Skip to main content
Download PDF

Death place and palliative outcome indicators in patients under palliative home care service: an observational study

BMC Palliative Care volume 22, Article number: 44 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Dying at home accompanied by loved-ones is regarded favorably and brings good luck in Taiwan. This study aimed to examine the relevant factors affecting whether an individual dies at home or not in a group of terminal patients receiving palliative home care service.

Methods

The patients who were admitted to a palliative home care service at a hospital-affiliated home health care agency were consecutively enrolled between March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. During the period of care, the instruments of the palliative care outcomes collaboration was used to assess patients in each home visit twice a week, including symptom assessment scale, palliative care problem severity score, Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status, resource utilization groups-activities of daily living, and palliative care phase.

Results

There were 56 participants (53.6% female) with a median age of 73.0 years (interquartile range (IQR) 61.3–80.3 y/o), of whom 51 (91.1%) patients were diagnosed with cancer and 49 (96.1%) had metastasis. The number of home visits was 3.5 (IQR 2.0–5.0) and the average number of days under palliative home care service was 31 (IQR 16.3–51.5) before their death. After the end of the study, there was a significant deterioration of sleeping, appetite, and breathing problems in the home-death group, and appetite problems in the non-home death patients. However, physician-reported psychological/spiritual problems improved in the home-death group, and pain improved in the non-home death patients. Physical performance deteriorated in both groups, and more resource utilization of palliative care was needed. The 44 patients who died at home had greater cancer disease severity, fewer admissions, and the proportion of families desiring a home death for the patient was higher.

Conclusions

Although the differences in palliative outcome indicators were minor between patients who died at home and those who died in the hospital, understanding the determinants and change of indicators after palliative care service at different death places may be helpful for improving the quality of end-of-life care.

Highlights

• Hospice care is a type of palliative care that focuses on patients with advanced, life-limiting illnesses, and these terms are sometimes used interchangeably for patients who are in the last months or years of their life.

• The number of patients finally dying at home was high in our palliative home service, and the congruence regarding place of death between patients and family, their preferred place of death, cancer with metastasis, and the hospital admission during palliative home care were associated with the actual place of death.

• Psychological well-being and spirituality was more enhanced in home-death patients, and pain was improved in hospital-death patients.

• Understanding the determinants and change of indicators during palliative care service at different death places may be helpful for improving the quality of end-of-life care.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Palliative care is holistic care, encompassing all aspects of patients’ physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs, as well as the needs of their caregiver, and includes relieving patients and their families of suffering [1]. Hospice care is a type of palliative care that focuses on patients with advanced, life-limiting illnesses, and the term hospice care is sometimes used interchangeably with palliative care for patients who are in the last months or years of their life [1, 2]. Generally, place of death is regarded as a key policy marker of end-of-life care success worldwide [3,4,5]. Supporting patients at the end of life to enable them to die at home, rather than being admitted to hospital is a significant task for community nursing teams [5]. In Taiwan, palliative care programs have been implemented in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) system since 1996, and includes palliative home care, palliative inpatient care, and palliative care consultation service [6]. According to traditional culture in Taiwan, dying at home and being cared for by family members is regarded favorably and brings good luck [7,8,9]. Compared with dying in a hospital, dying at home is often considered the most appropriate and ideal place for many people [9].

The palliative care outcomes collaboration (PCOC) was established and funded by Australia’s Department of Health in 2005. It employs standardized validated clinical assessment tools to identify and measure the impact of palliative service delivery for people with a life-limiting illness, their families, and caregivers [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. The PCOC instruments, which are composed of symptom assessment scale (SAS) [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], palliative care problem severity score (PCPSS) [12, 13, 17, 20, 21], Australia-modified karnofsky performance status (AKPS) [14, 19,20,21, 23], resource utilisation groups-activities of daily living (RUG-ADL) [10, 20, 21], and palliative care phase (PCP) [12, 13, 17, 19,20,21], are widely used for the evaluation of patients’ conditions, and for planning of interventions in palliative care. Several studies have demonstrated that these instruments are feasible and useful in systematically improving outcomes in individuals receiving palliative care at local, subnational, and national levels [17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. However, in Taiwan, there are few data on PCOC for patients in palliative care programs. The study aimed to examine the relevant factors affecting whether an individual dies at home or not in a group of terminal patients receiving palliative home care service. The instruments of PCOC were regularly used to evaluate patients during palliative home care service, and the changes in the respective scores (e.g. symptom burden, palliative care phase, functional status) were examined. Also, their relevance in relation to death place was also determined.

Methods

Study design

This study was conducted at a hospital-affiliated home health care agency in a medical center in Taiwan between March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. During the study period, the patients with an advanced disease in the terminal stages who were referred to palliative home service care were consecutively enrolled. A multidisciplinary team comprising nurses, doctors, and social workers provided comprehensive palliative care services addressing the patients’ physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs at home regularly and as necessary. According to the regulations, a professional nurse could visit twice a week and the assessment was performed approximately every three days. Nevertheless, during palliative home care service, admission to a hospice ward could be arranged according to the patient's condition and request. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the medical center (IRB no: CE22109A) and all methods were carried out in accordance with the approved study protocol under the standard regulations and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Participants

The inclusion criteria were patients with an advanced disease with terminal stage requiring a diagnosis by two physicians according to the Hospice Palliative Care Act, which was promulgated by Taiwan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Moreover, at the beginning of the patients received palliative home care service, they were first required to undergo at least two evaluations of PCOC instruments to determine their trajectory. The exclusion criteria were patients or their family/caregiver refused to be assessed by PCOC instruments, or they could not complete the whole study period for any reason. Initially, 115 patients were enrolled in the study from March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. Of these, 59 patients were not eligible, including 43 patients still alive at the end of the study and 16 patients who were just evaluated once using PCOC instruments during the study period. Finally, 56 patients had died at the time of analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of patients who received palliative home care services

Full size image

Outcome and assessment procedures

The primary outcome was the place of death (i.e. home (nursing home) and non-home (hospital)). Basic personal information and medical records of all enrolled patients were reviewed, including age, gender, disease diagnosis, medications, disease duration, comorbidities, the numbers of admissions (the last time of admission was excluded, if dying in the hospital), living situation (with family, or non-family/alone), and financial subsidy (NHI premium alone, or others: disability or veteran). Tube dependency was also investigated, including nasogastric tubes, foley catheter, tracheostomy, nephrostomy, or cystostomy tubes.

Each of the PCOC instrument was assessed by a skilled visiting nurse for palliative care in the patient’s home only and was not performed in a hospital admission during the study period [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. The SAS of PCOC instruments is a patient-reported scale used to measure eight dimensions: pain, insomnia, nausea, bowel problems, appetite problems, breathing problems, fatigue, and others. The score range is from 0 to 10, with higher values indicating more severe distress [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Among the PCOC instruments, PCPSS is a clinician-reported scale used to measure four palliative care domains: pain, other symptoms, psychological/spiritual, and family/carer problems. The score range is from 0 to 3, with higher values indicating worse problem severity [12, 13, 17, 20, 21]. Another PCOC instrument, the AKPS, is a clinician-observed scale used to measure the patient’s overall performance status, such as common tasks relating to activity, work, and self-care. The score range is from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better physical abilities [14, 19,20,21, 23]. The RUG-ADL (a PCOC instrument) is another clinician-reported scale used to measure basic performance status, such as bed mobility, toileting, transfers, and eating. The score range is from 4 to 18, with higher values indicating poorer performance and need of more assistance [10, 20, 21]. The PCP (a PCOC instrument) is a measure of relative resource utilisation linked directly to clinical needs, which consists of five phases: stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal, and bereavement. Whenever the clinical situation changed, the patient is reassessed and the care plan is modified [12, 13, 17, 19,20,21].

Statistical analyses

Continuous variables were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR, 25%-75%). Categorical data were expressed as number and percentage. The significance of the difference between groups was assessed using the Mann–Whitney U test (medians, non-Gaussian populations), and Pearson’s chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test (proportions). Paired comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test or Friedman test for continuous variables, and McNemar’s or Cochran’s Q tests for categorical variables during follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. In total, the median age was 73.0 (IQR 61.3–80.3) years old with males accounting for 46.4% of the patients and females 53.6%. Fifty-one (91.1%) patients were diagnosed with cancer and 49 (96.1%) had metastasis. The number of patients finally dying at home was 44 (78.6%) in our palliative home service, and during palliative home care service, the median number of home visits was 3.5 (IQR 2.0–5.0) and the number of days under palliative home care service was 31 (IQR 16.3–51.5) days before death. Forty-four (78.6%) patients were alert, 46 (82.1%) patients did not need oxygen therapy, and 39 (69.6%) patients could eat by mouth. Eighteen (32.1%) patients had incontinence, 9 (16.1%) patients required tube/catheter change, and 6 (10.7%) patients had wound issues. Fifty-one (91.1%) patients lived with their family and only 9 (16.1%) patients had other financial subsidies. Almost all patients and their respective families were in agreement about the place of death. Seven (12.5%) patients were admitted to hospital while under palliative home care service. The patients who died at home had greater severity of cancer disease, fewer admissions, and the proportion of families desiring a home-death was higher (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the participants
Full size table

At baseline, SAS showed fatigue was the most bothersome symptom among all patients. Almost all patients had poorer performance status according to AKPS and RUG-ADL, as they were at the unstable phase. Psychological/spiritual problem was significantly worse in the home-death patients than non-home death patients (Table 2). At the last assessment, SAS showed difficulty sleeping, appetite problems and fatigue were the three major burdens among all patients. The total performance status got worse in all patients. There was almost no difference in any parameters of SAS and PCPSS between the two groups (Table 3). However, sleeping, appetite, and breathing problems, and physical performance changed more in the home-death group, whereas appetite problem and pain were found in the non-home death patients (Table 4).

Table 2 The first assessment in each group
Full size table
Table 3 The last assessment in each group
Full size table
Table 4 The difference between the first and the last assessments in each group
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, the instruments of the palliative care outcomes collaboration were assessed by a hospital-affiliated home health care agency, and the results revealed that congruence between patients and family, their preferred place of death, cancer with metastasis, and the once hospitalization were all associated with the decision of death place. Although several patient-reported problems deteriorated during palliative home service in patients that desired a home death, their psychological well-being and spirituality was still slightly improved. However, deteriorated sleeping, appetite, and breathing problems, and physical performance status required special care and assistance.

Some previous studies in Taiwan showed the percentage of cancer patients who died at home was around 35.7% to 32.4% from 2001 to 2006 [24], while another report revealed the rate of a home death under palliative care home service was 43.6% [25]. Physician home visits increased the likelihood of a home death, but previous hospitalizations within one year decreased the likelihood of a home death [25]. It is generally thought that the professional environment and staff of a hospital can provide superior inpatient care in comparison to home care [26]. However, if the motivation and requirements of dying patients at the hospital can be understood, an optimal solution can be planned to increase patient and family satisfaction, and if their preferred place of care is the home, carers can make arrangements to provide better care so that the patient can die well [26, 27]. A systematic review demonstrated functional impairment, patients’ preferred place of death, high home care intensity, and strong family relationship increased the likelihood of dying at home among cancer patients [28]. In line with a previous study, our study showed 51 (91.1%) patients were diagnosed with cancer. Moreover, we found cancer severity was a determinant factor in early recognition and management of impending death. It has been proposed that in non-cancer diseases, the uncertain disease course might give patients inappropriate expectations about length of life [29].

Based on a literature review, in patients who preferred dying at home pain was less of a problem, but the prevalence of dependent functional status was higher [30]. Furthermore, those who knew their treatment and prognosis were more likely to choose the home as their preferred place of death [30]. Our study supports previous findings that patients dying at home show poorer performance and need more assistance. Patients with life-limiting illnesses often suffer from multiple discomfort symptoms that reduce quality of life [23], including breathlessness, bowel problems, fatigue, and pain [18, 22, 31]. It has been reported that fatigue was a common symptom although it is underrecognized frequently [28], and one third of patients may experience significant breathlessness [29], or suffer from at least some degree of bowel problems [30]. Hence, management of all these discomforts is a priority task at the end of life, while choice of preferred place of death, ensuring contact with family/friends, addressing spiritual needs, and other non-medical concerns were sometimes ranked lower [32]. In addition, symptom control at home was more challenging than in the hospital, which indicates the palliative home care team could be more aggressive toward palliative symptom control. In our study, we found that symptoms had not changed over time either in home or non-home death patients because, despite their possible increase, they had been well controlled, and thus this affected the actual place of death.

Psychological factors may influence the preferred place of death among cancer patients, such as patients' level of anxiety, and awareness of the burden on family and caregivers [30]. Our study found that in home-death patients, their wellbeing was worse than in the non-home death group at first, however they could be significantly improved finally even though dying at home may bring more challenges in terms of symptom control, and preferences about place of death may change over time [27].

A systematic review demonstrated that patients’ preferences for place of death are complex [33], and depend on substantial input from family and professional community nursing teams. In addition, recent studies have challenged the priority given to location in end-of-life care [34]. There was no clear relation between the symptoms and care services [20]. In our study, PCP was not different between the two groups, which might be attributable to the fact that our care teams could provide a rapid response service instantly when necessary. Apart from professional support, advanced care planning was shown to increase the chances of dying at home and improve quality of care [35].

To provide better quality of palliative care, adequate policies and guidelines, continuity and coordination of care, and better knowledge and skills for all caregivers were needed [36]. It has been shown that early palliative care for patients with advanced disease had better outcomes in quality of life, not only for patients, but also for the family/caregivers [37,38,39,40].

The study had some limitations. First, the findings were based on data from a single hospital-affiliated home health care agency and the study sample size was small so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Second, the assessment of our participants who were under palliative home care service was not done at a fixed interval so there might be potential selection bias. Third, we did not conduct laboratory examinations, such as testing of blood samples, and these factors may have had a significant impact on hospital admission.

Conclusion

This study found that the number of patients finally dying at home was higher in our palliative home service in comparison with previous studies in Taiwan. The patients’ preferred place of death, congruence between patients’ and families preferred place of death, cancer with metastasis, and hospital admissions during palliative care were associated with the actual place of death. Dying at home could promote psychological well-being and spirituality, but could bring more challenges with respect to symptom relief, including sleeping, appetite, and breathing problems. Understanding the relevant determinants and change of indicators after palliative care service at different death places may be helpful for improving end-of-life care and may help patients die well.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AKPS:

Australia-modified karnofsky performance status

IQR:

Interquartile range

NHI:

National Health Insurance

PCOC:

Palliative care outcomes collaboration

PCP:

Palliative care phase

PCPSS:

Palliative care problem severity score

RUG-ADL:

Resource utilisation groups-activities of daily living

SAS:

Symptom assessment scale

References

  1. Rome RB, Luminais HH, Bourgeois DA, Blais CM. The role of palliative care at the end of life. Ochsner J. 2011;11(4):348–52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Roth AR, Canedo AR. Introduction to Hospice and Palliative Care. Prim Care. 2019;46(3):287–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gomes B, Higginson IJ, Calanzani N, Cohen J, Deliens L, Daveson BA, Bechinger-English D, Bausewein C, Ferreira PL, Toscani F, et al. Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands. Portugal and Spain Ann Oncol. 2012;23(8):2006–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Robinson J, Gott M, Gardiner C, Ingleton C. The “problematisation” of palliative care in hospital: an exploratory review of international palliative care policy in five countries. BMC Palliat Care. 2016;15:64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoare S, Kelly MP, Barclay S. Home care and end-of-life hospital admissions: a retrospective interview study in English primary and secondary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(685):e561–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Shih TC, Chang HT, Lin MH, Chen CK, Chen TJ, Hwang SJ. Differences in do-not-resuscitate orders, hospice care utilization, and late referral to hospice care between cancer and non-cancer decedents in a tertiary Hospital in Taiwan between 2010 and 2015: a hospital-based observational study. BMC Palliat Care. 2018;17(1):18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Tang ST. Meanings of dying at home for Chinese patients in Taiwan with terminal cancer: a literature review. Cancer Nurs. 2000;23(5):367–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi J, Miyashita M, Hirai K, Sato K, Morita T, Tsuneto S, Shima Y. Preference of place for end-of-life cancer care and death among bereaved Japanese families who experienced home hospice care and death of a loved one. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(11):1445–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lin HY, Kang SC, Chen YC, Chang YC, Wang WS, Lo SS. Place of death for hospice-cared terminal patients with cancer: A nationwide retrospective study in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc. 2017;80(4):227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fries BE, Schneider DP, Foley WJ, Gavazzi M, Burke R, Cornelius E: Refining a case-mix measure for nursing homes: Resource Utilization Groups (RUG-III). Medical care 1994:668–685.

  11. Kristjanson L, Pickstock S, Yuen K, Davis S, Blight J, Cummins A, Dean A, Tinnelly K, Cousins K: Development and testing of the revised Symptom Assessment Scale (SAS): final report. Perth, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University 1999.

  12. Eagar K, Gordon R, Green J, Smith M. An Australian casemix classification for palliative care: lessons and policy implications of a national study. Palliat Med. 2004;18(3):227–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Eagar K, Green J, Gordon R. An Australian casemix classification for palliative care: technical development and results. Palliat Med. 2004;18(3):217–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abernethy AP, Shelby-James T, Fazekas BS, Woods D, Currow DC. The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]. BMC Palliat Care. 2005;4:7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Trauer T: Outcome measurement in mental health: theory and practice: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

  16. Aoun SM, Monterosso L, Kristjanson LJ, McConigley R. Measuring symptom distress in palliative care: psychometric properties of the Symptom Assessment Scale (SAS). J Palliat Med. 2011;14(3):315–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Currow DC, Allingham S, Yates P, Johnson C, Clark K, Eagar K. Improving national hospice/palliative care service symptom outcomes systematically through point-of-care data collection, structured feedback and benchmarking. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(2):307–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ekström M, Allingham SF, Eagar K, Yates P, Johnson C, Currow DC. Breathlessness During the Last Week of Life in Palliative Care: An Australian Prospective. Longitudinal Study J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;51(5):816–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ekström M, Vergo MT, Ahmadi Z, Currow DC. Prevalence of Sudden Death in Palliative Care: Data From the Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;52(2):221–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ding J, Cook A, Qin X, Ho SCH, Johnson CE. Palliative care needs and utilization of specialist services for people imminently dying with dementia: A national population-based study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;109:103655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Daveson BA, Allingham SF, Clapham S, Johnson CE, Currow DC, Yates P, Eagar K. The PCOC Symptom Assessment Scale (SAS): A valid measure for daily use at point of care and in palliative care programs. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(3):e0247250.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ingham G, Urban K, Allingham SF, Blanchard M, Marston C, Currow DC. The Level of Distress From Fatigue Reported in the Final Two Months of Life by a Palliative Care Population: An Australian National Prospective, Consecutive Case Series. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;61(6):1109–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sousa MS, Davis W, Blanchard M, Razmovski-Naumovski V, Agar M, Daveson B, Hsm D, Currow DC. Appetite-Related Distress Is Burdensome in the Last Sixty Days of Life of People Receiving Palliative Care: A National Longitudinal Consecutive Cohort Study. J Palliat Med. 2022;25(4):636–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tang ST, Huang EW, Liu TW, Rau KM, Hung YN, Wu SC. Propensity for home death among Taiwanese cancer decedents in 2001–2006, determined by services received at end of life. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;40(4):566–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ko MC, Huang SJ, Chen CC, Chang YP, Lien HY, Lin JY, Woung LC, Chan SY. Factors predicting a home death among home palliative care recipients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(41):e8210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson J, Gott M, Frey R, Ingleton C. Circumstances of hospital admissions in palliative care: A cross-sectional survey of patients admitted to hospital with palliative care needs. Palliat Med. 2018;32(5):1030–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shepperd S, Wee B, Straus SE. Hospital at home: home-based end of life care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7:Cd009231.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gomes B, Higginson IJ. Factors influencing death at home in terminally ill patients with cancer: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7540):515–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Billingham MJ, Billingham SJ. Congruence between preferred and actual place of death according to the presence of malignant or non-malignant disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2013;3(2):144–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fereidouni A, Rassouli M, Salesi M, Ashrafizadeh H, Vahedian-Azimi A, Barasteh S. Preferred Place of Death in Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Psychol. 2021;12:704590.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Clark K, Smith JM, Currow DC. The prevalence of bowel problems reported in a palliative care population. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43(6):993–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Finkelstein EA, Bhadelia A, Goh C, Baid D, Singh R, Bhatnagar S, Connor SR. Cross Country Comparison of Expert Assessments of the Quality of Death and Dying 2021. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2022;63(4):e419–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoare S, Morris ZS, Kelly MP, Kuhn I, Barclay S. Do Patients Want to Die at Home? A Systematic Review of the UK Literature, Focused on Missing Preferences for Place of Death. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(11):e0142723.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Pollock K. Is home always the best and preferred place of death? BMJ. 2015;351:h4855.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kjellstadli C, Han L, Allore H, Flo E, Husebo BS, Hunskaar S. Associations between home deaths and end-of-life nursing care trajectories for community-dwelling people: a population-based registry study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):698.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Threapleton DE, Chung RY, Wong SYS, Wong ELY, Kiang N, Chau PYK, Woo J, Chung VCH, Yeoh EK. Care Toward the End of Life in Older Populations and Its Implementation Facilitators and Barriers: A Scoping Review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(12):1000-1009.e1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, Jackson VA, Dahlin CM, Blinderman CD, Jacobsen J, Pirl WF, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zimmermann C, Swami N, Krzyzanowska M, Hannon B, Leighl N, Oza A, Moore M, Rydall A, Rodin G, Tannock I, et al. Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9930):1721–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bakitas MA, Tosteson TD, Li Z, Lyons KD, Hull JG, Li Z, Dionne-Odom JN, Frost J, Dragnev KH, Hegel MT, et al. Early Versus Delayed Initiation of Concurrent Palliative Oncology Care: Patient Outcomes in the ENABLE III Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(13):1438–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Boddaert MS, Stoppelenburg A, Hasselaar J, van der Linden YM, Vissers KCP, Raijmakers NJH, Brom L. Specialist palliative care teams and characteristics related to referral rate: a national cross-sectional survey among hospitals in the Netherlands. BMC Palliat Care. 2021;20(1):175.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Biostatistics Task Force of Taichung Veterans General Hospital for assistance with the statistical analysis in this study.

Funding

There were no funding sources for this research.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Pei-Jung Chang and Cheng-Fu Lin contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Home Health Care Agency, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, 40705, Taiwan

    Pei-Jung Chang, Ya-Huei Juang, Jui-Yu Chiu & Yu-Hui Huang

  2. Department of Nursing, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, 40705, Taiwan

    Pei-Jung Chang, Ya-Huei Juang, Jui-Yu Chiu & Yu-Hui Huang

  3. Center for Geriatrics & Gerontology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, 40705, Taiwan

    Cheng-Fu Lin & Shih-Yi Lin

  4. Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Emergency, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, 40705, Taiwan

    Cheng-Fu Lin

  5. Research Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, College of Medicine, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, 40200, Taiwan

    Cheng-Fu Lin & Shih-Yi Lin

  6. Department of Post-Baccalaureate Medicine, College of Medicine, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, 40200, Taiwan

    Cheng-Fu Lin & Shih-Yi Lin

  7. Department of Family Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, 40705, Taiwan

    Lung-Chun Lee

  8. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, 40705, Taiwan

    Shih-Yi Lin

  9. Institute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, 11221, Taiwan

    Shih-Yi Lin

Authors
  1. Pei-Jung Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheng-Fu Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ya-Huei Juang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jui-Yu Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lung-Chun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shih-Yi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yu-Hui Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HYH and SYL conceived the study. LLC designed the study. JYC, YHJ and PJC performed the field survey to collect the data. CFL conducted statistical data analysis. CFL and PJC drafted the manuscript with intellectual contributions from all coauthors. All authors interpreted the data, and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shih-Yi Lin or Yu-Hui Huang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Taichung Veterans General Hospital (protocol code TCVGH-IRB CE22109A and date of approval: March 22, 2022). The informed consent should also be waived by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Taichung Veterans General Hospital owing to the retrospective nature of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, PJ., Lin, CF., Juang, YH. et al. Death place and palliative outcome indicators in patients under palliative home care service: an observational study. BMC Palliat Care 22, 44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-023-01167-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-023-01167-8

Keywords

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us