Title |
Going back to home to die: does it make a difference to patient survival?
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, March 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12904-015-0003-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Nozomu Murakami, Kouichi Tanabe, Tatsuya Morita, Shinichi Kadoya, Masanari Shimada, Kaname Ishiguro, Naoki Endo, Koichiro Sawada, Yasunaga Fujikawa, Rumi Takashima, Yoko Amemiya, Hiroyuki Iida, Shiro Koseki, Hatsuna Yasuda, Tatsuhiko Kashii |
Abstract |
Many patients wish to stay at home during the terminal stage of cancer. However, there is concern that medical care provided at home may negatively affect survival. This study therefore explored whether the survival duration differed between cancer patients who received inpatient care and those who received home care. We retrospectively investigated the place of care/death and survival duration of 190 cancer patients after their referral to a palliative care consultation team in a Japanese general hospital between 2007 and 2012. The patients were classified into a hospital care group consisting of those who received palliative care in the hospital until death, and a home care group including patients who received palliative care at home from doctors in collaboration with the palliative care consultation team. Details of the place of care, survival duration, and patient characteristics (primary site, gender, age, history of chemotherapy, and performance status) were obtained from electronic medical records, and analyzed after propensity score matching in the place of care. Median survival adjusted for propensity score was significantly longer in the home care group (67.0 days, n = 69) than in the hospital care group (33.0 days, n = 69; P = 0.0013). Cox's proportional hazard analysis revealed that the place of care was a significant factor for survival following adjustment for covariates including performance status. This study suggests that the general concern that home care shortens the survival duration of patients is not based on evidence. A cohort study including more known prognostic factors is necessary to confirm the results. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 10 | 34% |
Japan | 4 | 14% |
Czechia | 2 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
Australia | 1 | 3% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 17 | 59% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 31% |
Scientists | 3 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 1 | 2% |
United States | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 59 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 16% |
Other | 9 | 15% |
Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
Researcher | 6 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
Other | 10 | 16% |
Unknown | 13 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 37% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
Engineering | 2 | 3% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
Other | 3 | 5% |
Unknown | 21 | 34% |