Literature DB >> 7828097

Home versus hospital death: assessment of preferences and clinical challenges.

D J Dudgeon, L Kristjanson.   

Abstract

In Canada hospital beds have been reduced in number, and there is increased fiscal pressure for patients with advanced terminal illness to be cared for in their own homes until death. In this issue (see pages 361 to 367) Drs. Ian R. McWhinney and Martin J. Bass and Ms. Vanessa Orr report that people who die at home rather than in hospital are more likely to be cared for by family members other than a spouse and to have the services of a private duty nurse. The literature has shown that health problems of elderly spouses, occupational and other responsibilities of family members, and the physical, psychologic and financial strain of providing home care can make it difficult to honour a terminally ill person's wish to die at home. The findings of McWhinney and colleagues point to the existence of a two-tiered health care system in which those who have access to private duty nursing are able to stay at home to die. Their study also raises three key questions that must be addressed in the assessment of patient preferences as to place of death: Should family members be included in the assessment? How should preferences be measured? and What is an appropriate time frame for such an assessment? Although McWhinney and colleagues identify characteristics of care associated with place of death and underline the need for careful assessment of patient preferences regarding place of death, further research is needed to build on these findings. In the current context of health care reform, we need to examine more closely the type and intensity of services needed to support patients and their families in the final stages of a terminal illness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7828097      PMCID: PMC1337531     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  9 in total

1.  Quality of life: a bridge between the biomedical and illness models of medicine and nursing?

Authors:  D Dudgeon
Journal:  J Palliat Care       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.250

2.  The social support requirements of family caregivers of terminal cancer patients.

Authors:  L S Nugent
Journal:  Can J Nurs Res       Date:  1988

3.  Dealing with our losses.

Authors:  B M Mount
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Caretaker role fatigue.

Authors:  V Goldstein; G Regnery; E Wellin
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 3.250

Review 5.  The family's cancer journey: a literature review.

Authors:  L J Kristjanson; T Ashcroft
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.592

6.  Domiciliary terminal care.

Authors:  D Doyle
Journal:  Practitioner       Date:  1980-06

7.  Social and demographic characteristics of patients admitted to a palliative care unit.

Authors:  E Bruera; N Kuehn; B Emery; K Macmillan; J Hanson
Journal:  J Palliat Care       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.250

Review 8.  Enabling more dying people to remain at home.

Authors:  G Thorpe
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-10-09

9.  Depression through the first year after the death of a spouse.

Authors:  S Zisook; S R Shuchter
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 18.112

  9 in total
  5 in total

1.  Predictors of home care expenditures and death at home for cancer patients in an integrated comprehensive palliative home care pilot program.

Authors:  Doris M Howell; Tom Abernathy; Rhonda Cockerill; Kevin Brazil; Frank Wagner; Larry Librach
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2011-02

2.  Palliative care by family physicians in the 1990s. Resilience amid reform.

Authors:  F Burge; P McIntyre; P Twohig; I Cummings; D Kaufman; G Frager; A Pollett
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Innovative palliative care in Edmonton.

Authors:  R L Fainsinger; E Bruera; K MacMillan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  End-of-life decision-making in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland: does place of death make a difference?

Authors:  Joachim Cohen; Johan Bilsen; Susanne Fischer; Rurik Löfmark; Michael Norup; Agnes van der Heide; Guido Miccinesi; Luc Deliens
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Using death certificate data to study place of death in 9 European countries: opportunities and weaknesses.

Authors:  Joachim Cohen; Johan Bilsen; Guido Miccinesi; Rurik Löfmark; Julia Addington-Hall; Stein Kaasa; Michael Norup; Gerrit van der Wal; Luc Deliens
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2007-10-08       Impact factor: 3.295

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.