Skip to main content
Download PDF

More older adults died at their preferred place after implementation of a transmural care pathway for older adults at the end of life: a before-after study

BMC Palliative Care volume 22, Article number: 110 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To improve transmural palliative care for older adults acutely admitted to hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway, was developed. This care pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. With this study, we evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway.

Methods

We conducted a before-after study, in which we compared 1) unplanned hospital admission and death at place of preference and 2) transmural collaboration before implementation, up to six months, and six to 18 months after implementation. Data from palliative care team consultations were collected between February 2017 and February 2020 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands.

Results

The palliative care team held 711 first-time consultations. The number of consultation, as well as the number of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases, and consultations for advance care planning increased after implementation. The implementation of the pathway had no statistically significant effect on unplanned hospitalization but associated positively with death at place of preference more than six months after implementation (during/shortly after adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11, long term after adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003). Effects on transmural collaboration showed that there were more warm handovers during/shortly after implementation, but not on long term. Primary care professionals attended multidisciplinary team meetings more often during and shortly after implementation, but did not more than six months after implementation.

Conclusions

The pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their place of preference after implementation. Implementation of the pathway increased attention to- and awareness for in-hospital palliative care, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long-term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might helped in facilitating death at place of preference.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The early integration of palliative care has many benefits [1, 2]; it can increase quality of life, decrease symptom burden [3], and improve patients’ understanding of their prognosis, thereby improving their end-of-life decision making [4]. During hospital admissions, which are common for older patients at the end of life [5, 6], palliative care is primarily provided by non-specialists and a palliative care team can be consulted in case of complex situations [7]. Because these teams are usually not consulted until the last weeks of life [8], and communication and clarity about roles between healthcare professionals is often lacking [9] transmural palliative care for acutely hospitalized older adults is currently suboptimal. Transmural care was defined as a patient-centered care approach with close collaboration and joined responsibility between hospital and primary care organizations [10]. In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided according to the generalist plus specialist model: palliative care should be primarily provided by generalists who are not necessarily specialists in palliative care [7, 11]. In complex situations, palliative care specialists can be consulted, or can take over care if necessary. Since 2017, every Dutch hospital must have a palliative care team [12]. These palliative care teams can be consulted for advice on treating inpatients and outpatients at different stages of different diseases at the end of life.

To improve collaboration between hospitals and primary care organizations in the palliative care of acutely admitted older patients, the PalliSupport transmural palliative care pathway (hereafter referred to as pathway) was developed [13]. The pathway was developed based on research on the identification of palliative care needs and current collaboration [14,15,16], best practices, and in collaboration with experts in the field. The pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. Care is delivered by non-specialists in palliative care in collaboration with a transmural palliative care team, which includes both primary and secondary healthcare professionals. A pilot study was carried out including patients recruited during the initial 6 months in which the PalliSupport pathway was introduced (Table 1). In this study we found that adjustments were needed to incorporate a more active recruitment approach, additional training on identification and palliative care, further improvement on data collection and more involvement of general practitioners (GP) [13]. The PalliSupport pathway was continued as part of routine clinical care after the pilot study was completed.

Table 1 The PalliSupport pilot study
Full size table

To evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway, we performed this before-after study. Our aims were to determine changes in primary outcomes: 1) unplanned hospital admission and 2) death at place of preference, and secondary outcomes: transmural collaboration after implementation of the pathway. These insights could help to inform and improve future development and implementation of transmural palliative care interventions.

Methods

We collected data from first-time palliative care team consultations held between February 2017 and February 2020 in an urban teaching hospital in Amsterdam with 633 beds. In this hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway was implemented and the pilot study [13] took place (Table 1).

Intervention

The pathway contained five key elements. These were:

  • 1) Early identification of palliative care needs, using the SPICT criteria [17] and Surprise Question [18]

  • 2) Systematic palliative assessment, based on the four domains of palliative care [19] and advance care planning after which an individual care plan was formulated. The assessment was conducted by a conversation between a member of the palliative care team and the patient and informal caregiver(s).

  • 3) Team meetings, to which the patient’s own GP was invited. Individual care plans and the complexity assessments (based on symptom burden, patient needs, and whether the patient’s own GP could provide necessary care) were discussed. These assessments were based on the conversation the member of the palliative care team had with the patient.

  • 4) The patient’s own GP received a warm handover, which was considered to be a conversation in person or by phone at hospital discharge.

  • 5) A member of the transmural palliative care team visited the patient at home to follow up on the palliative assessment and adjust plans if needed (Table 2).

  • During the pilot study patients were screened and recruited based on the SPICT criteria [17] and Surprise question [18]. After implementation all patients for whom the palliative care team was consulted could receive care according to the care pathway.

Table 2 An overview of the care pathway
Full size table

A GP specialized in palliative care and district nurses were already part of the hospital-based palliative care team. This involvement increased during the implementation, meaning the primary care professionals of the palliative care team attended meetings more often and had more contact with other members. Individual care plans were formulated for patients and discussed with professionals who attended the multidisciplinary team meeting, to which the patient’s own GP and community nurses were invited. If the patient’s own GP could not attend to the meeting, a warm handover was conducted by phone. During team meetings, further involvement was determined according to a colour code (green, orange or red), which represented a ‘complexity assessment’ based on symptom burden, patient needs, and whether the patients’ own GP could provide the necessary care. Green indicated low complexity with no further input needed from the palliative care team; orange indicated disease progression and/or inadequate symptom management; and red indicated a highly complex and unstable situation. The patient, GP, and community nurse all received a paper or electronic copy of the care plan. The transmural palliative care team visited the patient at home after hospital discharge at least once, and more often if needed based on the colour code for complexity.

Data collection

We collected data from all first-time palliative care team consultations conducted during the study period. A list of patients who received a consultation during this time period was provided and data were collected from electronic patient records. Data included patient characteristics, consultation characteristics, readmissions, and mortality.

Outcomes

Primary outcomes were;

  • - Unplanned hospital admissions within six months after consultation (dichotomous). Unplanned hospital admissions was measured by collecting data from the electronic medical record in which hospital admissions are registered as elective or non-elective. Non-elective hospitalizations were registered as an unplanned hospitalization.

  • - Death at place of preference (dichotomous Yes/No), which was defined by the preferred place of death that was registered in the electronic medical record by a member of the palliative care team after their conversation with the patient. The actual place of death that was registered in the electronic medical record.

Secondary outcomes were changes in transmural collaboration: presence of the patient’s own primary healthcare professional (GP, district nurse, hospice resident) at team meetings, handover by phone, and follow-up home visits.

Independent variables

Independent variables were age, gender, the main diagnosis (malignant or non-malignant), WHO/ECOG performance status, estimated life-expectancy, admission ward, preferred place of death, place of death, time until death after consultation, and reason for consultation.

Statistical analysis

We analyzed the association between implementation of the pathway and the dependent variables. The implementation was divided in three phases: 1) pre-implementation phase: one year period before implementation started (Feb 2017 – Jan 2018), 2) during/shortly after implementation phase: six months period of the implementation and six months after implementation (Feb 2018 – Jan 2019), and 3) long term after implementation phase: one year period that started six months after the implementation ended (Feb 2019 – Jan 2020). The pre-implementation phase was used as a reference category. We analyzed changes on the individual patient level, and in every implementation phase, data from new patients were collected. Consequently, patients in the different implementation phases were not the same and data were not dependent. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to calculate and report adjusted odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). For each outcome, the included patients were tested for differences between implementation groups. Variables with statistically significant differences were discussed to assess whether these were relevant co-variables and if so, included in multivariable logistic regression analysis.

A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were done using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26.

We used the STROBE guidelines [20] to report our results.

Results

We analysed 711 consultations conducted between February 2017 and February 2020 (212 pre-implementation, 248 during/shortly after implementation, 251 long term after implementation). For patients for whom the palliative care team was consulted more than once, we included patients based on the first consult and considered other consultations for this patient as follow-up.

Patients and consultations

Patients had a mean age of 71.6 years (SD 12.6) and 50.4% were male. Most patients were diagnosed with cancer (71.3%), however, the proportion of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases increased after implementation (pre-implementation: 20.8%, during/short-term: 32.7%, long-term: 31.5%). The majority of patients had a WHO/ECOG performance status of 3 (39.9%) or 4 (26.3%) and the estimated life expectancy was less than three months (30.5%). Most consultations were for patients admitted to the department of pulmonology or cardiology (36.9%) Almost half of all consultations (43.4%) were requested for advance care planning and/or guidance in the upcoming future. After implementation, the number of consultations for advance care planning did not change, but the number of consultations for advice in the dying phase decreased. The preferred place of death was discussed less often during/shortly after implementation, but more often long term after implementation (pre-implementation: 54.2%, during/shortly after implementation: 24.2%, long term after implementation: 58.2%) (Table 3).

Table 3 Baseline characteristics
Full size table

Key elements of the care pathway

There were 638 patients included to analyze changes in transmural collaboration. Attendance of the patient’s own primary care professionals (GP and/or district nurse) at team meetings was increased during/shortly after implementation, but decreased long term after implementation (pre-implementation: 49.1%, during/shortly after implementation: 71.3%, long term after implementation: 30.5%). Attendance of the patients’ own GP at team meetings decreased after implementation (pre-implementation 38.7%, during/shortly after implementation: 30.9%, long term after implementation: 15.8%). Warm handovers were done a little more often after implementation (pre-implementation: 34.6%, during/shortly after implementation: 38.9%, long term after implementation: 34.7%). Pre-implementation, one follow-up home visit was done, during/shortly after implementation as well as long term after implementation seven visits to the patients home were made (Table 3).

Unplanned hospital admission after consultation

Patient who did not die during the hospital admission at which the palliative care team was first consulted were included in the logistic regression analysis for unplanned hospital admission, leaving 522 patients included in this analysis, of which 23.2% experienced an unplanned hospital admission within six months after consultation (Additional file 1: Appendix 1). We found statistically significant differences between implementation groups for the factors: malignant/non-malignant diseases, admission department, reason for consultation and actual place of death. Because the actual place of death was not considered as a confounder, but as a consequence of a hospital admission, we included the reason for consultation, malignant/non-malignant diseases, and admission department in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. Adjusted logistic regression analysis showed no statistically significant effects of the implementation (during/shortly after implementation adjusted OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.67–2.26; p-value 0.51; long-term after implementation adjusted OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.44–1.41; p-value: 0.42) (Table 4).

Table 4 Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of the association between implementation of the PalliSupport intervention and unplanned (re)admission
Full size table

Mortality and death at place of preference

Most patients died within one year after consultation (88%) with a median of 18.5 days. We collected data on the preferred and actual place of death for 208 patients (Additional file 2: Appendix 2). Of these patients, 58.2% died at their preferred place. Within the sample of 208 patients, we found statistically significant differences between implementation groups for admission department, reason for consultation, preferred place of death. All three variables were included in multivariable logistic regression analysis. During/shortly after implementation, we found no statistically significant change in death at place of preference (adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11). Long term after implementation, the pathway was positively associated with death at place of preference (adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003) (Table 5).

Table 5 Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of the association between implementation of the PalliSupport intervention and death at place of preference
Full size table

Discussion

We analyzed all first-time palliative care consultations conducted before, during, and after implementation of the PalliSupport pathway and evaluated the changes after implementation on patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration. We observed changes in transmural collaboration during/shortly after implementation, but not so much long term after implementation. Therefore, we believe the observed changes in the primary outcome preferred place of death in the long term are not caused by changes in transmural collaboration, but by a combination of factors, which were the education for non-specialists, increased attention to palliative care, more focus on transmural collaboration, and time. The palliative care team in this study already involved primary care professionals in team meetings. Therefore, It is possible that implementation will lead to stronger changes in other teams with less focus on transmural collaboration.

Interpretation of findings

Our study only showed improvement in transmural collaboration during/shortly after implementation, indicating the team had a more hospital-based approach. At least one of the patients’ own primary healthcare professionals attended more meetings during/shortly after implementation, but not on the long term. This could be caused by practical issues such as travel time [13], and the COVID-19 pandemic which could have made it less likely to visit other healthcare organizations. Moreover, the division between primary and secondary care, and perceptions on were palliative care should be provided [21] probably influenced the involvement of primary care professionals, especially GPs.

While a systematic review of Saunders et al. [6] suggested that palliative care involvement during hospital admission might decrease readmission rates, we found no association between implementation and (re)admission, in line with results of another transmural care pathway [22]. Members of the palliative care team felt responsible for the patients under discussion, and patients and GPs expected the palliative care team to become the main contact [13]. Consequently, patients and GPs might have had the tendency to reach out the hospital sooner in case of problems at home, leading to more hospital admissions. The pathway aimed to avoid hospital admission with the following key elements: [23] recognizing the approach of death, discussions about treatment wishes and symptoms, and monitoring through follow-up home visits. However, the transmural palliative care team still got involved mostly in the last weeks to months of life, limiting the time to discuss and prepare for the approach of death and to fix problems such as limited support systems, small houses with high stairs, and limited home care [24, 25]. These problems cannot be fixed by individual hospitals or professionals and require large scale improvement strategies on the social or (community) political level. In addition, the number of performed home-visits was low, which could indicate insufficient monitoring after discharge. The number of consultations before and after implementation requested for advance care planning remained equal, however, it could be possible that non-specialist performed more advance care planning discussions themselves after the educational program. This had no effect on the prevention of hospital admissions, but might have contributed to the effect on death at place of preference.

Overall, half of the patients in our study died at their place of preference, which is in line with previous research [26]. Our results showed that long term after implementation was associated positively with death at place of preference. A systematic review comparing different transmural palliative care approaches revealed that a hospital-based approach was most effective in facilitating death at home [27], which could explain why we found an effect on death at place of preference. We hypothesize that patient-level effects are not the result of individual elements of the pathway, but of education, increased attention for palliative care and the pathway as a whole including a change of culture in the hospital. This is supported by the increased number of consultations for specialist palliative care. There were also more requests for patients with non-malignant diseases. This demonstrates the importance of gaining knowledge about recognition of palliative care needs, which is considered to be difficult especially for patients with non-malignant diseases [14]. Also, long term after implementation the preferred place of death was discussed more often, which might indicate more attention for patients preferences. Since unplanned hospital admissions were not reduced, we think that for some patients, these admissions eventually made death at the place of preference possible because of better symptom management and time for arranging care at home, in care homes, and in hospices [28]. We found that on long term after implementation, especially the number of patient preferring and actually dying in hospices increased. This could be caused by an overall increase in hospice care [29], but could also be caused by the involvement of the palliative care team, [30] which might have led to more awareness of hospice care among patients.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this study is that we collected data from all new consultations conducted with the palliative care team before, during, and after implementation of the pathway, which provides insight into the short-term and long-term effects of implementation.

This study also has limitations, and therefore the interpretation of the changes we found should be made with caution. A limitation of this study is the retrospective nature of the study design. Because of that, changes in patient-related outcomes could have also been caused by other factors, which we did not measure. The patients that were recruited during the pilot study were screened for SPICT criteria and the surprise question while other patients were not. This could have caused differences between these groups, however, only eight patients were recruited during the pilot study [13]. We do acknowledge that a randomized controlled trial is the gold standard approach to evaluating effectiveness [31]. However, given the complex and time-consuming nature of improving transmural palliative care [32], we felt a before-after design would be the best alternative [33]. All data were collected from electronic patient records, which were based on reports made by the patients’ caregivers and members of the palliative care team. Consequently, we could not collect data about conversations and contacts that were not reported in the electronic patient record, which might have caused an underestimation of the transmural collaboration. Also, we could not collect data of hospital admissions in other hospitals. Considering the sample size, we could not include all possible relevant factors in the multivariable logistic regression analysis, but only included statistically significant factors. Future studies should involve prospective longitudinal data collection and collect data on symptom management, patient satisfaction with care, the number of care transitions and other patient-related outcomes.

In conclusion, our study shows that implementation of the pathway did not result in improvement of all patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration. The pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their preferred place after implementation. The attention and awareness for in-hospital palliative care increased, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might have helped in facilitating death at place of preference.

Availability of data and materials

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

References

  1. Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c1345. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1345.

  2. Rietjens JAC, Sudore RL, Connolly M, van Delden JJ, Drickamer MA, Droger M, et al. Definition and recommendations for advance care planning: an international consensus supported by the European Association for Palliative Care. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):e543–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Haun MW, Estel S, Rücker G, Friederich HC, Villalobos M, Thomas M, Hartmann M. Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD011129. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011129.pub2.

  4. Temel JS, Greer JA, Admane S, Gallagher ER, Jackson VA, Lynch TJ, et al. Longitudinal perceptions of prognosis and goals of therapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a randomized study of early palliative care. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(17):2319–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Verkooijen L. Laatste levensjaren tachtigplussers CBS2020 [11–05–2021]. Available from: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/statistische-trends/2020/laatste-levensjaren-tachtigplussers?onepage=true.

  6. Saunders S, Killackey T, Kurahashi A, Walsh C, Wentlandt K, Lovrics E, et al. Palliative Care Transitions From Acute Care to Community-Based Care—A Systematic Review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019;58(4):721-34.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boddaert M DJ, Dijxhoorn F, Bijkerk M. Kwaliteitskader palliatieve zorg Nederland, IKNL/Palliactief Pallialine2017 [Available from: https://www.pallialine.nl/index.php?pagina=/richtlijn/item/pagina.php&id=41753&richtlijn_id=1078.

  8. Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Boddaert M, Douma J, van der Heide A. Palliative care in Dutch hospitals: a rapid increase in the number of expert teams, a limited number of referrals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):518.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Oishi A, Murtagh FE. The challenges of uncertainty and interprofessional collaboration in palliative care for non-cancer patients in the community: a systematic review of views from patients, carers and health-care professionals. Palliat Med. 2014;28(9):1081–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Temmink D, Francke AL, Kerkstra A, Abu-Saad HH. Dutch transmural nurse clinics for chronic patients: a descriptive study. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39(2):177–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quill TE, Abernethy AP. Generalist plus Specialist Palliative Care — Creating a More Sustainable Model. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1173–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. IKNL. Kwaliteitskader palliatieve zorg Nederland 2017 Available from: https://palliaweb.nl/zorgpraktijk/kwaliteitskader-palliatieve-zorg-nederland.

  13. Flierman I, van Rijn M, de Meij M, Poels M, Niezink DM, Willems DL, et al. Feasibility of the PalliSupport care pathway: results from a mixed-method study in acutely hospitalized older patients at the end of life. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020;6:129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Flierman I, Nugteren IC, van Seben R, Buurman BM, Willems DL. How do hospital-based nurses and physicians identify the palliative phase in their patients and what difficulties exist? A qualitative interview study. BMC Palliat Care. 2019;18(1):54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Flierman I, van Rijn M, Willems DL, Buurman BM. Usability of the surprise question by nurses to identify 12-month mortality in hospitalized older patients: A prospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;109:103609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Flierman I, van Seben R, van Rijn M, Poels M, Buurman BM, Willems DL. Health Care Providers’ Views on the Transition Between Hospital and Primary Care in Patients in the Palliative Phase: A Qualitative Description Study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60(2):372-80.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Highet G, Crawford D, Murray SA, Boyd K. Development and evaluation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT): a mixed-methods study. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014;4(3):285–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Murray S, Boyd K. Using the “surprise question” can identify people with advanced heart failure and COPD who would benefit from a palliative care approach. Palliat Med. 2011;25(4):382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kittelson SM, Elie M-C, Pennypacker L. Palliative Care Symptom Management. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2015;27(3):315–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S31–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. van Doorne I, van Schie VMW, Parlevliet JL, Willems DL, van Rijn M, Buurman BM. Challenges in the implementation and evaluation of a transmural palliative care pathway for acutely hospitalized older adults; lessons from the PalliSupport program: A qualitative process evaluation study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2022;103:104782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Groenewoud AS, Wichmann AB, Dijkstra L, Knapen E, Warmerdam F, De Weerdt-Spaetgens C, et al. Effects of an Integrated Palliative Care Pathway: More Proactive GPs, Well Timed, and Less Acute Care: A Clustered, Partially Controlled Before-After Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(2):297–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Korte-Verhoef MC, Pasman HR, Schweitzer BP, Francke AL, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Deliens L. How could hospitalisations at the end of life have been avoided? A qualitative retrospective study of the perspectives of general practitioners, nurses and family carers. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0118971.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zorgvisie. Tekort zorgpersoneel in Amsterdam steeds nijpender www.zorgvisie.nl2018 [03–02–2022]. Available from: https://www.zorgvisie.nl/tekort-zorgpersoneel-amsterdam-steeds-nijpender/.

  25. De Korte-Verhoef MC, Pasman HR, Schweitzer BP, Francke AL, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Deliens L. General practitioners’ perspectives on the avoidability of hospitalizations at the end of life: A mixed-method study. Palliat Med. 2014;28(7):949–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oxenham D, Finucane A, Arnold E, Russell P. Delivering preference for place of death in a specialist palliative care setting. BMJ Quality Improvement Reports. 2013;2(1):u201375.w897.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Flierman I, Gieteling E, Van Rijn M, Van Grootven B, van Doorne I, Jamaludin FS, Willems DL, Muller M, Buurman BM. Effectiveness of transmural team-based palliative care in prevention of hospitalizations in patients at the end of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Palliat Med. 2023;37(1):75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163221135616. Epub 2022 Dec 21.

  28. Robinson J, Gott M, Gardiner C, Ingleton C. A qualitative study exploring the benefits of hospital admissions from the perspectives of patients with palliative care needs. Palliat Med. 2015;29(8):703–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Visser A, Hijman A, Klein Poelhuis E, de Boer M, Oldewarris – de Vries S. Trendanalyse Palliatieve zorg (rapport). Pallialine. 2020. Available from: https://palliaweb.nl/publicaties/rapport-trendanalyse-palliatieve-zorg.

  30. Paris J, Morrison RS. Evaluating the Effects of Inpatient Palliative Care Consultations on Subsequent Hospice Use and Place of Death in Patients With Advanced GI Cancers. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2014;10(3):174–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for effectiveness research: Study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG. 2018;125(13):1716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Engel M, Stoppelenburg A, van der Ark A, Bols FM, Bruggeman J, Janssens-van Vliet ECJ, et al. Development and implementation of a transmural palliative care consultation service: a multiple case study in the Netherlands. BMC Palliat Care. 2021;20(1):81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Simon S, Higginson IJ. Evaluation of hospital palliative care teams: strengths and weaknesses of the before-after study design and strategies to improve it. Palliat Med. 2009;23(1):23–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the involved palliative care team and involved non-specialist healthcare professionals who made implementation of the PalliSupport care pathway within the OLVG hospital possible. The results have been presented at the EuGMS 18th International congress September 2022.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development), grant number 844001103. This study was part of a larger research project. The funding bodies played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Room D3-335, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Iris van Doorne, Juliette L. Parlevliet, Vera M. W. van Schie, Bianca M. Buurman & Marjon van Rijn

  2. Amsterdam Public Health, Aging and Later Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Iris van Doorne, Juliette L. Parlevliet, Bianca M. Buurman & Marjon van Rijn

  3. Center of Expertise Urban Vitality, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Iris van Doorne, Bianca M. Buurman & Marjon van Rijn

  4. Palliative and Supportive Care Team, Oncology Center Amsterdam, OLVG, Oosterpark 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marike A. de Meij

  5. General Practice, Section of Medical Ethics, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Dick L. Willems

  6. Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Medicine for Older People, Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bianca M. Buurman & Marjon van Rijn

Authors
  1. Iris van Doorne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marike A. de Meij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juliette L. Parlevliet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vera M. W. van Schie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dick L. Willems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bianca M. Buurman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marjon van Rijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The current study was designed by IvD, MdM, DW, BB and MvR. Data were collected by IvD and VvS, and data were analysed and interpreted by IvD, and MvR and discussed with MdM, JP, DW and BB. IvD and MvR wrote the first draft of the manuscript, which was critically reviewed by and discussed with all authors before revisions were made. All authors approved this version to be submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris van Doorne.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol study was assessed by the medical ethical board of the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC (W21_134 # 21.149) and was exempted from ethical approval as it did not have to comply with the Medical Research Involving Human Subject Act since it only included observational patient data. The need for informed consent for retrospective data collection was waived by the medical ethical board of the OLVG Hospital Amsterdam (WO 21.069) since all data were analysed and stored anonymously. All methods were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Data were processed according to the General Data Protection Regulation (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG) in Dutch).

Concent 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.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Appendix 1. Baseline characteristics study sample included in analysis for hospital (re)admission.

Additional file 2:

Appendix 2. Baseline characteristics study sample included in analysis for death at place of preference.

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

van Doorne, I., de Meij, M.A., Parlevliet, J.L. et al. More older adults died at their preferred place after implementation of a transmural care pathway for older adults at the end of life: a before-after study. BMC Palliat Care 22, 110 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-023-01218-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-023-01218-0

Keywords

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us