Skip to main content

Table 2 Patient, care and relative characteristics related to full consensus among all involved, according to relatives, univariable and multivariable analyses

From: Consensus on treatment for residents in long-term care facilities: perspectives from relatives and care staff in the PACE cross-sectional study in 6 European countries

  Full Consensus
N = 457 (57.8%)
No full consensus
N = 333 (42.2%))
Univariable OR (95% CI) p-value Multivariable OR (95% CI) p-value
N (%) N (%)
Country
 Finland (ref)^ 59 (40.7) 86 (59.3)     
 England 17 (68.0) 8 (32.0) 3.18 (1.18–8.52) .022 1.87 (0.54–6.52) .328
 Italy 63 (64.3) 35 (35.7) 2.49 (1.18–5.27) .017 2.05 (0.99–4.24) .052
 The Netherlands 106 (57.9) 77 (42.1) 1.94 (1.21–3.11) .006 1.06 (0.56–1.99) .083
 Poland 84 (63.6) 48 (36.4) 2.46 (1.53–3.97) <.001 2.07 (1.10–3.89) .025
 Belgium 128 (61.8) 79 (38.2) 2.32 (1.53–3.52) <.001 2.21 (1.27–3.84) .005
Patient characteristics
 Resident’s health in last week of lifea
   ≤ median (10) 232 (59.3) 159 (40.7)     
   > Median (10) 202 (55.5) 162 (44.5) 0.87 (0.69–1.10) .252   
 EOLD-CAD Resident’s comfort in the last week of lifeb
   ≤ mean (30) 203 (52.9) 181 (47.1)     
   > mean (30) 197 (61.8) 122 (38.2) 1.50 (1.11–2.02) .008 1.66 (1.16–2.36) .005
 Dementia
  no 211 (61.7) 131 (38.3)     
  yes 228 (53.8) 196 (46.2) 0.73 (0.55–0.98) .037   
 Length of stay
   < 1 year 168 (57.5) 124 (42.5)     
   ≥ 1 year 265 (59.0) 184 (41.0) 1.05 (0.78–1.42) .756   
 Resident talked with relative or someone else about preferred medical treatment
  no or don’t know 331 (56.4) 256 (43.6)     
  yes 124 (62.0) 76 (38.0) 1.32 (0.94–1.86) .110 1.69 (1.10–2.61) .017
Care facility characteristics
 Organization of multidisciplinary meetings in facility
  no or don’t know 61 (46.9) 69 (53.1)     
  yes 375 (60.9) 241 (39.1) 1.74 (1.15–2.62) .009   
 No. care staff/10. occupied beds
   ≤ 5 225 (62.7) 134 (37.3)     
   > 5 204 (55.0) 167 (45.0) 0.75 (0.54–1.05) .095   
Relative characteristics
 Relationship to resident
  Spouse/partner (ref.) 41 (46.1) 48 (53.9)     
  Son/daughter 290 (57.2) 217 (42.8) 1.54 (.98–2.42) .063 1.36 (.71–2.61) .358
  Other (ref) 123 (64.7) 67 (35.3) 2.07 (1.23–3.49) .006 2.08 (1.02–4.24) .044
 Care provider explained what palliative care means
  no 122 (40.5) 179 (59.5)     
  yes 328 (68.8) 149 (31.2) 3.13 (2.32–4.23) <.001 1.98 (1.33–2.96) .001
 Relative did not really understand resident’s condition
  disagree 366 (58.5) 260 (41.5)     
  agree 71 (55.0) 58 (45.0) 0.85 (0.56–1.29) .435   
 Relative expected resident would die, one month before death
  no or don’t know 257 (56.7) 196 (43.3)     
  yes 196 (59.2) 135 (40.8) 1.07 (0.80–1.44) .644   
 Relative felt fully involved in all decision making
  disagree 37 (30.6) 84 (69.4)     
  agree 404 (63.4) 233 (36.6) 3.81 (2.56–5.68) <.001   
 Family Perception of Physician-Family Communication (FPPFC)
   < mean (2) 116 (38.7) 184 (61.3)     
   ≥ mean (2) 289 (73.5) 104 (26.5) 4.32 (3.22–5.80) <.001 3.24 (2.28–4.60) <.001
  1. ^Finland is the reference category because the proportions of full consensus were lowest in this country
  2. *Missing values: health = 35, comfort/symptom burden = 87, dementia = 24, length of stay = 49, resident talked about preferred treatment = 3, multidisciplinary meeting = 44, care staff/occupied beds = 60, relation = 4, care provider explained palliative care = 12, relative didn’t understand condition = 35, relative expected death = 6, relative felt fully involved = 32, FPPFC = 97
  3. Bold printed OR and p-values are below the significance level of .05
  4. aHigher scores indicate better health
  5. bHigher scores indicate more comfort and less symptom burden
\