Home › Research › End-of-life care
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
Shih TC, Chang HT, Lin MH, Chen CK, Chen TJ, Hwang SJ.. BMC palliative care, 2018-01-24
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background In 2009, the Taiwanese national health insurance system substantially expanded hospice coverage for terminal cancer patients to include patients with end-stage brain, dementia, heart, lung, liver, and kidney diseases. This study aimed to evaluate differences in do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status and hospice care utilization between terminal cancer patients and advanced non-cancer patients after the policy change. Methods Data were obtained from the Death and Hospice Palliative Care Database of Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan. The differences between cancer and non-cancer patients who died in this hospital between 2010 and 2015 were analyzed in terms of patient characteristics, rates of DNR orders, hospice care utilization, number of living days after DNR order, duration of survival (DOS) after hospice care enrollment, and the rate of late referral to hospice care. Results Data for 8459 patients who died of cancer and major non-cancer terminal diseases were included. DNR order rate, hospice care utilization rate, and DOS were significantly higher for cancer patients than for non-cancer patients (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). The number of living days after DNR order and the late referral rate were significantly higher for non-cancer decedents than for cancer decedents (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). From 2010 to 2015, there were significantly increasing trends in the hospice utilization rate, number of living days after DNR order, and rate of late referral for the cancer group (p < 0.001, p = 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). For the non-cancer group, there were significantly increasing trends in the rate of DNR order, hospice utilization rate, and number of living days after DNR order (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.029, respectively). Conclusions Further guidelines should be developed to help clinicians to promptly refer terminal cancer and non-cancer patients to hospice care. Considering the lower hospice utilization rate and the growing need for hospice care among terminal non-cancer patients, policymakers should consider how to improve the relevant levels of professional care to enhance the accessibility and availability of hospice care in Taiwan.
Key findings
- Results Data for 8459 patients who died of cancer and major non-cancer terminal diseases were included.
- DNR order rate, hospice care utilization rate, and DOS were significantly higher for cancer patients than for non-cancer patients (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively).
- The number of living days after DNR order and the late referral rate were significantly higher for non-cancer decedents than for cancer decedents (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively).
- From 2010 to 2015, there were significantly increasing trends in the hospice utilization rate, number of living days after DNR order, and rate of late referral for the cancer group (p < 0.001, p = 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively).
- For the non-cancer group, there were significantly increasing trends in the rate of DNR order, hospice utilization rate, and number of living days after DNR order (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.029, respectively).
Study details
- Participants8,459
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC palliative care) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 8,459 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29368644) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Shih, T. C., Chang, H. T., Lin, M. H., Chen, C. K., Chen, T. J., & Hwang, S. J. (2018). 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 palliative care. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-018-0271-y
Vancouver
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 palliative care. 2018. doi:10.1186/s12904-018-0271-y. PMID: 29368644.
BibTeX
@article{shih2018-29368644,
author = {Shih, T. C. and Chang, H. T. and Lin, M. H. and Chen, C. K. and Chen, T. J. and Hwang, S. J.},
title = {{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}},
journal = {BMC palliative care},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1186/s12904-018-0271-y},
pmid = {29368644},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-018-0271-y}
}