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