Respecting the preference for a place of care is essential for advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer. This retrospective study included adult patients with cancer referred to an inpatient palliative care consultation team at a tertiary acute care hospital in South Korea between April 2019 and December 2020. Patients’ preference for place of care and demographic and clinical factors were recorded, and the actual discharge locations were categorized as home or non-home. Patients discharged home but with unintended hospital visits within 2 months were also investigated. Of the 891 patients referred to the palliative care consultation team, 210 (23.6%) preferred to be discharged home. Among them, 113 (53.8%) were discharged home. No significant differences were found between patients who preferred home discharge and those who did not. Home discharge was higher among female patients (p = 0.04) and lower in those with poor oral intake (p < 0.001) or dyspnea (p = 0.02). Of the 113 patients discharged home, 37 (32.8%) had unintended hospital visits within 2 months. Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients with advanced cancer preferred to be discharged home, but only half of them received the home discharge. To meet patients’ preferences for end-of-life care, individual care planning considering relevant factors is necessary.
Background Clinical ethics support is a form of preventive ethics aimed at mediating ethics-related conflicts and managing ethical issues arising in the healthcare setting. However, limited evidence exists regarding the specific ethical issues in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore the diverse ethical issues of cases referred to clinical ethics support after the new legislation on hospice palliative care and end-of-life decision-making was implemented in Korea in 2018. Methods A retrospective study of cases referred to clinical ethics support at a university hospital in Korea from February 2018 to February 2021 was conducted. The ethical issues at the time of referral were analyzed via qualitative content analysis of the ethics consultation-related documents. Results A total of 60 cases of 57 patients were included in the study, of whom 52.6% were men and 56.1% were older than 60 years of age. The majority of cases (80%) comprised patients from the intensive care unit. One-third of the patients were judged as being at the end-of-life stage. The most frequent ethical categories were identified as goals of care/treatment (78.3%), decision-making (75%), relationship (41.7%), and end-of-life issues (31.7%). More specifically, best interests (71.7%), benefits and burdens/harms (61.7%), refusal (53.3%), and surrogate decision-making (33.3%), followed by withholding or withdrawal (28.3%) were the most frequent ethical issues reported, which became diversified by year. In addition, the ethical issues appeared to differ by age group and judgment of the end-of-life stage. Conclusion The findings of this study expand the current understanding of the diverse ethical issues including decision-making and goals of care/treatment that have been referred to clinical ethics support since the enforcement of the new legislation in Korea. This study suggests a need for further research on the longitudinal exploration of ethical issues and implementation of clinical ethics support in multiple healthcare centers.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused global excess mortality [1]. In addition to quantitative changes, social distancing and hospital policies such as visitor restrictions have left seriously ill patients isolated, even dur-ing the end of life (EOL) [2], leading to qualitative changes in EOL care. This problem is not entirely specific to the CO-VID-19 pandemic, as healthcare systems have been radically overwhelmed in previous epidemics and pandemics of severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus, and human influenza virus [3,4]. During these events, people face severe challenges,
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.