Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Understanding their Options: Determinants of Hospice Discussion for Older Persons with Advanced Illness

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Clinicians’ discussions about hospice with patients and families are important as a means of communicating end-of-life options.

OBJECTIVE

To identify determinants of clinicians’ hospice discussions and the impact of such discussions on hospice use.

DESIGN

We interviewed 215 patients age ≥ 60 years with advanced cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or heart failure (HF) at least every 4 months for up to 2 years. Participants provided information about their health status and treatment preferences. Clinicians completed a questionnaire every 6 months about their estimates of patient life expectancy and their communication with the patient and family about hospice.

RESULTS

In their final survey, clinicians reported discussing hospice with 46% of patients with cancer, compared to 10% with COPD and 7% with HF. Apart from diagnosis of cancer, the factors most strongly associated with hospice discussion were clinicians’ estimate of and certainty about patient life expectancy (P < 0.001). However, clinicians were unable to anticipate the deaths of a considerable portion of patients (40%). Although patient unwillingness to undergo minor medical interventions was associated with hospice discussion (P < 0.05), a sizeable portion of clinicians (40%) whose patients reported this characteristic did not have the discussion. Clinicians’ discussion of hospice independently increased the likelihood of hospice use (OR = 5.3, 95% CI = 2.3–13).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians’ discussion of hospice for patients with advanced illness, and, ultimately, patients’ use of hospice, relies largely on clinician estimates of patient life expectancy and the predictability of disease course. Many clinicians whose patients might benefit from learning about hospice are not having these discussions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America. Washington, DC; 2008.

  2. Rickerson E, Harrold J, Kapo J, Carroll JT, Casarett D. Timing of hospice referral and families’ perceptions of services: are earlier hospice referrals better? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53: 819–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steele LL, Mills B, Hardin SR, Hussey LC. The quality of life of hospice patients: patient and provider perceptions. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2005; 22: 95–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Teno JM, Clarridge BR, Casey V, et al. Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care. JAMA. 2004; 291: 88–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kapo J, Harrold J, Carroll JT, Rickerson E, Casarett D. Are we referring patients to hospice too late? Patients’ and families’ opinions. J Palliat Med. 2005; 8: 521–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller KE, Miller MM, Single N. Barriers to hospice care: family physicians’ perceptions. Hosp J. 1997; 12: 29–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Miller SC, Kinzbrunner B, Pettit P, Williams JR. How does the timing of hospice referral influence hospice care in the last days of life? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003; 51: 798–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Casarett DJ, Quill TE. “I’m not ready for hospice”: strategies for timely and effective hospice discussions. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146: 443–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedman BT, Harwood MK, Shields M. Barriers and enablers to hospice referrals: an expert overview. J Palliat Med. Feb 2002; 5: 73–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanson LC, Danis M, Garrett J. What is wrong with end-of-life care? Opinions of bereaved family members. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997; 45: 1339–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cherlin E, Fried T, Prigerson HG, Schulman-Green D, Johnson-Hurzeler R, Bradley EH. Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: when do discussions occur and what is said? J Palliat Med. 2005; 8: 1176–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Finucane TE. How gravely ill becomes dying: a key to end-of-life care. JAMA. 1999; 282: 1670–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bradley EH, Fried TR, Kasl SV, Cicchetti DV, Johnson-Hurzeler R, Horwitz SM. Referral of terminally ill patients for hospice: frequency and correlates. J Palliat Care. 2000; 16: 20–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lamont EB, Christakis NA. Physician factors in the timing of cancer patient referral to hospice palliative care. Cancer. 2002; 94: 2733–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Richards J, Takeuchi LR. Factors that influence physicians’ recommendation of hospice care: An exploratory study. J Hosp Mark Public Relations. 2006; 17: 3–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Summary guidelines for initiation of advanced care. Branford: Connecticut Hospice; 1996.

  17. Knaus WA, Harrell FE Jr., Lynn J, et al. The SUPPORT prognostic model. Objective estimates of survival for seriously ill hospitalized adults. Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments. Ann Intern Med. 1995; 122: 191–203.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Murphy DJ, Knaus WA, Lynn J. Study population in SUPPORT: patients (as defined by disease categories and mortality projections), surrogates, and physicians. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43Suppl: 11S–28S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Inouye SK, Peduzzi PN, Robison JT, Hughes JS, Horwitz RI, Concato J. Importance of functional measures in predicting mortality among older hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998; 279: 1187–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969; 9: 179–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Royall DR, Mahurin RK, Gray KF. Bedside assessment of executive cognitive impairment: the executive interview. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992; 40: 1221–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975; 23: 433–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40: 373–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of Illness in the Aged. the Index of Adl: a Standardized Measure of Biological and Psychosocial Function. JAMA. 1963; 185: 914–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981; 22: 337–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Walke LM, Gallo WT, Tinetti ME, Fried TR. The burden of symptoms among community-dwelling older persons with advanced chronic disease. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164: 2321–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Byock IR, Merriman MP. Measuring quality of life for patients with terminal illness: the Missoula-VITAS quality of life index. Palliat Med. 1998; 12: 231–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Casarett D, Van Ness PH, O’Leary JR, Fried TR. Are patient preferences for life-sustaining treatment really a barrier to hospice enrollment for older adults with serious illness? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006; 54: 472–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weggel JM. Barriers to the physician decision to offer hospice as an option for terminal care. WMJ. 1999; 98: 49–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fox E, Landrum-McNiff K, Zhong Z, Dawson NV, Wu AW, Lynn J. Evaluation of prognostic criteria for determining hospice eligibility in patients with advanced lung, heart, or liver disease. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. JAMA. 1999; 282: 1638–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). The SUPPORT Principal Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:201–2.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Casarett DJ, Fishman JM, Lu HL, et al. The terrible choice: re-evaluating hospice eligibility criteria for cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 953–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Carm Joncas, RN, and Barbara Mendes, RN, for their skillful interviews. We also thank all the patients and clinicians for their time and willingness to consider difficult issues as participants in this study.

Author contributions

Dr Fried had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Financial disclosure

None disclosed.

Funding/Support

The research reported in this manuscript was supported by P30 AG21342 from the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at Yale University and R01 AG19769 from the National Institute on Aging. Dr Fried is supported by grant K24 AGAG028443 from the National Institute on Aging.

Role of the Sponsors

The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terri R. Fried MD.

Additional information

The research reported in this manuscript was supported by P30 AG21342 from the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at Yale University and R01 AG19769 from the National Institute on Aging. Dr Fried is supported by grant K24 AGAG028443 from the National Institute on Aging.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomas, J.M., O’Leary, J.R. & Fried, T.R. Understanding their Options: Determinants of Hospice Discussion for Older Persons with Advanced Illness. J GEN INTERN MED 24, 923–928 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1030-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1030-9

KEY WORDS

Navigation