IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i23p15593-d982523.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hospice Care Improves Patients’ Self-Decision Making and Reduces Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Care for Advanced Cancer Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Chun-Li Wang

    (Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan
    Department of Family Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung 407, Taiwan)

  • Chia-Yen Lin

    (Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan
    Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung 407, Taiwan)

  • Shun-Fa Yang

    (Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan
    Department of Medical Research, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung 402, Taiwan)

Abstract

The aim of the current study is to evaluate the different degrees of hospice care in improving patients’ autonomy in decision-making and reducing aggressiveness of cancer care in terminal-stage cancer patients, especially in reducing polypharmacy and excessive life-sustaining treatments. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted in a single medical center in Taiwan. Patients with advanced cancer who died in 2010–2019 were included and classified into three subgroups: hospice ward admission, hospice shared care, and no hospice care involvement. In total, 8719 patients were enrolled, and 2097 (24.05%) admitted to hospice ward; 2107 (24.17%) received hospice shared care, and 4515 (51.78%) had no hospice care. Those admitted to hospice ward had significantly higher rates of having completed do-not-resuscitate order (100%, p < 0.001) and signed the do-not-resuscitate order by themselves (48.83%, p < 0.001), and they had lower aggressiveness of cancer care (2.2, p < 0.001) within the 28 days before death. Hospice ward admission, hospice shared care, and age > 79 years were negatively associated with aggressiveness of cancer care. In conclusion, our study showed that patients with end-of-life hospice care related to higher patient autonomy in decision-making and less excessively aggressive cancer care; the influence of care was more overt in patients approaching death. Further clinical efforts should be made to clarify the patient and the families’ satisfaction and perceptions of quality after hospice care involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Chun-Li Wang & Chia-Yen Lin & Shun-Fa Yang, 2022. "Hospice Care Improves Patients’ Self-Decision Making and Reduces Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Care for Advanced Cancer Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15593-:d:982523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15593/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15593/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wen-Hsuan Hsiao & Chun-Li Wang & Lung-Chun Lee & Szu-Pei Chien & Chin-Chu Hsu & Wei-Min Chu, 2022. "Exploring Risk Factors of Unexpected Death, Using Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) Measures, among Terminal Patients Receiving Palliative Care in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Hung-Cheng Chen & Chien-Yi Wu & Hui-Ya Hsieh & Jiun-Shiuan He & Shang-Jyh Hwang & Hui-Min Hsieh, 2021. "Predictors and Assessment of Hospice Use for End-Stage Renal Disease Patients in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Dawson, Norma Jean, 1991. "Need satisfaction in terminal care settings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 83-87, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Talya Salz & Noel T. Brewer, 2009. "Offering Chemotherapy and Hospice Jointly: One Solution to Hospice Underuse," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 521-531, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15593-:d:982523. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.