Comparison of end-of-life care for older people living at home and in residential homes: a mortality follow-back study among GPs in the Netherlands

Yolanda WH Penders; Lieve Van den Block; Gé A Donker; Luc Deliens; Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen

doi:10.3399/bjgp15X687349

Abstract

Background The proportion of older people is increasing, therefore their place of residence and place of care at the end of life are becoming increasingly important.

Aim To compare aspects of end-of-life care among older people in residential homes and home settings in the Netherlands.

Design and setting Nationwide representative mortality follow-back study among GPs in the Netherlands.

Method The study included patients aged ≥65 years who died non-suddenly, whose longest place of residence in their last year of life was at home or in a residential home (n = 498). Differences were analysed using Pearson’s χ² test, Mann-Whitney U tests, and multivariate logistic regression.

Results Controlling for the differences between the populations in home settings and residential homes, no differences were found in treatment goals, communication about end-of-life care, or use of specialised palliative care between the two settings. However, people living in a residential home were more likely to have received palliative care from a GP than people living at home (OR 2.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41 to 5.07). In residential homes, people more often experienced no transfer between care settings (OR 2.76, 95% CI = 1.35 to 5.63) and no hospitalisations (OR 2.2, 95% CI = 1.04 to 4.67) in the last 3 months of life, and died in hospital less often (OR 0.78, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.97) than those people living at home.

Conclusion Despite similar treatment goals, care in residential homes seems more successful in avoiding transfers and hospitalisation at the end of life. Especially since older people are encouraged to stay at home longer, measures should be taken to ensure they are not at higher risk of transfers and hospitalisations in this setting.

INTRODUCTION

The population of Europe is ageing, with the proportion of those living beyond 60 years increasing each year.¹ As a result, there is a growing need for care over a longer period of time, increasing the burden on healthcare systems.²–⁴ To limit this burden, policy initiatives encourage people to stay at home longer and make less use of relatively expensive institutionalised care.¹,⁵,⁶

In the Netherlands, older people who are severely care-dependent most often live in nursing homes, where they are cared for by an in-house physician and nursing staff. Older people with lower care needs may either live at home or in a residential home. Residential homes provide continuous on-site nursing care with activities of daily living such as eating or bathing, but do not have on-site medical care and only some provide psychogeriatric care for people with dementia. In both settings care is provided primarily by GPs, who are considered to be appropriate caregivers for many situations including care at the end of life.

Although many people would prefer to die at home, a sizeable percentage would prefer to die in a residential home.⁷,⁸ Although it is known that a person’s quality of life in the final phase of life and quality of death can be affected by the care setting, studies often do not directly compare care setting or place of residence.⁹ Those that do make a direct comparison focus primarily on subjective measures of care, such as the family’s satisfaction with care.¹⁰ How the care received by older people living at home compares with that received by those living in a residential home is yet unknown.

Several aspects of end-of-life care that influence its quality might differ depending on the care setting or place of residence of a patient. One of these is recognising when aggressive or curative treatment or hospitalisation is no longer beneficial,¹¹–¹³ because hospitalisations may complicate care provision and result in a lower quality of death.¹⁴ Recognising when the end of life is near has been shown to reduce the chance of hospitalisation in the last month of life, as has having a palliative treatment aim.¹⁵ Likewise, the provision of palliative care has been shown to reduce the number of hospitalisations.¹⁶,¹⁷ These three aspects of care: having a palliative treatment aim, following up with providing palliative care, and reducing unnecessary hospitalisations near the end of life, all play an important role in the quality of end-of-life care and should be present in all care settings.

The aim of this study was to examine and compare different aspects of end-of-life care in the last 3 months of life among older people in residential homes and home settings in the Netherlands. Specific research questions include:

are there population differences between older people in home settings and older people in residential homes?
do treatment goals in the last 3 months of life differ between people in home settings and people in residential homes?
are there differences in palliative care provision for people in home settings and people in residential homes?
do transitions between care settings and hospitalisations in the last 3 months of life differ between people in home settings and people in residential homes?

How this fits in

A growing proportion of older people require care in a variety of settings, with care at home being stipulated as desirable for both the patient and the healthcare system. Studies investigating the effect of setting on quality of end-of-life care have so far focused on subjective measures of care, such as the family’s satisfaction with care, or have not directly compared care settings. The current research directly compares several objective measures of the care received by older patients living at home and living in a residential home. Knowing how end-of-life care for older people differs between settings can help inform clinicians and policy-makers of the potential benefits and pitfalls of specific places of care.

METHOD

Study design and data collection

The data used in this study were collected via the Netherlands Institute of Health Services Research (NIVEL) Primary Care Database, Sentinel Practices, operating since 1970. The network is managed to encompass a sample of 0.8% of the Dutch population, which is representative in terms of age, sex, and population density. GPs are invited to participate on the basis of their practice population characteristics so that the sample remains representative. On accepting the invitation, GPs first participate in a 2-month trial period to assess their reporting accuracy and motivation before becoming regular participants (registering 26 weeks or more of one year, usually for several years). Participating GPs record demographic and care characteristics for all deaths of practice patients using a standardised registration form within 1 week of the patient’s death.¹⁸ Participating GPs gave written informed consent at the beginning of each registration year, having been informed of the study objectives and procedures. All patient data were recorded anonymously.

Sample

There were 801 patients who died in the 40 participating GP practices between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012.¹⁹ All patients who died non-suddenly aged ≥65 years and whose longest place of residence in the last year of life had been a home setting (either their own home or a relative’s home) or a residential home were included, comprising a total sample of 498 patients.

Measurements

Demographic characteristics included sex, age at time of death, cause of death, having dementia, main place of residence in the last year of life, and place of death. In addition, several care characteristics were registered:

Treatment goals

GPs were asked to indicate the importance of a palliative, curative, or life-prolonging treatment goal 2–3 months before death, 2–4 weeks before death, and 1 week before death on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘not important at all’ to ‘very important’. Scores of 4 and 5 were interpreted as that treatment goal being ‘important’.

Palliative care provisions

GPs were asked to indicate whether their patient had received palliative care provided by the GPs themselves, by a GP with formal palliative care training, or by any of a number of specialised palliative care services. Options were: by a palliative care consultant; in a hospice; in a palliative care unit in a hospital; in a palliative care unit in a residential, care, or nursing home; and ‘other’. If a specialised palliative care service had been used, GPs were asked to indicate how many days before death palliative care was first provided. GPs were also asked if the patient had ever expressed a preference for a place of death, a proxy decision-maker, or about any medical end-of-life treatments.

Care trajectories

GPs were asked to indicate when patients were transferred between care settings during the last 3 months of life, and how long patients stayed at each care setting. GPs could give details on a maximum of four care settings and three transitions.

Analyses

Differences between groups were tested using Pearson’s χ² test or Mann–Whitney U tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse associations between longest place of residence (as dependent variable) and several care characteristics, while controlling for age, sex, cancer or non-cancer, and having dementia or not. Robust standard errors were used to account for clustering within GP practices. All analyses were performed using Stata (version 12).

RESULTS

Population differences between residential settings

The study included 400 people aged ≥65 years living at home in the last year of life, and 98 who lived in a residential home (Table 1). The average age at death of people living at home was 81 years (SD 23) compared with 87 years (SD 7) for those in a residential home (P = 0.02). Of those living at home, 43% were females compared with 63% of those in a residential home (P<0.001). There were significant differences between the two groups in cause of death (P<0.001). People living at home were more likely to have died of cancer (54%) compared with those in a residential home (25%), whereas those in a residential home were more likely to have died of cardiovascular disease (15% versus 25%), respiratory disease (5% versus 11%), or old age (11% versus 24%). Residents of a residential home were more likely to have dementia (P<0.001), with 16% having mild dementia and 17% having severe dementia, compared with 8% and 5%, respectively, for those living at home.

View this table:

Table 1.

Characteristics of the study population (n = 498)^{^a}

Treatment goals in the last 3 months of life

In the 2 to 3 months before death, a palliative treatment goal was considered important for 79% of those living at home and 82% of those in a residential home (Figure 1). This increased to 95% and 94%, respectively, in the last week of life. Two to 3 months before death a curative treatment goal was considered important for 29% of those living at home and 30% of those in a residential home, decreasing to 17% and 15%, respectively, in the last week of life. A life-prolonging treatment goal was considered important in the last 2–3 months of life for 40% of those living at home and 33% of those in a residential home, decreasing to 19% and 15%, respectively, in the last week of life. There were no significant differences in treatment goals between the two groups at any time point, either in bivariate analyses or after controlling for patient characteristics.

Figure 1.

Percentage of patients for whom a palliative, curative, and life-prolonging treatment goal was important during last 3 months of life in home settings and residential homes.

Palliative care provision and communication in the last 3 months of life

Those in a residential home setting were more likely to have received palliative care from their GP (58%) than those living at home (53%, OR 2.84, 95% CI = 1.41 to 5.07) (Table 2). Likewise, palliative care from a GP with formal palliative care training was provided more often to those in a residential home (24%) than those living at home (7%, OR 6.26, 95% CI = 2.88 to 13.66). There were no significant differences in overall frequency of care received from specialised palliative care initiatives, although only those living at home received specialised care in a palliative care unit in a hospital (1%) or from other sources (6%). Specialised palliative care was initiated a median of 14 days before death for those living at home, and 12 days before death for those in a residential home.

View this table:

Table 2.

Palliative care provision and communication at the end of life of patients in home settings and residential homes (n = 498)^{^a}

The GPs were aware of their patients’ preference about a medical end-of-life treatment in 52% of cases for those living at home and 51% of cases for those in a residential home. The patient’s preference for a place of death was known in 56% of cases for those living at home and 55% of cases for those in a residential home. The patient had expressed a preference for a proxy decision-maker in 29% of cases for those living at home and 26% of cases for those in a residential home. There were no significant differences between groups in the GPs’ awareness of patients’ preferences.

Transitions between care settings in the last 3 months of life

People living in a residential home had not experienced any transitions between care settings in the last 3 months of life in 69% of cases, compared with 46% of those living at home (OR 2.76, 95% CI = 1.35 to 5.63) (Table 3). For 17% of those in a residential home and 34% of those living at home, there was one transition in the last 3 months of life (OR 0.29, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.67). There were no significant differences between the groups for those who experienced two or more transitions. The most frequent care trajectory for those who experienced at least one transition was to move from their place of residence to hospital, occurring in 25% of cases for those living at home and 10% of cases for those in a residential home (OR 0.25, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.58). In the last week of life, 22% of those living at home and 15% of those in a residential home were transferred to another care setting.

View this table:

Table 3.

Transitions between care settings in the last 3 months of life and place of death of people in home settings and residential homes (n = 498)^{^a}

Hospitalisations in the last 3 months of life were less frequent for those in a residential home, where 72% were not hospitalised during this time, than for those living at home, where 53% were not hospitalised (OR 2.2, 95% CI = 1.04 to 4.67). People living at home who were hospitalised, spent a total average of 12 days (SD 12.5) in hospital, compared with an average of 11 days (SD 11) for those in a residential home. People in a residential home were less likely to die in hospital (16% of cases) than people living at home (30% of cases; OR 0.78, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.97). In both groups, 79% of people died at their place of preference.

The maximum length of hospital stay for those whose stay ended in death in hospital was 51 days (Figure 2). Those living at home were more likely to be admitted to hospital longer before death than those in a residential home (OR 1.1 per day, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.19).

Figure 2.

Timing of hospitalisation in days before death for patients who died in hospital from home settings and from residential homes (n = 498).

DISCUSSION

Summary

This study found that home settings and residential homes cater to different populations in terms of age, sex, cause of death, and having dementia. Of the three aspects mentioned earlier as playing a role in the quality of end-of-life care, recognising a palliative treatment goal did not differ between settings after controlling for patient characteristics. The provision of palliative care apparently did differ, with people living in a residential home significantly more likely to receive palliative care from a GP with or without formal palliative care training than people living at home. In contrast, people living at home received palliative care from a larger variety of specialised palliative care providers than those living in a residential home. Furthermore, people living in a residential home had lower odds of transfers and hospitalisation near the end of life, and of dying in hospital, than people living at home.

Strengths and limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, this nationwide representative study is the first to compare directly end-of-life care received by older patients living at home and those living in a residential home. By investigating objective measures of care, this knowledge adds to and improves on studies focusing on subjective measures such as the family’s satisfaction with care.

As this study was retrospective in nature, the participating GPs may have experienced recall bias in answering, especially for questions regarding aspects of care occurring long before death. This risk was minimised by having the survey completed within 1 week of death. Due to the nature of the data, it was not possible to ascertain the degree to which people were supported by or received care from informal caregivers, such as a spouse or children. Finally, it is important to realise that this study pertains to people living at home or in a residential home and does not include those living in a nursing home, although this distinction in long-term care structures may be different in other European countries.

Comparison with existing literature

The higher transfer rates of those living at home require attention because there is a trend towards encouraging older people to stay at home longer in an effort to decrease the growing burden on the long-term care system.¹,⁶ Although there have been many initiatives to decrease unnecessary hospitalisations from long-term care settings,²⁰,²¹ less attention has been paid to hospitalisations from a home setting, although these too are unnecessary or avoidable in some cases.¹⁵ The availability of primary care (particularly GP care) has been shown to decrease avoidable hospitalisations both in general²¹,²² and specifically from long-term care settings.²³,²⁴

Implications for practice

The fact that those people living in a residential home receive palliative care more than twice as often from their GP as those living at home, and more frequently receive specialised palliative care from a GP with formal palliative care training, could be both a cause and an effect of their lower transfer and hospitalisation rates at the end of life. GPs serving the population of a residential home may be more experienced and more confident in serving the care needs of someone at the end of life, making them less likely to transfer patients or have them hospitalised at the end of life. Alternatively, if there is more reluctance to transfer older patients from a residential home to hospital than those living at home — possibly because they are more frail — the GP automatically becomes the designated person for providing palliative care.

The lower transfer rates of older people in a residential home may also be a consequence of their symptoms being investigated to a lesser degree, to avoid burdensome interventions not in the patient’s best interests. Conditions potentially requiring hospital care, such as cancer, could then go undiagnosed. Older people living at home may also have more need for a transfer to a different care setting or to hospital because organising home care 24 hours per day can be difficult, especially at short notice. Initiatives aimed at improving the provision of palliative care in home settings specifically,²⁵ or in addition to other settings,²⁶,²⁷ may prove valuable in decreasing this risk.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge other collaborators of EURO IMPACT (further details of these are available from the authors on request).

Notes

Funding

EURO IMPACT — European Intersectorial and Multidisciplinary Palliative Care Research Training was funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013, grant number 264697).

Ethical approval

Ethical approval is not required for posthumous collection of anonymous patient data in the Netherlands.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

Received February 18, 2015.
Revision requested April 20, 2015.
Accepted May 27, 2015.

REFERENCES

1.↵
1. Social Protection Committee. European Commission
(2014) Adequate social protection for long-term care needs in an ageing society (European Commission, Brussels).
2.↵
1. Polder JJ,
2. Barendregt JJ,
3. Van Oers H
(2006) Health care costs in the last year of life: the Dutch experience. Soc Sci Med 63(7):1720–1731.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
3.
1. Langton JM,
2. Blanch B,
3. Drew AK,
4. et al.
(2014) Retrospective studies of end-of-life resource utilization and costs in cancer care using health administrative data: a systematic review. Palliat Med 28(10):1167–1196.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
4.↵
1. Curtis JR,
2. Engelberg RA,
3. Bensink ME,
4. Ramsey SD
(2012) End-of-life care in the intensive care unit: can we simultaneously increase quality and reduce costs? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 186(7):587–592.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
5.↵
1. Gardiner C,
2. Brereton L,
3. Frey R,
4. et al.
(2014) Exploring the financial impact of caring for family members receiving palliative and end-of-life care: a systematic review of the literature. Palliat Med 28(5):375–390.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
6.↵
1. Rijksoverheid [Dutch Parliament]
Elderly live independently longer [In Dutch], http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/ouderenzorg/ouderen-langer-zelfstandig-wonen (accessed 28 Aug 2015).
7.↵
1. Abarshi E,
2. Onwuteaka-Philipsen B,
3. Donker G,
4. et al.
(2009) General practitioner awareness of preferred place of death and correlates of dying in a preferred place: a nationwide mortality follow-back study in the Netherlands. J Pain Symptom Manage 38(4):568–577.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
8.↵
1. Gomes B,
2. Higginson IJ,
3. Calanzani N,
4. et al.
(2012) 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 23(8):2006–2015.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
9.↵
1. Mezey M,
2. Dubler NN,
3. Mitty E,
4. Brody AA
(2002) What impact do setting and transitions have on the quality of life at the end of life and the quality of the dying process? Gerontologist 42(Suppl 3):54–67.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
10.↵
1. Teno JM,
2. Clarridge BR,
3. Casey V,
4. et al.
(2004) Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care. JAMA 291(1):88–93.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
11.↵
1. Raijmakers N,
2. Galushko M,
3. Domeisen F,
4. et al.
(2012) Quality indicators for care of cancer patients in their last days of life: literature update and experts’ evaluation. J Palliat Med 15(3):308–316.
OpenUrl PubMed
12.
1. De Roo ML,
2. Leemans K,
3. Claessen SJ,
4. et al.
(2013) Quality indicators for palliative care: update of a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 46(4):556–572.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
13.↵
1. Pasman HR,
2. Brandt HE,
3. Deliens L,
4. Francke AL
(2009) Quality indicators for palliative care: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 38(1):145–156.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
14.↵
1. Coleman EA,
2. Berenson RA
(2004) Lost in transition: challenges and opportunities for improving the quality of transitional care. Ann Intern Med 141(7):533–536.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
15.↵
1. De Korte-Verhoef R
Reasons and avoidability of hospitalisations at the end of life. Perspectives of GPs, nurses and family carers. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, 2014.
16.↵
1. Higginson IJ,
2. Evans CJ
(2010) What is the evidence that palliative care teams improve outcomes for cancer patients and their families? Cancer J 16(5):423–435.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
17.↵
1. Zimmermann C,
2. Riechelmann R,
3. Krzyzanowska M,
4. et al.
(2008) Effectiveness of specialized palliative care: a systematic review. JAMA 299(14):1698–1709.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
18.↵
1. Van den Block L,
2. Onwuteaka-Philipsen B,
3. Meeussen K,
4. et al.
(2013) Nationwide continuous monitoring of end-of-life care via representative networks of general practitioners in Europe. BMC Fam Pract 14(1):73.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
19.↵
1. Donker GA
(2013) Continue Morbiditeits Registratie Peilstations Nederland 2012 (NIVEL, Utrecht).
20.↵
1. Konetzka RT,
2. Spector W,
3. Limcangco MR
(2008) Reducing hospitalizations from long-term care settings. Med Care Res Rev 65(1):40–66.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
21.↵
1. Rosano A,
2. Loha CA,
3. Falvo R,
4. et al.
(2013) The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health 23(3):356–360.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
22.↵
1. Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD,
2. De Korte-Verhoef MC,
3. Schweitzer BP,
4. et al.
(2015) 14th World Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care: Building Bridges (8–10 May 2015, Copenhagen), Eur J Palliat Care, Generalist primary and palliative care is associated with few hospitalisations in the last month of life, 142, [Abstract].
23.↵
1. Ouslander JG,
2. Lamb G,
3. Perloe M,
4. et al.
(2010) Potentially avoidable hospitalizations of nursing home residents: frequency, causes, and costs: [see editorial comments by Drs. Jean F. Wyman and William R. Hazzard, pp 760–761]. J Am Geriatr Soc 58(4):627–635.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
24.↵
1. Kaspers PJ,
2. Pasman HR,
3. Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD,
4. Deeg DJ
(2013) Changes over a decade in end-of-life care and transfers during the last 3 months of life: a repeated survey among proxies of deceased older people. Palliat Med 27(6):544–552.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
25.↵
1. van der Plas AG,
2. Hagens M,
3. Pasman HR,
4. et al.
(2014) PaTz groups for primary palliative care: reinventing cooperation between general practitioners and district nurses in palliative care: an evaluation study combining data from focus groups and a questionnaire. BMC Fam Pract 15(1):14.
OpenUrl
26.↵
1. Shaw KL,
2. Clifford C,
3. Thomas K,
4. Meehan H
(2010) Review: improving end-of-life care: a critical review of the gold standards framework in primary care. Palliat Med 24(3):317–329.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
27.↵
1. Mahmood-Yousuf K,
2. Munday D,
3. King N,
4. Dale J
(2008) Interprofessional relationships and communication in primary palliative care: impact of the Gold Standards Framework. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp08X279760.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

In this issue

Download PDF

Download PowerPoint

Email Article

Citation Tools

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Show more Research

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

[1] 1.↵
Social Protection Committee. European Commission
(2014) Adequate social protection for long-term care needs in an ageing society (European Commission, Brussels).

[2] Social Protection Committee. European Commission

[3] 2.↵
Polder JJ,
Barendregt JJ,
Van Oers H
(2006) Health care costs in the last year of life: the Dutch experience. Soc Sci Med 63(7):1720–1731.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[4] Polder JJ,

[5] Barendregt JJ,

[6] Van Oers H

[7] 3.
Langton JM,
Blanch B,
Drew AK,
et al.
(2014) Retrospective studies of end-of-life resource utilization and costs in cancer care using health administrative data: a systematic review. Palliat Med 28(10):1167–1196.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[8] Langton JM,

[9] Blanch B,

[10] Drew AK,

[11] et al.

[12] 4.↵
Curtis JR,
Engelberg RA,
Bensink ME,
Ramsey SD
(2012) End-of-life care in the intensive care unit: can we simultaneously increase quality and reduce costs? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 186(7):587–592.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[13] Curtis JR,

[14] Engelberg RA,

[15] Bensink ME,

[16] Ramsey SD

[17] 5.↵
Gardiner C,
Brereton L,
Frey R,
et al.
(2014) Exploring the financial impact of caring for family members receiving palliative and end-of-life care: a systematic review of the literature. Palliat Med 28(5):375–390.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[18] Gardiner C,

[19] Brereton L,

[20] Frey R,

[21] et al.

[22] 6.↵
Rijksoverheid [Dutch Parliament]
Elderly live independently longer [In Dutch], http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/ouderenzorg/ouderen-langer-zelfstandig-wonen (accessed 28 Aug 2015).

[23] Rijksoverheid [Dutch Parliament]

[24] 7.↵
Abarshi E,
Onwuteaka-Philipsen B,
Donker G,
et al.
(2009) General practitioner awareness of preferred place of death and correlates of dying in a preferred place: a nationwide mortality follow-back study in the Netherlands. J Pain Symptom Manage 38(4):568–577.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[25] Abarshi E,

[26] Onwuteaka-Philipsen B,

[27] Donker G,

[28] et al.

[29] 8.↵
Gomes B,
Higginson IJ,
Calanzani N,
et al.
(2012) 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 23(8):2006–2015.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[30] Gomes B,

[31] Higginson IJ,

[32] Calanzani N,

[33] et al.

[34] 9.↵
Mezey M,
Dubler NN,
Mitty E,
Brody AA
(2002) What impact do setting and transitions have on the quality of life at the end of life and the quality of the dying process? Gerontologist 42(Suppl 3):54–67.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[35] Mezey M,

[36] Dubler NN,

[37] Mitty E,

[38] Brody AA

[39] 10.↵
Teno JM,
Clarridge BR,
Casey V,
et al.
(2004) Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care. JAMA 291(1):88–93.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[40] Teno JM,

[41] Clarridge BR,

[42] Casey V,

[43] et al.

[44] 11.↵
Raijmakers N,
Galushko M,
Domeisen F,
et al.
(2012) Quality indicators for care of cancer patients in their last days of life: literature update and experts’ evaluation. J Palliat Med 15(3):308–316.
OpenUrl PubMed

[45] Raijmakers N,

[46] Galushko M,

[47] Domeisen F,

[48] et al.

[49] 12.
De Roo ML,
Leemans K,
Claessen SJ,
et al.
(2013) Quality indicators for palliative care: update of a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 46(4):556–572.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[50] De Roo ML,

[51] Leemans K,

[52] Claessen SJ,

[53] et al.

[54] 13.↵
Pasman HR,
Brandt HE,
Deliens L,
Francke AL
(2009) Quality indicators for palliative care: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 38(1):145–156.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[55] Pasman HR,

[56] Brandt HE,

[57] Deliens L,

[58] Francke AL

[59] 14.↵
Coleman EA,
Berenson RA
(2004) Lost in transition: challenges and opportunities for improving the quality of transitional care. Ann Intern Med 141(7):533–536.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[60] Coleman EA,

[61] Berenson RA

[62] 15.↵
De Korte-Verhoef R
Reasons and avoidability of hospitalisations at the end of life. Perspectives of GPs, nurses and family carers. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, 2014.

[63] De Korte-Verhoef R

[64] 16.↵
Higginson IJ,
Evans CJ
(2010) What is the evidence that palliative care teams improve outcomes for cancer patients and their families? Cancer J 16(5):423–435.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[65] Higginson IJ,

[66] Evans CJ

[67] 17.↵
Zimmermann C,
Riechelmann R,
Krzyzanowska M,
et al.
(2008) Effectiveness of specialized palliative care: a systematic review. JAMA 299(14):1698–1709.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[68] Zimmermann C,

[69] Riechelmann R,

[70] Krzyzanowska M,

[71] et al.

[72] 18.↵
Van den Block L,
Onwuteaka-Philipsen B,
Meeussen K,
et al.
(2013) Nationwide continuous monitoring of end-of-life care via representative networks of general practitioners in Europe. BMC Fam Pract 14(1):73.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[73] Van den Block L,

[74] Onwuteaka-Philipsen B,

[75] Meeussen K,

[76] et al.

[77] 19.↵
Donker GA
(2013) Continue Morbiditeits Registratie Peilstations Nederland 2012 (NIVEL, Utrecht).

[78] Donker GA

[79] 20.↵
Konetzka RT,
Spector W,
Limcangco MR
(2008) Reducing hospitalizations from long-term care settings. Med Care Res Rev 65(1):40–66.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[80] Konetzka RT,

[81] Spector W,

[82] Limcangco MR

[83] 21.↵
Rosano A,
Loha CA,
Falvo R,
et al.
(2013) The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health 23(3):356–360.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[84] Rosano A,

[85] Loha CA,

[86] Falvo R,

[87] et al.

[88] 22.↵
Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD,
De Korte-Verhoef MC,
Schweitzer BP,
et al.
(2015) 14th World Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care: Building Bridges (8–10 May 2015, Copenhagen), Eur J Palliat Care, Generalist primary and palliative care is associated with few hospitalisations in the last month of life, 142, [Abstract].

[89] Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD,

[90] De Korte-Verhoef MC,

[91] Schweitzer BP,

[92] et al.

[93] 23.↵
Ouslander JG,
Lamb G,
Perloe M,
et al.
(2010) Potentially avoidable hospitalizations of nursing home residents: frequency, causes, and costs: [see editorial comments by Drs. Jean F. Wyman and William R. Hazzard, pp 760–761]. J Am Geriatr Soc 58(4):627–635.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[94] Ouslander JG,

[95] Lamb G,

[96] Perloe M,

[97] et al.

[98] 24.↵
Kaspers PJ,
Pasman HR,
Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD,
Deeg DJ
(2013) Changes over a decade in end-of-life care and transfers during the last 3 months of life: a repeated survey among proxies of deceased older people. Palliat Med 27(6):544–552.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[99] Kaspers PJ,

[100] Pasman HR,

[101] Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD,

[102] Deeg DJ

[103] 25.↵
van der Plas AG,
Hagens M,
Pasman HR,
et al.
(2014) PaTz groups for primary palliative care: reinventing cooperation between general practitioners and district nurses in palliative care: an evaluation study combining data from focus groups and a questionnaire. BMC Fam Pract 15(1):14.
OpenUrl

[104] van der Plas AG,

[105] Hagens M,

[106] Pasman HR,

[107] et al.

[108] 26.↵
Shaw KL,
Clifford C,
Thomas K,
Meehan H
(2010) Review: improving end-of-life care: a critical review of the gold standards framework in primary care. Palliat Med 24(3):317–329.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[109] Shaw KL,

[110] Clifford C,

[111] Thomas K,

[112] Meehan H

[113] 27.↵
Mahmood-Yousuf K,
Munday D,
King N,
Dale J
(2008) Interprofessional relationships and communication in primary palliative care: impact of the Gold Standards Framework. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp08X279760.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[114] Mahmood-Yousuf K,

[115] Munday D,

[116] King N,

[117] Dale J

Main menu

User menu

Search

Comparison of end-of-life care for older people living at home and in residential homes: a mortality follow-back study among GPs in the Netherlands

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

How this fits in

METHOD

Study design and data collection

Sample

Measurements

Treatment goals

Palliative care provisions

Care trajectories

Analyses

RESULTS

Population differences between residential settings

Treatment goals in the last 3 months of life

Palliative care provision and communication in the last 3 months of life

Transitions between care settings in the last 3 months of life

DISCUSSION

Summary

Strengths and limitations

Comparison with existing literature

Implications for practice

Acknowledgments

Notes

Funding

Ethical approval

Provenance

Competing interests

Discuss this article

REFERENCES

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US