Literature DB >> 9777906

Influence of patient preferences and local health system characteristics on the place of death. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Risks and Outcomes of Treatment.

R S Pritchard1, E S Fisher, J M Teno, S M Sharp, D J Reding, W A Knaus, J E Wennberg, J Lynn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree to which variation in place of death is explained by differences in the characteristics of patients, including preferences for dying at home, and by differences in the characteristics of local health systems.
DESIGN: We drew on a clinically rich database to carry out a prospective study using data from the observational phase of the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT component). We used administrative databases for the Medicare program to carry out a national cross-sectional analysis of Medicare enrollees place of death (Medicare component).
SETTING: Five teaching hospitals (SUPPORT); All U.S. Hospital Referral Regions (Medicare). STUDY POPULATIONS: Patients dying after the enrollment hospitalization in the observational phase of SUPPORT for whom place of death and preferences were known. Medicare beneficiaries who died in 1992 or 1993. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Place of death (hospital vs non-hospital).
RESULTS: In SUPPORT, most patients expressed a preference for dying at home, yet most died in the hospital. The percent of SUPPORT patients dying in-hospital varied by greater than 2-fold across the five SUPPORT sites (29 to 66%). For Medicare beneficiaries, the percent dying in-hospital varied from 23 to 54% across U.S. Hospital Referral Regions (HRRs). In SUPPORT, variations in place of death across site were not explained by sociodemographic or clinical characteristics or patient preferences. Patient level (SUPPORT) and national cross-sectional (Medicare) multivariate models gave consistent results. The risk of in-hospital death was increased for residents of regions with greater hospital bed availability and use; the risk of in-hospital death was decreased in regions with greater nursing home and hospice availability and use. Measures of hospital bed availability and use were the most powerful predictors of place of death across HRRs.
CONCLUSIONS: Whether people die in the hospital or not is powerfully influenced by characteristics of the local health system but not by patient preferences or other patient characteristics. These findings may explain the failure of the SUPPORT intervention to alter care patterns for seriously ill and dying patients. Reforming the care of dying patients may require modification of local resource availability and provider routines.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9777906     DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb04540.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  88 in total

1.  Financing end-of-life care in the USA.

Authors:  C Raphael; J Ahrens; N Fowler
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Prospective Identification of Patients at Risk for Unwarranted Variation in Treatment.

Authors:  Amy S Kelley; Evan Bollens-Lund; Kenneth E Covinsky; Jonathan S Skinner; R Sean Morrison
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 2.947

3.  Trends in anemia management in lung and colon cancer patients in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2002-2008.

Authors:  Elizabeth Tarlov; Kevin T Stroupe; Todd A Lee; Thomas W Weichle; Qiuying L Zhang; Laura C Michaelis; Howard Ozer; Margaret M Browning; Denise M Hynes
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Decision support and safety of clinical environments.

Authors:  A H Morris
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-03

5.  The lack of effect of market structure on hospice use.

Authors:  Theodore J Iwashyna; Virginia W Chang; James X Zhang; Nicholas A Christakis
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  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

7.  Advance directives and the family: French and American perspectives.

Authors:  David Rodríguez-Arias; Grégoire Moutel; Mark P Aulisio; Alexandra Salfati; Jean-Christophe Coffin; J L Rodríguez-Arias; L Calvo; Christian Hervé
Journal:  Clin Ethics       Date:  2007-09

8.  Determinants of treatment intensity for patients with serious illness: a new conceptual framework.

Authors:  Amy S Kelley; R Sean Morrison; Neil S Wenger; Susan L Ettner; Catherine A Sarkisian
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.947

9.  Racial disparities in outcomes following PEA and asystole in-hospital cardiac arrests.

Authors:  Rabia R Razi; Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Monica E Peek; Thomas Fisher; Dana P Edelson
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 5.262

10.  The association between treatment preferences and trajectories of care at the end-of-life.

Authors:  JoAnne Alissi Cosgriff; Margaret Pisani; Elizabeth H Bradley; John R O'Leary; Terri R Fried
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.