Appropriate place of death for cancer patients: views of general practitioners and hospital doctors.

BACKGROUND: The majority of cancer patients in the United Kingdom die in a National Health Service hospital, a setting that is contrary to the wishes of those patients expressing a preference to die elsewhere, for example at home or in a hospice. AIM: A study was undertaken to determine clinicians' views of the appropriate place of death for cancer patients and to examine factors leading to patients being admitted to a hospital specialist services unit where they died. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to all general practitioners and hospital doctors who had cared for cancer patients who had died between May 1991 and April 1992 in a single health district. The appropriateness of the place of death, whether the patient was terminally ill, reasons for hospital admission and effect on management had different resources been available were determined. RESULTS: A total of 1022 deaths attributable to cancer were recorded for patients registered with general practitioners in the study area. Questionnaires were returned by general practitioners for 951 of the deaths (93%); hospital doctors returned questionnaires for 216 out of 268 patients (81%) who had been admitted to hospital under the care of a consultant. For deaths which had occurred at home, in a community hospital, residential/nursing home or Marie Curie hospice, the place of death was considered appropriate by general practitioners in over 92% of cases. For deaths in the hospital specialist services unit the place of death was considered probably or definitely appropriate by general practitioners in 83% of the 212 cases, but not appropriate in 17% of cases (P < 0.001 compared with all other settings). Hospital doctors considered 27% of deaths in the unit inappropriate. Significantly fewer cases fulfilled the criteria for terminal illness (death expected and palliative treatment commenced) according to general practitioners among those dying in the specialist services unit compared with deaths elsewhere (P < 0.001). The most common main reasons for admission to the specialist services unit were for investigation, because of difficult symptom control (apart from pain) and for curative/active treatment. General practitioners reported that management of between a sixth and a quarter of patients admitted to the specialist services unit would have been affected by the availability of 24-hour home cover, community hospital beds and a city-based hospice. Among the group of patients fulfilling the study criteria for terminal illness, the effect of other services on patient management would have been considerably higher. CONCLUSION: A greater proportion of cases where patients died from cancer in settings other than a specialist services unit were considered appropriate by general practitioners compared with deaths in a specialist services unit. For a considerable minority of patients, death in a specialist services unit was not considered appropriate by the general practitioners or by the hospital doctors. Improvements in local hospice facilities, community hospitals and community support would mean that a substantial proportion of hospital admissions could be avoided and thus cancer patients could die in more appropriate settings.

The influence of general practitioner community hospitals on the place of death of cancer patients.

All deaths from cancer were identified from death certificates in the Exeter Health District for a period of one year. Place of death, age, cancer type and access to general practitioner community hospital beds and the domiciliary hospice service were recorded. There were 1022 deaths attributable to cancer (parts 1a, 1b or 1c of the death certificate) who were patients of general practitioners in the health district. The place of death for patients with access to community hospital beds were: home 173/590 (29%), community hospital 232/590 (39%), specialist services unit 102/590 (17%), nursing or residential home 32/590 (5%), Marie Curie hospice 51/590 (9%). For patients without access to community hospital beds the place of death was: home 177/427 (41%), specialist service unit 165/427 (39%), nursing or residential home 42/427 (10%), Marie Curie hospice 43/427 (10%). The presence of community hospital beds was associated with a significant reduction of deaths in the specialist service unit (p < 0.001) and with a smaller reduction in home deaths (p < 0.01). Access to the domiciliary hospice services in areas with community beds was not associated with any significant change in the place of death. General practitioners cared for 74% of cases at the time of death in areas with access to community hospital beds and for 51% of cases without such access, which was a significant difference (p < 0.001). It therefore appears that community hospitals play a major role in the terminal care of cancer patients and access to such beds is associated with a decrease in cancer deaths occurring in specialist services beds.

Knowledge and perceptions of a domiciliary hospice service among general practitioners and community nurses.

Within a single district health authority all the general practitioners and community registered general nurses were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding awareness and perceptions of a domiciliary hospice service. Responses were received from 127 doctors (71%) and 58 nurses (80%). Awareness of resources offered by the domiciliary hospice service was high, especially among the 102 respondents with access to the service. Eighty per cent or more of general practitioners and community nurses were satisfied with the amount of information received concerning changes in the patient's condition and who was involved in the care process. However, 33% of nurses agreed that it was difficult to know who had overall responsibility for the patient's care and 28% of nurses felt that their own contribution was under-rated. These findings were reinforced by a number of written statements submitted by the nurses. There was a desire expressed by both general practitioners and community nurses for more educational input from the domiciliary service. Overall, assistance from the service was welcomed and its special skills acknowledged. In the future planning of a comprehensive hospice service the differing needs expressed by doctors and nurses should be taken into account.