Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Palliat Med. 2021 Jun;35(6):1170-1180. doi: 10.1177/02692163211009440. Epub 2021 Apr 22.
Increasing involvement of palliative care generalists may improve access to palliative care. It is unknown, however, if their involvement with and without palliative care specialists are associated with different outcomes.
To describe physician-based models of palliative care and their association with healthcare utilization outcomes including: emergency department visits, acute hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in last 30 days of life; and, place of death.
Population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative data. We used descriptive statistics to compare outcomes across three models (generalist-only palliative care; consultation palliative care, comprising of both generalist and specialist care; and specialist-only palliative care) and conducted a logistic regression for community death.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All adults aged 18-105 who died in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2017.
Of the 231,047 decedents who received palliative services, 40.3% received generalist, 32.3% consultation and 27.4% specialist palliative care. Across models, we noted minimal to modest variation for decedents with at least one emergency department visit (50%-59%), acute hospitalization (64%-69%) or ICU admission (7%-17%), as well as community death (36%-40%). In our adjusted analysis, receipt of a physician home visit was a stronger predictor for increased likelihood of community death (odds ratio 9.6, 95% confidence interval 9.4-9.8) than palliative care model (generalist vs consultation palliative care 2.0, 1.9-2.0).
The generalist palliative care model achieved similar healthcare utilization outcomes as consultation and specialist models. Including a physician home visit component in each model may promote community death.
姑息治疗的广泛参与可能会改善姑息治疗的可及性。然而,目前尚不清楚他们是否与姑息治疗专家的参与有关,以及与姑息治疗专家的参与是否与不同的结果有关。
描述基于医生的姑息治疗模式及其与医疗保健利用结果的关联,包括:在生命的最后 30 天内急诊就诊、急性住院和重症监护病房(ICU)入院;以及死亡地点。
使用链接健康管理数据的基于人群的回顾性队列研究。我们使用描述性统计来比较三种模式(仅姑息治疗专家;包括姑息治疗专家和专家的咨询姑息治疗;以及仅姑息治疗专家)之间的结果,并对社区死亡进行逻辑回归分析。
地点/参与者:2012 年 4 月 1 日至 2017 年 3 月 31 日期间在加拿大安大略省去世的年龄在 18-105 岁之间的所有成年人。
在接受姑息治疗服务的 231047 名死者中,40.3%接受了姑息治疗专家治疗,32.3%接受了咨询姑息治疗,27.4%接受了专家姑息治疗。在所有模型中,我们注意到至少有一次急诊就诊(50%-59%)、急性住院(64%-69%)或 ICU 入院(7%-17%)以及社区死亡(36%-40%)的死者之间存在最小到适度的差异。在我们的调整分析中,接受医生家访是社区死亡可能性增加的更强预测因素(优势比 9.6,95%置信区间 9.4-9.8),而姑息治疗模式(姑息治疗专家与咨询姑息治疗专家 2.0,1.9-2.0)则不是。
普通姑息治疗模式实现了与咨询和专家模式相似的医疗保健利用结果。在每个模型中都包含医生家访的内容可能会促进社区死亡。