Background:To enable coordinated palliative care delivery, all clinicians should have basic palliative care skill sets (‘generalist palliative care’). Specialists should have skills for managing complex and difficult cases (‘specialist palliative care’) and co-exist to support generalists through consultation care and transfer of care. Little information exists about the actual mixes of generalist and specialist palliative care.Aim:To describe the models of physician-based palliative care services delivered to patients in the last 12 months of life.Design:This is a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health care administrative data.Setting/participants:Physicians providing palliative care services to a decedent cohort in Ontario, Canada. The decedent cohort consisted of all adults (18+ years) who died in Ontario, Canada between April 2011 and March 2015 (n = 361,951).Results:We describe four major models of palliative care services: (1) 53.0% of decedents received no physician-based palliative care, (2) 21.2% received only generalist palliative care, (3) 14.7% received consultation palliative care (i.e. care from both specialists and generalists), and (4) 11.1% received only specialist palliative care. Among physicians providing palliative care (n = 11,006), 95.3% had a generalist palliative care focus and 4.7% a specialist focus; 74.2% were trained as family physicians.Conclusion:We examined how often a coordinated palliative care model is delivered to a large decedent cohort and identified that few actually received consultation care. The majority of care, in both the palliative care generalist and specialist models, was delivered by family physicians. Further research should evaluate how different models of care impact patient outcomes and costs.
The burden of cognitive impairment appears to increase with progressive renal disease, such that the prevalence of dementia among those starting dialysis, or those already established on dialysis, is high. The appropriateness of dialysis initiation in this population has been questioned, and current Renal Physician Association guidelines suggest forgoing dialysis in individuals who have dementia and lack awareness of self and environment. Patients are, however, also entitled to equal rights and respect, equal access to health care services, and an opportunity to engage in shared decision-making processes, particularly if there is concern over reversibility of disease. This article discusses, on the basis of principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, the arguments in favor of and against dialysis use, and the process of determining an appropriate care plan. Factors discussed include the current societal trend toward a technological imperative, premature fatalism, survival benefits, and the implications of providing care to patients who are unable to express their tolerance for symptoms associated with the treatment or lack of treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.