Abstract:became an employee of Novartis after this article was submitted for publication but before revisions were undertaken. No other competing interests were declared. This article has been peer reviewed.
“…We adjusted outcomes for age, sex, marital status, Activities of Daily Living Hierarchy Scale score, Cognitive Performance Scale score, diagnosis (binary variables for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, diabetes, arthritis, renal failure, urinary tract infection, Alzheimer’s dementia and related dementias, heart failure, cancer and depression), day of stay, functional improvement potential, facility size, and province. We chose covariates on the basis of their expected associations with one or more of the outcomes states we modelled [ 3 , 28 , 29 ]. We only retained covariates that had significant associations with at least one outcome of interest in the models we used.…”
Background
Residents of long-term care homes (LTCH) often experience unnecessary and non-beneficial hospitalizations and interventions near the end-of-life. Advance care directives aim to ensure that end-of-life care respects resident needs and wishes.
Methods
In this retrospective cohort study, we used multistate models to examine the health trajectories associated with Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) and Do-Not-Hospitalize (DNH) directives of residents admitted to LTCH in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, Canada. We adjusted for baseline frailty-related health instability. We considered three possible end states: change in health, hospitalization, or death. For measurements, we used standardized RAI-MDS 2.0 LTCH assessments linked to hospital records from 2010 to 2015.
Results
We report on 123,003 LTCH residents. The prevalence of DNR and DNH directives was 71 and 26% respectively. Both directives were associated with increased odds of transitioning to a state of greater health instability and death, and decreased odds of hospitalization. The odds of hospitalization in the presence of a DNH directive were lowered, but not eliminated, with odds of 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.65–0.69), 0.63 (0.61–0.65), and 0.47 (0.43–0.52) for residents with low, moderate and high health instability, respectively.
Conclusion
Even though both DNR and DNH orders are associated with serious health outcomes, DNH directives were not frequently used and often overturned. We suggest that policies recommending DNH directives be re-evaluated, with greater emphasis on advance care planning that better reflects resident values and wishes.
“…We adjusted outcomes for age, sex, marital status, Activities of Daily Living Hierarchy Scale score, Cognitive Performance Scale score, diagnosis (binary variables for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, diabetes, arthritis, renal failure, urinary tract infection, Alzheimer’s dementia and related dementias, heart failure, cancer and depression), day of stay, functional improvement potential, facility size, and province. We chose covariates on the basis of their expected associations with one or more of the outcomes states we modelled [ 3 , 28 , 29 ]. We only retained covariates that had significant associations with at least one outcome of interest in the models we used.…”
Background
Residents of long-term care homes (LTCH) often experience unnecessary and non-beneficial hospitalizations and interventions near the end-of-life. Advance care directives aim to ensure that end-of-life care respects resident needs and wishes.
Methods
In this retrospective cohort study, we used multistate models to examine the health trajectories associated with Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) and Do-Not-Hospitalize (DNH) directives of residents admitted to LTCH in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, Canada. We adjusted for baseline frailty-related health instability. We considered three possible end states: change in health, hospitalization, or death. For measurements, we used standardized RAI-MDS 2.0 LTCH assessments linked to hospital records from 2010 to 2015.
Results
We report on 123,003 LTCH residents. The prevalence of DNR and DNH directives was 71 and 26% respectively. Both directives were associated with increased odds of transitioning to a state of greater health instability and death, and decreased odds of hospitalization. The odds of hospitalization in the presence of a DNH directive were lowered, but not eliminated, with odds of 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.65–0.69), 0.63 (0.61–0.65), and 0.47 (0.43–0.52) for residents with low, moderate and high health instability, respectively.
Conclusion
Even though both DNR and DNH orders are associated with serious health outcomes, DNH directives were not frequently used and often overturned. We suggest that policies recommending DNH directives be re-evaluated, with greater emphasis on advance care planning that better reflects resident values and wishes.
“…We used multistate Markov models to examine the odds of transitions in health status over time and identify factors that influence these changes. We have previously used and described these methods elsewhere (10,23,29). Figure 2 is a state-space diagram for home care.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Health instability was measured with the CHESS (Changes in Health and End-stage disease Signs and Symptoms) scale, embedded in the RAI-HC and other interRAI instruments (see Box 1). The CHESS scale thus reflects the risk of adverse events related to acutely decompensated frailty, with higher scores shown to predict hospitalization and mortality among home care and long-term care clients, including those with HF (10,(22)(23)(24)(25). We ascertained the other outcomes, including death, using HCRS, DAD, and NACRS variables in respective care settings.…”
Section: Outcomes Of Interestmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using information from the first RAI-HC assessment, we recorded demographic data (age, sex, marital status), scores on Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS), Depression Rating Scale (DRS), Activities of Daily Living, day of stay when first assessed with the RAI-HC, functional improvement potential (self and clinician perceptions), physician visits, facility size, and advanced directives (i.e., Do Not Resuscitate, Do Not Hospitalize) (4,5,10,13,18,(26)(27)(28). We also recorded comorbidities (HF, pneumonia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, arthritis, Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias -ADRD, depression, cancer) from the RAI-HC, the reliability of each has been previously established (16).…”
Section: Admission Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, among long-stay home care clients, a HF diagnosis is associated with a greater risk of poor health outcomes related to comorbidities, cognitive impairment, depressed mood, and other geriatric syndromes such as frailty. Admission to home care itself often reflects a transition to a state of increased frailty-related health instability that is also associated with greater odds of hospitalization and death (10). This raises questions about how best to organize the care of these clients, including how the role of cardiovascular specialists might evolve, and whether additional specialized services, such as geriatrics or palliative care, might also have a role.…”
This chapter discusses the connections between care poverty and key dimensions of social inequalities (income, educational, gender, regional, ethnic, and racial inequalities). The findings are partly surprising and contradictory. A low income level is a risk factor for personal care poverty in some but not in all countries, while it is more systematically associated with practical care poverty and socio-emotional care poverty. A low level of education does not typically predict care poverty. Neither does gender, though at the same time the clear majority of older people in care poverty are women. Some studies identify an ethnic or racial gradient in care poverty, minorities being more likely to have unmet needs. However, several studies fail to show statistical significance for this difference. Concerning regional inequalities, there are major differences in care poverty rates across different areas, at least in geographically large countries, and in some cases also between rural and urban areas. The chapter ends by arguing that care poverty should be seen as a dimension of inequality in its own right. When some people receive adequate care while others do not, a new type of inequality emerges.
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.