4.5 Article

End-of-Life Health Care Utilization Between Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Lung Cancer Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 933-943

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.01.011

关键词

End-of-life care; COPD; lung cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. At the end of life, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer (LC) patients exhibit similar symptoms; however, a large-scale study comparing end-of-life health care utilization between these two groups has not been conducted in East Asia. Objectives. To explore and compare end-of-life resource use during the last six months before death between COPD and LC patients. Methods. Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, we conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study in COPD (n = 8640) and LC (n = 3377) patients who died between 1997 and 2013. Results. The COPD decedents were more likely to be admitted to intensive care units (57.59% vs 29.82%), to have longer intensive care unit stays (17.59 vs 9.93 days), and to undergo intensive procedures than the LC decedents during their last six months; they were less likely to receive inpatient (3.32% vs 18.24%) or home-based palliative care (0.84% vs 8.17%) and supportive procedures than the LC decedents during their last six months. The average total medical cost during the last six months was approximately 18.42% higher for the COPD decedents than for the LC decedents. Conclusion. Higher intensive health care resource use, including intensive procedure use, at the end of life suggests a focus on prolonging life in COPD patients; it also indicates an unmet demand for palliative care in these patients. Avoiding potentially inappropriate care andimproving end-of-life care quality by providing palliative care to COPD patients are necessary. (C) 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据