Factors related to the provision of home-based end-of-life care among home-care nursing, home help, and care management agencies in Japan

Abstract

BackgroundTo promote home death, it is necessary to clarify the institutional barriers to conducting end-of-life (EOL) care and consider strategies to deal with this process. This study aims to clarify institution-related factors associated with the provision of home-based EOL care cases, and to compare them among three different types of home-care agencies.MethodsWe administered a cross-sectional survey throughout Japan to investigate the number and characteristics of EOL cases of home-care nursing (HN), home-help (HH) and care management (CM) agencies. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed for each type of agency to examine factors related to the provision of EOL care.Results378 HN agencies, 274 HH agencies, and 452 CM agencies responded to the distributed questionnaire. HN agencies had on average 2.1 (SD = 4.0; range 0–60) home-based EOL cases in the last 3 months, while HH agencies had 0.9 (SD = 1.3; range 0–7) and CM agencies had 1.5 (SD = 2.2; range 0–18) in the last 6 months. In a multivariable analysis of HN agencies, a large number of staff (OR: 1.52; p < 0.001) and a large number of collaborating CM agencies (OR: 1.08; p = 0.008) were positively associated with the provision of EOL care; in HH agencies, accepting EOL clients in the agency (OR: 3.29; p < 0.001) was positively associated with the provision of EOL care; in CM agencies, the number of staff (OR: 1.21; p = 0.037), the number of collaborating HH agencies (OR: 1.07; p = 0.032), and whether home-care nurses and home helpers visit clients together (OR: 1.89; p = 0.007) were positively associated with the provision of EOL care.ConclusionThe agency’s size and the inter-agency collaborative system seemed most important among HN agencies and CM agencies, while institutional preparedness for EOL was most important for HH agencies. These findings represent important new information for targeting different effective strategies in the promotion of home-based EOL care, depending on the agency type.

End of life care in nursing homes in Spain: Exploratory analysis and evidences of validity of a new scale

“…For example, a recent systematic review of nurse staffing impact in nursing homes showed that there was a positive relationship between staffing and quality of care in general (Backhaus, Verbeek, van Rossum, Capezuti, & Hamers, 2014). In addition, the results of a multivariate analysis performed on home-care and residential care agencies in Japan showed that a large number of staff were positively associated with the provision of QELC (Igarashi et al, 2015).…”

Development of a home-visit nursing scale for helping spousal caregivers of terminal cancer patients develop positive perspectives of their caregiving experiences: a cross-sectional study

“…The number of nurses used to validate this tool was calculated based on an item to participant ratio of 1:5 to 1:10 47 48. The sample size was determined with reference to the collection rate of mail surveys for visiting nurses in Japan 49 50. We targeted 1500 home-visit nurses from 500 randomly selected visiting-nursing stations, which were randomly selected from the 7189 stations listed in the nursing care insurance system information database.…”

Gaps in Understanding the Experiences of Homecare Workers Providing Care for People with Dementia up to the End of Life: A Systematic Review

“…Data were synthesised across common key themes found. Papers included studies from Israel (Ben-Arie & Lecovich, 2014), Japan (Igarashi et al., 2015), United States (US) (Boerner, Burack, Jopp, & Mock, 2015; Butler, 2009; Riesenbeck, Boerner, Barooah, & Burack, 2015), Canada (Morgan et al., 2016), Belgium (Roelands, Van Oost, Depoorter, & Verloo, 2005) and the UK (Dawson, Bowes, Kelly, Velzke, & Ward, 2015; Devlin & McIlfatrick, 2009, 2010; Herber & Johnston, 2013; Ryan, Nolan, Enderby, & Reid, 2004). Papers had been published between 2004 and 2015, and considered homecare not family carers/caregivers or nursing professionals within the homecare context.…”