Regional variation in hospital care at the end-of-life of Dutch patients with lung cancer exists and is not correlated with primary and long-term care

End-of-life interventions in patients with cancer

OBJECTIVES

To describe variations in the receipt of potentially inappropriate interventions in the last 100 days of life of patients with cancer according to patient characteristics and cancer site.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of cancer decedents in Ontario, Canada who died between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Potentially inappropriate interventions, including chemotherapy, major surgery, intensive care unit admission, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, dialysis, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical ventilation, feeding tube placement, blood transfusion and bronchoscopy, were captured via hospital discharge records. We used Poisson regression to examine associations between interventions and decedent age, sex, rurality, income and cancer site.

RESULTS

Among 151 618 decedents, 81.3% received at least one intervention, and 21.4% received 3+ different interventions. Older patients (age 95-105 years vs 19-44 years, rate ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.38) and women (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.94) had lower intervention rates. Rural patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.10), individuals in the highest area-level income quintile (vs lowest income quintile RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.04), and patients with pancreatic cancer (vs colorectal cancer RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.12) had higher intervention rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Potentially inappropriate interventions were common in the last 100 days of life of cancer decedents. Variations in interventions may reflect differences in prognostic awareness, healthcare access, and care preferences and quality. Earlier identification of patients' palliative care needs and involvement of palliative care specialists may help reduce the use of these interventions at the end of life.

Evaluating quality of care at the end of life and setting best practice performance standards: a population-based observational study using linked routinely collected administrative databases

Background

A high percentage of people dying at home, and a low percentage of people being admitted to hospital and dying there are regarded as indicators of appropriate care at the end of life. However, performance standards for these quality indicators are often lacking, which makes it difficult to state whether an indicator score falls between the ranges of good or poor quality care. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization in people with diseases relevant for palliative care, and to establish best practice performance standards based on indicator scores in 31 regions in the Netherlands.

Methods

A retrospective nationwide population-based observational study was conducted, using routinely collected administrative data concerning persons who died in 2017 in the Netherlands with underlying causes relevant for palliative care (N = 109,707). Data from four registries were linked for analysis. Scores on eight quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization were calculated, and compared across 31 healthcare insurance regions to establish relative benchmarks.

Results

On average, 36.4% of the study population died at home (range between regions 30.5%-42.6%) and 20.4% in hospital (range 16.6%-25.5%). Roughly half of the population who received hospital care at any time in the last year of life were found to (also) receive hospital care in the last month of life. In the last month, 32.0% of the study population were admitted to hospital (range 29.4-36.4%), 5.3% to an Intensive Care Unit (range 3.2-6.9%) and 23.9% visited an Emergency Department (range 21.0-27.4%). In the same time period, less than 1% of the study population was resuscitated in hospital or received tube or intravenous feeding in hospital.

Conclusions

The variation between regions points towards opportunities for practice improvement. The best practice performance standards as set in this study serve as ambitious but attainable targets for those regions that currently do not meet the standards. Policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers can use the suggested performance standards to further analyze causes of variance between regions and develop and test interventions that can improve practice.