Preferences for place of care and place of death among informal caregivers of the terminally ill

Author:

Brazil Kevin1,Howell Doris2,Bedard Michel3,Krueger Paul1,Heidebrecht Christine4

Affiliation:

1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton and St. Joseph's Health System Research Network, Hamilton

2. University of Toronto, Toronto

3. Department of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay

4. St. Joseph's Health System Research Network, Hamilton, Canada

Abstract

Objectives: (1) To determine informal caregivers perceptions about place of care and place of death; and (2) to identify variables associated with a home death among terminally ill individuals who received in–home support services in a publicly funded home care system. Participants and design: A total of 216 informal caregivers participated in a bereavement interview. Data collection included care recipient and informal caregiver characteristics, the use of and satisfaction with community services, and preferences about place of death. Results: Most caregivers reported that they and the care recipient had a preferred place of death (77 and 68%, respectively) with over 63% reporting home as the preferred place of death. Caregivers had a greater preference for an institutional death (14%) than care recipients (4.7%). While 30% of care recipients did not die in their preferred location, most caregivers (92%) felt, in retrospect, that where the care recipient died was the appropriate place of death. Most caregivers reported being satisfied with the care that was provided. The odds of dying at home were greater when the care recipient stated a preference for place of death (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.25, 6.85), and the family physician made home visits during the care recipients last month of life (Univariate odds ratios (OR): 4.42; 95% CI: 1.46, 13.36). Discussion: The ethic of self–control and choice for the care recipient must be balanced with consideration for the well being of the informal caregiver and responsiveness of the community service system.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

Cited by 159 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3