Duration of Referral-to-Death and its Associated Factors Among Cancer and Noncancer Patients: Retrospective Cohort Study of a Community Palliative Care Setting in Malaysia

Background: Addressing timely community palliative care integration is prioritized due to the increased burden of noncommunicable diseases. Objectives: To compare referral-to-death duration among palliative cancer and noncancer patients and to determine its associated factors in a Malaysian community palliative care center. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included decedents referred to a Malaysian community palliative care center between January 2017 and December 2019. Referral-to-death is the interval between the date of community palliative care referral and to date of death. Besides descriptive analyses, negative binomial regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with referral-to-death among both groups. Results: Of 4346 patients referred, 86.7% (n  =  3766) and 13.3% (n  =  580) had primary diagnoses of cancer and noncancer respectively. Median referral-to-death was 32 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 12-81) among cancer patients and 19 days (IQR: 7-78) among noncancer patients. The shortest referral-to-death among cancer patients was for liver cancer (median: 22 days; IQR: 8-58.5). Noncancer patients with dementia, heart failure, and multisystem organ failure had the shortest referral-to-death at 14 days. Among cancer patients, longer referral-to-death was associated with women compared to men (IRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.16-1.36) and patients 80 to 94 years old compared to those below 50 years old (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.02-1.38). Cancer patients with analgesics prescribed before or upon referral had 29% fewer palliative care days compared to no prescribing analgesics. In contrast, noncancer patients 50 to 64 years old had shorter referral-to-death compared to those below 50 years old (IRR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91). Conclusion: Shorter referral-to-death among noncancer patients indicated possible access inequities with delayed community palliative care integration. Factors associated with referral-to-death are considered in developing targeted approaches ensuring timely and equitable community palliative care.

Duration and determinants of hospice-based specialist palliative care: A national retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Understanding service provision for patients with advanced disease is a research priority, with a need to identify barriers that limit widespread integration of palliative care.

AIM

To identify patient and organisational factors that influence the duration of hospice-based palliative care in the United Kingdom prior to death.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 64 UK hospices providing specialist palliative care inpatient beds and community services extracted data for all adult decedents (aged over 17 years) with progressive, advanced disease, with a prior referral (e.g. inpatient, community teams, and outpatient) who died between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015. Data were requested for factors relating to both the patient and hospice site.

RESULTS

Across 42,758 decedents, the median time from referral to death was 48 days. Significant differences in referral to death days were found for those with cancer (53 days) and non-cancer (27 days) ( p < 0.0001). As age increases, the median days from referral to death decreases: for those under 50 years (78 days), 50-74 years (59 days), and 75 years and over (39 days) ( p = 0.0001). An adjusted multivariable negative binomial model demonstrated increasing age persisting as a significant predictor of fewer days of hospice care, as did being male, having a missing ethnicity classification and having a non-cancer diagnosis ( p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite increasing rhetoric around early referral, patients with advanced disease are receiving referrals to hospice specialist palliative care very late in their illness trajectory. Age and diagnosis persist as determinants of duration of hospice specialist palliative care before death.

General practice and specialist palliative care teams: an exploration of their working relationship from the perspective of clinical staff working in New Zealand

With the future focus on palliative and end-of-life care provision in the community, the role of the general practice team and their relationship with specialist palliative care providers is key to responding effectively to the projected increase in palliative care need. Studies have highlighted the potential to improve co-ordination and minimise fragmentation of care for people living with palliative care need through a partnership between generalist services and specialist palliative care. However, to date, the exact nature of this partnership approach has not been well defined and debate exists about how to make such partnerships work successfully. The aim of this study was to explore how general practice and specialist palliative care team (SPCT) members view their relationship in terms of partnership working. Five focus group discussions with general practices and SPCT members (n = 35) were conducted in 2012 in two different regions of New Zealand and analysed using a general inductive approach. The findings indicate that participants' understanding of partnership working was informed by their identity as a generalist or specialist, their existing rules of engagement and the approach they took towards sustaining the partnership. Considerable commitment to partnership working was shown by all participating teams. However, their working relationship was based primarily on trust and personal liaison, with limited formal systems in place to enable partnership working. Tensions between the cultures of 'generalism' and 'specialism' also provided challenges for those endeavouring to meet palliative care need collaboratively in the community. Further research is required to better understand the factors associated with successful partnership working between general practices and specialist palliative care in order to develop robust strategies to support a more sustainable model of community palliative care.

Comparison of terminally ill cancer- vs. non-cancer patients in specialized palliative home care in Germany - a single service analysis

Background

Palliative care (PC) is no longer offered with preference to cancer patients (CA), but also to patients with non-malignant, progressive diseases. Taking current death statistics into account, PC in Europe will face a growing number of patients dying from non-cancer diseases (NCA). More insights into specialized palliative home care (SPHC) in NCAs are needed.

Methods

Retrospective analysis and group comparisons between CAs and NCAs of anonymous data of all patients cared for between December 2009 and June 2012 by one SPHC team in Germany. Patient-, disease- and care-related data are documented in clinical routine by specialized PC physicians and nurses in the Information System Palliative Care 3.0 ® (ISPC®).

Results

Overall, 502 patients were cared for by the SPHC team; from 387 patients comprehensive data sets were documented. These 387 data sets (CA: N = 300, 77.5 % and NCA: N = 87, 22.5 %) are used for further analysis here. NCAs were significantly older (81 vs. 73 years; p < .001), than CAs and most often suffered from diseases of the nervous system (40 %). They needed significantly more assistance with defecation (87 vs. 74 %; p < .001) and urination (47 vs. 29 %; p < .001) and were more often affected from impaired vigilance (30 vs. 11 %; p < .001) than CAs. A by trend higher proportion of NCAs died within one day after admission to palliative home care (12 vs. 5 %; p < .05) and a smaller proportion was re-admitted to hospital during home care (6 vs. 20 %; p < .001). NCAs died predominantly in nursing homes (50 vs. 20 %; p < .001).

Conclusions

Although the proportion of NCAs was relatively high in this study, the access to PC services seems to takes place late in the disease trajectory, as demonstrated by the lower survival rate for NCAs. Nevertheless, the results show, that NCAs PC needs are as complex and intense as in CAs.

Hospice nurses' perceptions of caring for patients with a non-malignant diagnosis: a single-site case study

In the early stages of its development in the UK, palliative care focused almost exclusively on the care of patients with cancer, with efforts concentrated on relieving distressing physical symptoms in the last few weeks of life-often referred to as terminal care. It is increasingly expanding to include non-malignant conditions, but is still predominantly accessed by cancer patients. This paper presents findings from a small-scale qualitative study into nurses' experiences of providing hospice care for patients with a non-malignant diagnosis. Two focus groups were conducted with nurses in one established UK hospice. The results highlight the importance of timely educational preparation, the need for proactive thinking regarding the shifting medical profiles of health care in the UK, and the need for hospice managers to critically consider existing infrastructures (including supervision and support) in anticipation of diverse patient populations. The paper also reiterates that collaboration remains the key to effective support.

Evaluation of an admission and discharge programme at a UK specialist palliative day hospice

This paper reports on a system of managing admissions and discharges from a specialist palliative day hospice (SPDH) in the south of England. SPDH is a well established component of palliative care provision in the UK, but studies have rarely addressed issues around admission and discharge. Case study methodology was used to evaluate the programme. Interviews were conducted with five patients who had attended the day hospice, taken a break or been discharged and returned; their carer(s); the key worker from the day hospice; and any other health professional who was involved in the patient's care during the admission. Communication issues were found within the team regarding referral and discharge processes, documentation of care, decision making, and information giving. Family members did not feel involved in decision making in relation to the programme. The most significant finding was the emotional and psychological impact on the patients of taking the break. Discharge from SPDH is known to be a difficult and sensitive issue, especially when patients are living with life-limiting illnesses that can change quickly. The patients in this study all had some form of dependency on the service and four of the five would have chosen to continue attending if they could. They experienced deterioration in psychological and physical wellbeing during the period in which they did not attend.