 2 | |
| Head and neck | 26 (28.3) | 31 (50) | 0.006 |
| Lung | 4 (4.3) | 8 (12.9) | 0.05 |
| Musculoskeletal | 1 (1.1) | 1 (1.6) | 0.77 |
| Prostate | 2 (2.2) | NA | |
| UK | 0 | 1 | |
| Median duration (year) | |||
| Duration of diagnosis | 2 | 1 | 0.79 |
| NA | 25 | 19 | |
| Family structure | |||
| Alone | 17 (18.5) | 12 (19.4) | 0.89 |
| Joint | 3 (3.3) | 2 (3.2) | 0.99 |
| Nuclear | 72 (78.3) | 48 (77.4) | 0.90 |
| Education | |||
| Above 10th standard | 25 (27.2) | 13 (21.0) | 0.38 |
| Below 10th standard | 67 (72.8) | 49 (79) | 0.38 |
| Top three symptoms (not mutually exclusive) | |||
| Pain | 65 (70.7) | 47 (75.9) | 0.48 |
| Dysphagia | 48 (52.2) | 30 (48.4) | 0.64 |
| Incontinence | 49 (53.3) | 21 (33.9) | 0.02 |
NA: Not available, GI: Gastrointestinal, GU: Genitourinary, UK: Unknown, NCR: National Capital Region, AIIMS: All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Figure 2Symptom frequency in the patients at the time of admission
Association of symptom frequency with the marital status
| Symptom | Single ( | Divorced ( | Married ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pain | 14 | 0.263 | 21 | 0.313 | 77 | 0.568 |
| Dysphagia | 9 | 0.523 | 16 | 0.532 | 53 | 0.474 |
| Incontinence | 10 | 0.180 | 6 | 0.001 | 54 | 0.031 |
Figure 3Religious characteristics of the patients during admission
Figure 4Class of the patients according to their employment status
Figure 5Frequency of diagnosis of the admitted patients
Figure 6Relationship of the person who accompanied the patient for hospice admission
Figure 7Gender of the caregivers
Figure 8Main referral areas: public/government versus private