Factors Associated with Congruence Between Preferred and Actual Place of Death

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
  • Search Strategy
  • Analysis
• Results
  • Characteristics of Studies
  • Grades of Studies and Congruence
  • Environmental Factors and Congruence
    • Specialized Home Care and Congruence
    • Hospice Utilization and Congruence
    • Hospital Availability and Utilization and Congruence
    • Geographic Factors and Congruence
    • Social Support and Congruence
  • Individual Factors and Congruence
    • Patient Ethnicity
    • Preferred Location of Death
  • Illness Factors and Congruence
  • Study Methods and Congruence
  • Factors Affecting Congruence
• Discussion
  • Implications for Research
  • Implications for Practice
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgments
• References
• Copyright

Abstract 

Congruence between preferred and actual place of death may be an essential component in terminal care. Most patients prefer a home death, but many patients do not die in their preferred location. Specialized (physician, hospice, and palliative) home care visits may increase home deaths, but factors associated with congruence have not been systematically reviewed. This study sought to review the extent of congruence reported in the literature and examine factors that may influence congruence. In July 2009, a comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Reference lists, related articles, and the past five years of six palliative care journals were also searched. Overall congruence rates (percentage of met preferences for all locations of death) were calculated for each study using reported data to allow cross-study comparison. Eighteen articles described 30%–91% congruence. Eight specialized home care studies reported 59%–91% congruence. A physician-led home care program reported 91% congruence. Of the 10 studies without specialized home care for all patients, seven reported 56%–71% congruence and most reported unique care programs. Of the remaining three studies without specialized home care for all patients, two reported 43%–46% congruence among hospital inpatients, and one elicited patient preference “if everything were possible,” with 30% congruence. Physician support, hospice enrollment, and family support improved congruence in multiple studies. Research in this important area must consider potential sources of bias, the method of eliciting patient preference, and the absence of a single ideal place of death.

Key Words: Place of death, decision making, terminal care, palliative care, systematic review

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

Honoring a patient's choice for place of death has been identified as an essential component in terminal care.¹, ² Congruence is the agreement between a patient's stated preferred place of death and actual place of death.³ In general population studies of preference, 50%–90% of respondents preferred to die at home.⁴, ⁵, ⁶ In place of death studies, 10%–35% of patients died at home and 50%–60% died in hospitals.⁷, ⁸, ⁹ Thus, there may be low levels of congruence between preferred and actual place of death.³, ¹⁰

Factors associated with home deaths have been identified in some studies.³, ¹¹, ¹², ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵ A systematic literature review of place of death for cancer patients grouped these factors as environmental, individual, and illness related.¹⁶ Environmental factors included health care characteristics (use of home care and availability of inpatient beds), geographic characteristics, and social support. Individual factors included patient demographic variables and preferences. Illness factors included tumor type, length of disease, and functional status. However, factors associated with congruence have not been systematically reviewed and compared across studies.

Health care and geographic factors have demonstrated stronger associations with place of death than patient preference.¹⁰ Actual use of health care resources has previously demonstrated a more powerful influence on place of death than availability of health care resources.³, ¹⁰ Receiving physician, hospice, and palliative care home visits have been associated with increased likelihood of home death,¹², ¹⁶, ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ¹⁹ and hospice home care services have been associated with improved congruence between preferred and actual place of death.³ Because most of the patients prefer home deaths,⁴, ⁵, ⁶, ²⁰ these specialized home visit programs would be expected to enhance congruence between preferred and actual home deaths.

This study sought to examine the environmental, individual, and illness factors associated with congruence. First, congruence rates were compared across studies by examining the presence or absence of these factors in the sample populations. Given the importance of health care utilization and home care, the relationship between specialized (including palliative, hospice, or physician-led) home care services and congruence was explored. Because studies have demonstrated that most of the patients prefer home deaths, it was hypothesized that studies with systematic provision of specialized home care would report higher levels of congruence than studies in which these services might be available but not systematically provided to all study patients. Second, the factors associated with congruence among patients within the individual studies were compiled and compared. The results of this review may suggest ways to enhance congruence between preferred and actual place of death.

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

Search Strategy 

In July 2009, we searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE [1950–present], CINAHL [1983–present], PsychInfo [1987–present], and Web of Science [1980–present]) using the following Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and free text terms: (choice OR preference OR decision OR wish) AND (palliative OR terminal OR end-of-life OR hospice OR elderly OR aged) AND (care or death) AND (place OR location OR site). Reference lists and related articles in Medline were also examined. In addition, indices of the past five years of six palliative care journals were handsearched. A flowchart of the inclusion and exclusion of studies is shown in Fig. 1. Articles were included if they quantitatively compared adult patients' preferred place of death and actual place of death. Articles that did not report either congruence, or both patients' preferred place of death and actual place of death, were excluded. Four studies were excluded because preference for place of care was elicited rather than place of death,²¹, ²², ²³, ²⁴ as these have been shown to be different outcomes.¹⁴ One study that focused exclusively on nursing home patients was excluded.²⁵ To compare congruence across as many types of services possible, all studies reporting congruence were included regardless of whether congruence was the primary or secondary purpose of the study. Non-English language articles, methodological reports, editorials, review articles, and case reports were also excluded.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig. 1 

  Flow of studies through review process.

Analysis 

Each article was reviewed and the following data were extracted and systematically entered into a matrix table: study purpose, study design and methods, actual place of death, preferred place of death, congruence, sample population characteristics, services described, factors associated with congruence (if reported), and grade of study. The factors associated with congruence for individual patients within the studies, when reported, were grouped according to a model of factors associated with place of death for cancer patients: environmental factors, individual factors, and illness-related factors.¹⁶

Comparison of congruence among studies was hampered by four different possible definitions of congruence used in the literature.²⁶ The level of congruence varied significantly depending on the definition of congruence used,²⁶ 60% vs. 100% in one study.²⁷ This review required comparison of congruence across all locations of death, rather than only home deaths. Overall congruence has been proposed as a single, standard method of reporting congruence to permit cross-study comparison and consists of the total number of patients whose preferences were met for all locations of death divided by the total number of patients with preferences in the study.²⁶ Overall congruence was reported in nine studies.³, ¹², ¹⁴, ¹⁹, ²⁸, ²⁹, ³⁰, ³¹, ³², ³³ Nine other studies reported congruence separately by location of death,¹⁰, ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ²⁷, ³⁴, ³⁵, ³⁶, ³⁷ and overall congruence was calculated using the reported data from these studies. In five studies, not all the information was provided to calculate an overall congruence rate that included all possible locations of death. In these cases, congruence for home death was used,¹⁸, ³⁵, ³⁶, ³⁷ except for one study which reported congruence for hospital death.¹⁰ Kappa statistics for agreement between preferred and actual death were reported in three studies³, ¹⁴, ²⁹ and have been proposed as another measure to facilitate cross-study comparison.³, ²⁶ However, inadequate information was provided to determine kappa statistics in 11 studies,¹⁰, ¹², ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ¹⁹, ²⁸, ³¹, ³³, ³⁵, ³⁶, ³⁷ precluding use of kappa statistics for comparison in this review.

To examine the effect of systematic provision of specialized home care on congruence, the studies were placed into two groups depending on the source of the patient sample: patients who universally received specialized home care, and patients who did not universally receive specialized home care. Specialized home care studies were defined as those studies that recruited patients exclusively from physician, palliative, or hospice interdisciplinary home care programs with continuity or coordination of care. The second group of studies recruited patients from other sources, including community palliative care providers or oncologists, hospitals and outpatient study sites, and death certificates or mortality databases. In the second group, specialized home care services may have been available, but universal provision to all patients was not described by these studies.

The studies were graded using quality measures defined previously for preference survey studies.⁴ These criteria were modified slightly to accommodate the nonsurvey, prospective studies included in this review: grade A (strong evidence): longitudinal study with standardized systematic and predefined assessment of preference for place of terminal care or death, more than 80% response rate (if survey study), patients not limited to those within one service, (e.g., one palliative care team); grade B (moderate evidence): longitudinal study that does not meet criteria for A, cross-sectional, observational, or retrospective study, more than 60% response rate (if survey study), standardized and systematic assessment of preference for place of terminal care or death; and grade C (weak evidence): response rate less than 60% or not given (if survey study), or inconsistent assessment of preferences.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Characteristics of Studies 

Eighteen articles met all the inclusion criteria and were included in the final set of articles reviewed. Nine studies focused on congruence specifically³, ¹⁴, ²⁷, ²⁸, ²⁹, ³⁰, ³¹, ³², ³⁴ and nine examined preference as one of many factors associated with place of death.¹⁰, ¹², ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ¹⁹, ³³, ³⁵, ³⁶, ³⁷ Seven studies were from the United States,³, ¹⁰, ¹², ¹⁹, ²⁸, ³⁰, ³⁵ three were from the United Kingdom,²⁷, ³³, ³⁴ and four were from Canada.¹⁷, ¹⁸, ³², ³⁷ Australia,¹⁴ Sweden,³⁶ Taiwan,²⁹ and Italy³¹ each had one study included. Table 1 summarizes the descriptions, source populations, patient characteristics, service characteristics, home preference, overall congruence, and grade for each study.

Table 1. Descriptions, Patient and Service Characteristics, Preferences, Congruence, and Grades of Included Studies

Study Description	Source Population	Patient Diagnosis & Living/Caregiver Situation	IDT Home Care with Continuity for all in Study?	Palliative or Hospice	Patients Preferring Home (%)	Congruence (%)a	Grading of Study
Agar et al.14 2002–2004 Australia Regional community palliative program, n=71	Convenience sample (71/320) prospective trial of palliative care outreach. Patients who died within study period with known preferred place of care and death at least twice.	92% cancer, 14% lived alone	Yes	Palliative	35	59	A
Thomas et al.27 2000–2002 England Terminal cancer patients, n=41	Terminal cancer patients referred by palliative care professionals in the community (41/69 commenced and 17/69 completed the interview series).	100% cancer, 41% lived alone	Not described	Specialist palliative care, 73% hospice (inpatient or day care)	24b	71c	A
Pritchard et al.10 1989–1991 5 U.S. teaching hospitals (SUPPORT Study), n=479	All deaths of patients from observational phase of SUPPORT: survived initial hospitalization, known preferred and actual site of death, subsequent death within six-month follow-up.	N/A	Not described	Not describedd	82	46% for hospital preference onlye	A
Tang & McCorkle3 2001–2002 Connecticut Six study sites Terminal cancer patients, n=127	Convenience sample of terminally ill cancer patients at six study sites in New Haven and Hartford counties in Connecticut.	100% cancer, 26.8% lived alone	Not described	Not described, 60.6% with high availability of hospice care providers	87	30	A
Leff et al.30 1995–1998 Baltimore, MD Physician-led house call program, n=125	All patients in Elder House Call Program in a geographically defined catchment area surrounding Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in southeast Baltimore, MD.	36% cancer, 90% had in-home caregiver	Yes; physician-led	No; excluded inpatient hospice patients	83	91	B, single service
Groth-Juncker & McCusker35 1977–1982 New York Physician home health care, n=100	All home health care team patients followed from referral to death.	42% cancer, 10% lived alone	Yes; physician-member	No	68	72% home death preference onlye	B, single service
Brazil et al.32 2000–2002 Canada In-home care service, n=216	Caregivers of decedents who had received in-home palliative care services through a Community Care Access Center.f	96% cancer, 6% lived alone	Yes	Palliative	63	70	B, 70% response rate
McWhinney et al.17 1988–1990 Ontario, Canada PCHST, n=150	All referred patients (PCHST) who died at home (75/267 referred during study period), and 75 patients randomly chosen out of 192 team patients who died in the hospital.	93% cancer, 15% lived alone	Yes	Palliative	39g	67	B, single service
Cantwell et al.18 2000 Canada Palliative home care coordinator service, n=73	Patients consecutively admitted to 10 recruited palliative home care coordinators in the Edmonton region over study period.	95% with cancer, 67% >1 caregiver	Yes	Palliative	56h	66% for home preference onlye	B, single service
Shega et al.12 2000–2001 United States Geriatric clinic, n=135	Caregivers of community-dwelling dementia patients of University of Chicago geriatrics clinics who died during study period.	100% dementia, 66% lived with caregiver	Not described (home visits were clinic visit alternative)	43% hospice	N/A	66% (90% hospice group, 45% nonhospice group)	B, single service; 89% response rate
Beccaro et al.31 2000–2002 Italy Population survey of patients who died of cancer, n=1900	Nationwide, two-stage probability sample mortality follow back caregiver interviews (Italian survey of the dying of cancer). Caregivers of patients who died at home were more likely to participate in interview.	100% cancer, caregiver interview	No	Services more frequent in North; scarce in South	94	67	B, 66.9% response rate
Hsieh et al.29 2007 Taiwan Palliative care hospital unit, n=46	Convenience sample of inpatients in the palliative care unit of a metropolitan Taipei hospital.	100% cancer, 91% lived with caregivers	Not described	Inpatient palliative home services available	74	43	B, single unit
Brazil et al.37 1997–1999 Canada Community palliative care, n=151	Home palliative care nursing service.	82% cancer, 86% lived with caregiver	Yes	Palliative	62i	80% for home preference onlye	C, 51% response rate
Gyllenhammar et al.36 1999 Sweden Palliative home care teams, n=221	Caregivers of all deceased incurable cancer patients of five palliative home care teams.	100% cancer, 24% lived alone	Yes	Palliative	37j	77% for spontaneously expressed home preference onlye	C, preference not assessed consistently
Karlsen & Addington-Hall33 1995–1996 England Cancer death certificates, n=229	Random sample of cancer deaths.	100% cancer, caregiver interview	Nok	44% palliative	73	63	C, 53% response rate
Tolle et al.28 1996–1997 Oregon Adult nontraumatic deaths, n=475	Random sample of adult nonviolent deaths (475 of 1458 from random sample).	24% cancer, caregiver interview	No	34% used hospice	N/A	68	C, 59% response rate
Koffman & Higginson34 1999–2000 London Caribbean and U.K.-born white patients from death registry, n=100	Family caregivers of all black Caribbean ethnicity decedents in inner-London area and stratified random sample of native-born white patients as comparison group.	69% cancer, caregiver interview	Not described	Not described	81	56	C, 45%–47% response rate
Bakitas et al.19 1999–2001 United States Outpatient palliative care, n=125	Family contact persons of deceased patients with breast, gastrointestinal, or lung cancer who had participated in Project ENABLE.l	100% cancer, 73% were married	Not described	Palliative	N/A	66	C, 47% response rate

PCHST=Palliative Care Home Support Team; N/A=not applicable; IDT=Interdisciplinary Team.

Grades of Studies and Congruence 

Four prospective studies were graded A level.³, ¹⁰, ¹⁴, ²⁷ Eight studies were graded B level because of retrospective design, response rates less than 80%, or single-service populations.¹², ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ²⁹, ³⁰, ³¹, ³², ³⁵ Six studies were graded C level because of response rates less than 60% or inconsistent assessment of preferences.¹⁹, ²⁸, ³³, ³⁴, ³⁶, ³⁷ There was no clear trend between level of congruence and grade of study, although the A and B grade studies had wider ranges of overall congruence (30%–71% and 43%–90%, respectively) than the grade C studies (56%–68%). Two grade C studies reported only home congruence, 77%³⁶ and 80%,³⁷ which is difficult to compare with overall congruence. No grade C studies had less than 50% congruence.

Environmental Factors and Congruence 

Eight studies were placed in the specialized home care group, with interdisciplinary home care programs and continuity or coordination of care.¹⁴, ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ³⁰, ³², ³⁵, ³⁶, ³⁷ Ten studies were placed in the comparison group and recruited patients from a variety of other sources, including hospital and outpatient sites,³, ¹⁰, ¹², ²⁹ community palliative care providers or oncologists,¹⁹, ²⁷ and death certificates or mortality databases.²⁸, ³¹, ³³, ³⁴ No included studies exclusively sampled hospice patients, and nine studies exclusively sampled palliative care patients. Two studies sampled patients from physician-led home care programs.³⁰, ³⁵

Among the A grade studies, Thomas et al.²⁷ reported the highest congruence level (71%) and examined specialist palliative care patients who were not all receiving home care (comparison group). Agar et al.¹⁴ examined a specialized palliative home care program and reported 59% congruence. The lowest congruence (30%) was reported in Tang and McCorkle's study³ of Connecticut patients who were not all receiving home care (comparison group).

Among the B grade studies, the highest congruence level (91%)³⁰ was reported by a physician-led specialized home care program study. Beyond this study, however, there was not a clear difference between levels of congruence among studies in the specialized home care group and the comparison group. Two Canadian specialized home care programs¹⁷, ³² reported similar congruence levels (70% and 67%) to comparison group studies by Shega et al. (66%)¹² and Beccaro et al. (67%).³¹ Shega et al. studied dementia patients followed by the University of Chicago geriatrics clinics in an extension of the Palliative Excellence in Alzheimer Care Efforts (PEACE) program.³⁸ Beccaro et al.'s Italian nationwide probability sample interview study of cancer decedents' caregivers included more caregivers of patients who died at home than in hospitals.

Among the C grade studies, it was difficult to compare the congruence levels between specialized home care studies and the comparison group. The two specialized home care studies by Brazil et al.³⁷ and Gyllenhammar et al.³⁶ reported congruence for only home deaths and not for overall congruence. The comparison group studies reported congruence levels between 56% and 68%,¹⁹, ²⁸, ³³, ³⁴ including Bakitas et al.'s study¹⁹ of an outpatient palliative care early intervention demonstration project, which reported 66% congruence.

Both inpatient and outpatient hospice utilization was associated with higher congruence levels. Thomas et al.'s study²⁷ reported 71% congruence and 73% of patients had contact with inpatient or day care hospice facilities. In Shega et al.'s study,¹² congruence was 90% among patients enrolled in home hospice, and 45% among those not enrolled in home hospice. Tolle et al.²⁸ reported 68% congruence in a random sample of all nonviolent deaths in Oregon, a U.S. state with higher than average utilization of hospice. Of the 161 home deaths in the study, 70% reported hospice utilization. In Bakitas et al.'s¹⁹ outpatient palliative care early intervention demonstration project, 81% of patients with congruence used hospice.

Hospitalized patients had lower levels of congruence. In Tang and McCorkle's study,³ patients who received emergency hospital care or lived close to hospitals had lower congruence and patients with congruence had fewer rehospitalizations than patients without congruence. Pritchard et al.¹⁰ reported 46% congruence for hospital preferences only for SUPPORT (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments) study patients from teaching hospitals. Of the patients who preferred home deaths, 55% died in the hospital, but the percentage of patients with congruence for home deaths was not reported. Hsieh et al.'s study²⁹ sampled inpatient palliative care cancer patients and reported 43% congruence. Home death was preferred by 74% of patients but 83% of patients died in the hospital, and attrition was high in this prospective study.

Geographic areas with higher hospice availability had higher congruence, whereas areas with higher hospital bed availability had lower congruence. Thomas et al.'s study²⁷ acknowledged a higher than average availability of inpatient hospice beds in Morecambe Bay than in other parts of England. Tang and McCorkle's study³ noted that patients who lived in geographic proximity to major hospital centers had lower congruence than patients who lived in areas of lower hospital bed availability. Interestingly, Beccaro et al.'s study³¹ noted that decedents in areas of the country with fewer hospital and palliative care services had higher rates of home deaths than in areas with greater availability of these services.

There was no clear relationship between level of social support reported in the studies and reported congruence levels. Four studies reported that 10% or fewer patients lived alone, and three had higher congruence levels (Leff et al. 91%,³⁰ Groth-Juncker and McCusker 72%,³⁵ Brazil et al. 70%³²), whereas one had a low congruence level (Hsieh et al. 43%²⁹). Three studies reported that over 25% of patients lived alone, two with higher congruence levels (Thomas et al. 71%²⁷ and Shega et al. 66%¹²) and one with the lowest congruence level (Tang and McCorkle 30%³).

Individual Factors and Congruence 

Koffman and Higginson³⁴ sampled all black Caribbean decedents from an inner London area and compared congruence with a stratified random sample of native-born white decedents from the area. Overall congruence was 56%, with similar percentages for white and black Caribbean patients. No other studies compared ethnicities and congruence levels.

In 11 of 18 studies, more than 50% of patients preferred home deaths, not including patients without an expressed preference. Four studies reported that less than 40% of patients preferred home deaths.¹⁴, ¹⁷, ²⁷, ³⁶ Three studies did not report percentages of preferences for home death.¹², ¹⁹, ²⁸ Tang and McCorkle³ elicited patients' preferences “if everything were possible” and reported the second highest percentage of preferences for home death (87%), but the lowest congruence of any study (30%). Thomas et al. reported 24% of patients preferred home and an additional 22% of patients preferred either home or hospice deaths. Thomas et al.²⁷ reported high levels of congruence, even when the patients with dual preferences were excluded from congruence calculation. McWhinney et al.¹⁷ reported 39% of patients who strongly preferred home deaths and an additional 16% of patients preferred home deaths conditional on families' ability to cope. In McWhinney et al.'s study,¹⁷ congruence was 67%, not including those with conditional preferences. Gyllenhammar et al.³⁶ reported only the 37% of patients who spontaneously expressed a preference for home death and did not elicit or report any other preference; the high congruence (77%) in this study was for home only. In addition, only three studies reported preferences for every patient in the sample.³, ¹⁴, ²⁹ In 13 studies, 18%–65% of patients did not express a preference for place of death.¹⁷, ¹⁸, ²⁷, ²⁸, ³⁰, ³¹, ³², ³³, ³⁴, ³⁵, ³⁶, ³⁷

Illness Factors and Congruence 

There was no clear trend between levels of congruence and the percentage of patients with cancer diagnoses in the studies. In 13 studies, more than 80% of patients had cancer.³, ¹⁴, ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ¹⁹, ²⁷, ²⁹, ³¹, ³², ³³, ³⁶, ³⁷ One study examined dementia patients exclusively,¹² and three reported that less than 50% of patients had cancer.²⁸, ³⁰, ³⁵ High levels of congruence were reported in 10 of the studies with predominantly cancer patients and studies of more mixed populations,¹², ²⁸, ³⁰, ³⁴, ³⁵ whereas two of the studies of cancer patients reported lower levels of congruence.³, ²⁹ Other illness factors were less consistently reported across studies and were not able to be compared.

Study Methods and Congruence 

Five studies did not report overall congruence or data to determine overall congruence.¹⁰, ¹⁸, ³⁵, ³⁶, ³⁷ It is unclear in the studies that reported congruence for home deaths only. For example, how many patients preferred and achieved hospital, hospice, or nursing home deaths. Thus, it is difficult to compare these percentages with the rest of the studies. The Agar et al. and Thomas et al. longitudinal studies demonstrated higher congruence rates with final patient wishes than with initial wishes.¹⁴, ²⁷

Factors Affecting Congruence 

Most of the studies identified factors associated with congruence among individual patients. Table 2 groups these factors as environmental, individual, and illness related, based on the model in Gomes and Higginson's¹⁶ review of factors associated with cancer home deaths. These factors were not mutually exclusive. Several environmental factors improved congruence consistently across studies, including physician support, hospice enrollment, family support, and family caregiving ability. Illness-related and environmental factors decreasing congruence consistently across studies included symptom control, rehospitalization, lack of family support, and lack of family caregiving ability. The individual factors, patient characteristics, understanding of illness, and resuscitation status, were identified in one study each. Interestingly, preference for inpatient hospice death was associated with increased congruence, whereas home as the preferred place of death was actually associated with decreased congruence in two studies²⁷, ³¹ and was not a factor in other studies.³, ¹⁰

Table 2. Factors Affecting Congruence: Summary of Literature Findings

Enhancing Congruence	Decreasing Congruence
Environmental factors	Illness-related factors
Physician support18	Inability to control symptoms17, 19, 30, 32, 36
Family physician home visits32, 37	Need for 24-hour nursing care17, 32
Hospice enrollment3, 12, 19, 28	Unclear prognosis30
Domestic care services33, 36	Progression/death before admission17, 30
Palliative home care team36	Environmental factors
Provision of special equipment33	Equipment not available35
More support services17	Rehospitalization3, 17, 30, 37
Family caregiver ability3, 37	Proximity to hospitals3
Family support3, 18, 36	Hospital palliative care37
Individual factors	Individual factors
Hospice as preferred location of death14	Home as preferred place of death14, 31
Higher social classes33	Lower patient/caregiver education levels29
Patient understands illness36	Perceived family inability3, 17, 29, 35, 36, 37
Do-Not-Resuscitate advance directive30	Patient changed mind17

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

This study systematically reviewed congruence between preferred and actual place of death and examined some of the factors associated with congruence. Overall congruence ranged from 30% to 90%. Within the studies' reported analyses of individual patients, factors associated with increased congruence included physician support, hospice enrollment, and family support, whereas inadequate symptom control, rehospitalization, and lack of family caregiver support decreased congruence. Several of these factors, particularly home care, social support, and hospitalization, were noted in a previous systematic review of factors associated with cancer home deaths.¹⁶ However, unlike the previous home death review, preference for home death was associated with decreased congruence in at least two studies,²⁷, ³¹ and preference for inpatient hospice was associated with increased congruence in one study.²⁷

When the overall congruence levels of the studies were compared, environmental factors appeared to be associated with congruence across the studies. Contrary to the hypothesis based on previous studies, studies with systematic provision of specialized home care did not clearly demonstrate higher congruence than the other studies. The studies with specialized palliative home care and physician home care programs³⁰, ³⁵ all reported congruence levels over 59%. Except for the hospital-based studies,³, ¹⁰, ²⁹ the studies without specialized home care for all patients reported levels of congruence (56%–68%) similar to the specialized home care studies (59%–91%).

Inpatient and home hospice utilization increased congruence in the comparison group although not all patients received these services. Thomas et al.²⁷ studied palliative care patients with high utilization of freestanding hospice facilities. Shega et al.¹² reported very high congruence (90%) among dementia patients enrolled in hospice compared with those not enrolled in hospice. Bakitas et al.¹⁹ studied an outpatient palliative care demonstration project and noted higher congruence among the hospice patients. The study from Oregon²⁸ did not describe special programs or continuity of care, but congruence was most likely enhanced by the state's high rate of hospice utilization, and 70% of the home deaths had hospice services. The studies by Thomas et al.,²⁷ Shega et al.,¹² Bakitas et al.,¹⁹ and Tolle et al.²⁸ all described a specialized program or level of care beyond usual provision of care. These findings suggest that congruence between preferred and actual place of death is enhanced when patients are given additional skilled care and support in navigating the health care system. This is supported by the studies' findings that the key factors affecting congruence most consistently in the studies included symptom control, physician support, hospice enrollment, and family support and ability.

Hospitalized patients had lower congruence. Two of the three studies with the lowest congruence rates, the SUPPORT study¹⁰ and Hsieh et al.,²⁹ sampled hospital patients. Tang and McCorkle³ reported more rehospitalizations among patients with noncongruence than the patients with congruence.

Geographical factors also played a role in congruence in some studies. Thomas et al.²⁷ and Tolle et al.²⁸ noted that regions of higher hospice utilization may have higher congruence levels. Tang and McCorkle³ noted that residence in urban areas with proximity to hospitals reduced congruence. Beccaro et al.³¹ found higher congruence in areas with lower availability of inpatient hospices and palliative care home services, suggesting that home deaths in some areas may occur due to lack of choice.¹⁶ The ethnic minority patient caregivers in Koffman and Higginson's study³⁴ of inner London also noted a lack of choice that affected place of death.

The lowest level of congruence was reported in Tang and McCorkle's study,³ which elicited preference “if everything were possible.” Comparison of congruence in McWhinney et al.'s¹⁷ and Thomas et al.'s²⁷ studies excluded patients with conditional or dual (“home or hospice”) preferences. Gyllenhammar et al.'s study³⁶ reported only “spontaneously expressed” preferences for home deaths, limiting comparison. To clearly compare congruence, realistic patient preferences appear to be the most useful.

Overall congruence included patients with place of death matching with preference for hospital, inpatient hospice, and nursing home deaths as well as home deaths. Including all sites of death in congruence avoids the assumption that home deaths are best for every patient. No preference for place of death was expressed by 18%–65% of patients in 12 of the 18 studies. This is consistent with a previous study that noted heterogeneity in the importance of place of death to terminally ill patients.³⁹ Symptom control, presence of family, and other attributes have been found to be more important to patients than place of death.⁴⁰

Congruence may have been affected by study methods and designs. It is unclear whether selection bias in retrospective studies, or attrition in prospective studies, affected the congruence. Response rates of the retrospective studies ranged from 46% to 89%. The Italian retrospective study noted that nonresponders were more likely to be caregivers of decedents who died in the hospital, compared with the home.³¹ This would overestimate the home deaths surveyed and might increase congruence rates for home deaths. Yet some of the prospective studies reported loss of study patients because of attrition,²⁷, ²⁹ which may also result in bias.

The strengths of this study included systematic review methods with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study is limited by the wide heterogeneity of the studies and the different locations of death studied. The study is also constrained by the limited data provided in the original studies. Additional factors enhancing or reducing congruence may have been present but not reported in the original articles. The exclusion of non-English speakers in most U.S., Canadian, and English studies limits generalizability. Additionally, there may be barriers in some settings to asking a patient's preferred place of death, which were beyond the scope of this review.

Implications for Research 

Many of the patients in these studies with congruence between preferred and actual place of death did not die at home. Measurements based on a percentage of home deaths alone may not accurately assess the quality of end-of-life care or a model of care's ability to honor patient preferences. The elicitation of ideal, conditional, or dual site (home or hospice) preferences limits comparison with other studies and interpretation of findings. Both retrospective and prospective study designs have limitations. More study is needed using systematic assessments of preference, and to examine the relationship between congruence and other quality measures of end-of-life care.

Implications for Practice 

The key factors affecting congruence most consistently in the studies included symptom control, physician support, hospice enrollment, family support, and family caregiving ability. Work to address these areas would likely enhance a care model's ability to honor patient preferences for place of death. Additionally, providing information and support to help patients understand the demands of dying in a preferred location may improve the congruence between preferred and actual place of death. Home may not be the best location of death for all patients. The best location of death is the one that meets the patient's needs and is acceptable to the patient and his or her family.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

Congruence between preferred and actual place of death is an important goal in end-of-life care. Specialized programs of care and hospice utilization were associated with higher levels of congruence compared with hospital-based programs of care. Geographic variation in hospice and hospital availability affected congruence. Symptom control, physician support, hospice enrollment, and family support are key factors in congruence between patient preferences and place of death. Future studies of congruence should consider potential sources of bias, the method of eliciting patient preference, and the absence of a single ideal place of death.

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgments 

The authors acknowledge Rosanne Harrigan, EdD, APRN-Rx, for her assistance with study concept and design.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Weitzen S, Teno JM, Fennell M, Mor V. Factors associated with site of death: a national study of where people die. Med Care. 2003;41(2):323–335
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
2. Field M, Cassel C. Approaching death: Improving care at the end of life. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997;
   • View In Article
3. Tang ST, McCorkle R. Determinants of congruence between the preferred and actual place of death for terminally ill cancer patients. J Palliat Care. 2003;19(4):230–237
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
4. Higginson IJ, Sen-Gupta GJ. Place of care in advanced cancer: a qualitative systematic literature review of patient preferences. J Palliat Med. 2000;3(3):287–300
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
5. Foreman LM, Hunt RW, Luke CG, Roder DM. Factors predictive of preferred place of death in the general population of South Australia. Palliat Med. 2006;20(4):447–453
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
6. Braun KL, Onaka AT, Horiuchi BY. Advance directive completion rates and end-of-life preferences in Hawaii. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(12):1708–1713
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Bruera E, Sweeney C, Russell N, Willey JS, Palmer JL. Place of death of Houston area residents with cancer over a two-year period. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003;26(1):637–643
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (77 KB)
   • CrossRef
8. Gomes B. Where people die (1974-2030): past trends, future projections and implications for care. Palliat Med. 2008;22(1):33–41
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
9. Tang ST, McCorkle R. Determinants of place of death for terminal cancer patients. Cancer Invest. 2001;19(2):165–180
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
10. Pritchard RS, Fisher ES, Teno JM, et al. Influence of patient preferences and local health system characteristics on the place of death. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Risks and Outcomes of Treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46(10):1242–1250
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
11. Chvetzoff G, Garnier M, Perol D, et al. Factors predicting home death for terminally ill cancer patients receiving hospital-based home care: the Lyon comprehensive cancer center experience. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30(6):528–535
    • View In Article
12. Shega JW, Hougham GW, Stocking CB, Cox-Hayley D, Sachs GA. Patients dying with dementia: experience at the end of life and impact of hospice care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008;35(5):499–507
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (144 KB)
    • CrossRef
13. Izquierdo-Porrera AM, Trelis-Navarro J, Gomez-Batiste X. Predicting place of death of elderly cancer patients followed by a palliative care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;21(6):481–490
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (165 KB)
    • CrossRef
14. Agar M, Currow DC, Shelby-James TM, et al. Preference for place of care and place of death in palliative care: are these different questions?. Palliat Med. 2008;22(7):787–795
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
15. Stajduhar KI, Davies B. Variations in and factors influencing family members' decisions for palliative home care. Palliat Med. 2005;19(1):21–32
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
16. Gomes B, Higginson IJ. Factors influencing death at home in terminally ill patients with cancer: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7540):515–521
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
17. McWhinney IR, Bass MJ, Orr V. Factors associated with location of death (home or hospital) of patients referred to a palliative care team. CMAJ. 1995;152(3):361–367
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
18. Cantwell P, Turco S, Brenneis C, et al. Predictors of home death in palliative care cancer patients. J Palliat Care. 2000;16(1):23–28
    • View In Article
19. Bakitas M, Ahles TA, Skalla K, et al. Proxy perspectives regarding end-of-life care for persons with cancer. Cancer. 2008;112(8):1854–1861
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
20. Barnato AE, Anthony DL, Skinner J, Gallagher PM, Fisher ES. Racial and ethnic differences in preferences for end-of-life treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):695–701
    • View In Article
21. Townsend J, Frank AO, Fermont D, et al. Terminal cancer care and patients' preference for place of death: a prospective study. BMJ. 1990;301(6749):415–417
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
22. Tiernan E, O'Connor M, O'Siorain L, Kearney M. A prospective study of preferred versus actual place of death among patients referred to a palliative care home-care service. Ir Med J. 2002;95(8):232–235
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
23. Dunlop R, Davies R, Hockley J. Preferred versus actual place of death: a hospital palliative care support team experience. Palliat Med. 1989;3:197–201
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
24. Fukui S, Kawagoe H, Masako S, et al. Determinants of the place of death among terminally ill cancer patients under home hospice care in Japan. Palliat Med. 2003;17(5):445–453
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
25. Takezako Y, Tamiya N, Kajii E. The nursing home versus the hospital as the place of dying for nursing home residents in Japan. Health Policy. 2007;81(2-3):280–288
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (163 KB)
    • CrossRef
26. Bell CL, Somogyi-Zalud E, Masaki K. Methodological review: measured and reported congruence between preferred and actual place of death. Palliat Med. 2009;23(6):482–490
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
27. Thomas C, Morris SM, Clark D. Place of death: preferences among cancer patients and their carers. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(12):2431–2444
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
28. Tolle SW, Tilden VP, Rosenfeld AG, Hickman SE. Family reports of barriers to optimal care of the dying. Nurs Res. 2000;49(6):310–317
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
29. Hsieh MC, Huang MC, Lai YL, Lin CC. Grief reactions in family caregivers of advanced cancer patients in Taiwan: relationship to place of death. Cancer Nurs. 2007;30(4):278–284
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
30. Leff B, Kaffenbarger KP, Remsburg R. Prevalence, effectiveness, and predictors of planning the place of death among older persons followed in community-based long term care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(8):943–948
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
31. Beccaro M, Costantini M, Giorgi Rossi P, et al. Actual and preferred place of death of cancer patients. Results from the Italian survey of the dying of cancer (ISDOC). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(5):412–416
    • View In Article
32. Brazil K, Howell D, Bedard M, Krueger P, Heidebrecht C. Preferences for place of care and place of death among informal caregivers of the terminally ill. Palliat Med. 2005;19(6):492–499
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
33. Karlsen S, Addington-Hall J. How do cancer patients who die at home differ from those who die elsewhere?. Palliat Med. 1998;12(4):279–286
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
34. Koffman J, Higginson IJ. Dying to be home? Preferred location of death of first-generation black Caribbean and native-born white patients in the United Kingdom. J Palliat Med. 2004;7(5):628–636
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
35. Groth-Juncker A, McCusker J. Where do elderly patients prefer to die? Place of death and patient characteristics of 100 elderly patients under the care of a home health care team. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1983;31(8):457–461
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
36. Gyllenhammar E, Thoren-Todoulos E, Strang P, et al. Predictive factors for home deaths among cancer patients in Swedish palliative home care. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11(9):560–567
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
37. Brazil K, Bedard M, Willison K. Factors associated with home death for individuals who receive home support services: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Palliat Care. 2002;1(1):2
    • View In Article
38. Shega JW, Levin A, Hougham GW, et al. Palliative Excellence in Alzheimer Care Efforts (PEACE): a program description. J Palliat Med. 2003;6(2):315–320
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
39. Vig EK, Pearlman RA. Good and bad dying from the perspective of terminally ill men. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(9):977–981
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
40. Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, et al. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA. 2000;284(19):2476–2482
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef