Barbara Gomes

Where people die (1974—2030): past trends, future projections and implications for care:

Background: Ageing nations have growing needs for end of life care, but these have never been projected in detail. We analysed past trends in place of death (1974—2003) and projected likely trends to 2030 in England and Wales and from these need for care. Methods: Mortality trends and forecasts were obtained from official statistics. Future scenarios were modelled using recent five-year trends in age and gender specific home death proportions to estimate numbers of deaths by place to 2030, accounting for future changes in the age and gender distribution of deaths. Results: Annual numbers of deaths fell by 8% from 1974 to 2003, but are expected to rise by 17% from 2012 to 2030. People will die increasingly at older ages, with the percentage of deaths among those aged 85 and expected to rise from 32% in 2003 to 44% in 2030. Home death proportions fell from 31% to 18% overall, and at an even higher rate for people aged 65 and over, women and noncancer deaths. If recent trends continue, numbers of home deaths could reduce by 42% and fewer than 1 in 10 will die at home in 2030. Annual numbers of institutional deaths (currently 440936) will be 530409 by 2030 (20% increase). Conclusions: In England and Wales home deaths have been decreasing. The projections underline the urgent need for planning care to accommodate a large increase of ageing and deaths. Either inpatient facilities must increase substantially, or many more people will need community end of life care from 2012 onwards. Palliative Medicine 2008; 22 : 33—41

Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review

BackgroundHome-based models of hospice and palliative care are promoted with the argument that most people prefer to die at home. We examined the heterogeneity in preferences for home death and explored, for the first time, changes of preference with illness progression.MethodsWe searched for studies on adult preferences for place of care at the end of life or place of death in MEDLINE (1966–2011), EMBASE (1980–2011), psycINFO (1967–2011), CINAHL (1982–2011), six palliative care journals (2006–11) and reference lists. Standard criteria were used to grade study quality and evidence strength. Scatter plots showed the percentage preferring home death amongst patients, lay caregivers and general public, by study quality, year, weighted by sample size.Results210 studies reported preferences of just over 100,000 people from 33 countries, including 34,021 patients, 19,514 caregivers and 29,926 general public members. 68% of studies with quantitative data were of low quality; only 76 provided the question used to elicit preferences. There was moderate evidence that most people prefer a home death–this was found in 75% of studies, 9/14 of those of high quality. Amongst the latter and excluding outliers, home preference estimates ranged 31% to 87% for patients (9 studies), 25% to 64% for caregivers (5 studies), 49% to 70% for the public (4 studies). 20% of 1395 patients in 10 studies (2 of high quality) changed their preference, but statistical significance was untested.ConclusionsControlling for methodological weaknesses, we found evidence that most people prefer to die at home. Around four fifths of patients did not change preference as their illness progressed. This supports focusing on home-based care for patients with advanced illness yet urges policy-makers to secure hospice and palliative care elsewhere for those who think differently or change their mind. Research must be clear on how preferences are elicited. There is an urgent need for studies examining change of preferences towards death.

Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

BACKGROUND Cancer end-of-life care (EoLC) policies assume people want to die at home. We aimed to examine variations in preferences for place of death cross-nationally. METHODS A telephone survey of a random sample of individuals aged ≥16 in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We determined where people would prefer to die if they had a serious illness such as advanced cancer, facilitating circumstances, personal values and experiences of illness, death and dying. RESULTS Of 9344 participants, between 51% (95% CI: 48% to 54%) in Portugal and 84% (95% CI: 82% to 86%) in the Netherlands would prefer to die at home. Cross-national analysis found there to be an influence of circumstances and values but not of experiences of illness, death and dying. Four factors were associated with a preference for home death in more than one country: younger age up to 70+ (Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain), increased importance of dying in the preferred place (England, Germany, Portugal, Spain), prioritizing keeping a positive attitude (Germany, Spain) and wanting to involve family in decisions if incapable (Flanders, Portugal). CONCLUSIONS At least two-thirds of people prefer a home death in all but one country studied. The strong association with personal values suggests keeping home care at the heart of cancer EoLC.

Reversal of the British trends in place of death: time series analysis 2004-2010.

Background: Increased attention is being paid to the place where people die with a view to providing choice and adequately planning care for terminally ill patients. Secular trends towards an institutionalised dying have been reported in Britain and other developed world regions. Aim: This study aimed to examine British national trends in place of death from 2004 to 2010. Design and setting: Descriptive analysis of death registration data from the Office for National Statistics, representing all 3,525,564 decedents in England and Wales from 2004 to 2010. Results: There was a slow but steady increase in the proportion of deaths at home, from 18.3% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2010. Absolute numbers of home deaths increased by 9.1%, whilst overall numbers of deaths decreased by 3.8%. The rise in home deaths was more pronounced in cancer, happened for both genders and across all age groups, except for those younger than 14 years and for those aged 65–84, but only up to 2006. The rise was more evident when ageing was accounted for (age–gender standardised proportions of home deaths increased from 20.6% to 23.5%). Conclusions: Following trends in the USA and Canada, dying is also shifting to people’s homes in Britain. Home deaths increased for the first time since 1974 amongst people aged 85 years and over. There is an urgent need across nations for comparative evidence on the outcomes and the costs of dying at home.

Dying at home – is it better: A narrative appraisal of the state of the science

Background: Achieving home care and home death is increasingly used as an outcome measure of palliative care services. Aim: To appraise the state of the science on dying at home. Methods: Appraisal and narrative review developed from a plenary presentation at the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) 2012 meeting examining the research on variations and trends in place of death, factors associated with dying in the preferred place, presenting evidence on outcomes for those dying at home and suggesting future research questions. Results: Meeting patients’ preferences and creating home-like environments has been a major concern for hospice and palliative care since its inception. During the 20th century, in many countries, hospital deaths increased and home deaths reduced. Despite the fact that this trend has been halted or reversed in some countries (notably the United States, Canada and, more recently, the United Kingdom) in the last 5–20 years, a home death is still a distant reality for the majority, even though evidence shows it is the most commonly preferred place to die. Epidemiological studies identified factors associated with home death, including affluence, patients’ preferences, provision of home care and extended family support. Evidence about the benefits of home care is conflicting, but recent data suggest that holistic well-being may be greater at home. Implications: We call for further analyses of variations in place of care and place of death and robust studies on how patients and families formulate and change preferences over time. Regular monitoring of outcomes, quality and costs of palliative home care is urged.

Optimal Approaches to the Health Economics of Palliative Care: Report of an International Think Tank

More people will need palliative care in aging societies with stretched health budgets and less ability to provide informal care. The future will bring new and tougher challenges to sustain, optimize, and expand the 8000 dedicated palliative care services that currently exist in the world. The full breakdown of the costs of palliative care is yet to be unveiled, and this has left huge unresolved questions for funding, costing, evaluating, and modeling palliative care. At an international meeting in London in November 2007, a group of 40 researchers, health economists, policy makers, and advocates exchanged their experiences, concerns, and recommendations in five main areas: shared definitions, strengths and weaknesses of different payment systems, international and country-specific research challenges, appropriate economic evaluation methods, and the varied perspectives to the costs of palliative care. This article reports the discussions that took place and the views of this international group of experts on the best research approaches to capture, analyze, and interpret data on both costs and outcomes for families and patients toward the end of life.

How many people will need palliative care in 2040? Past trends, future projections and implications for services

BackgroundCurrent estimates suggest that approximately 75% of people approaching the end-of-life may benefit from palliative care. The growing numbers of older people and increasing prevalence of chronic illness in many countries mean that more people may benefit from palliative care in the future, but this has not been quantified. The present study aims to estimate future population palliative care need in two high-income countries.MethodsWe used mortality statistics for England and Wales from 2006 to 2014. Building on previous diagnosis-based approaches, we calculated age- and sex-specific proportions of deaths from defined chronic progressive illnesses to estimate the prevalence of palliative care need in the population. We calculated annual change over the 9-year period. Using explicit assumptions about change in disease prevalence over time, and official mortality forecasts, we modelled palliative care need up to 2040. We also undertook separate projections for dementia, cancer and organ failure.ResultsBy 2040, annual deaths in England and Wales are projected to rise by 25.4% (from 501,424 in 2014 to 628,659). If age- and sex-specific proportions with palliative care needs remain the same as in 2014, the number of people requiring palliative care will grow by 25.0% (from 375,398 to 469,305 people/year). However, if the upward trend observed from 2006 to 2014 continues, the increase will be of 42.4% (161,842 more people/year, total 537,240). In addition, disease-specific projections show that dementia (increase from 59,199 to 219,409 deaths/year by 2040) and cancer (increase from 143,638 to 208,636 deaths by 2040) will be the main drivers of increased need.ConclusionsIf recent mortality trends continue, 160,000 more people in England and Wales will need palliative care by 2040. Healthcare systems must now start to adapt to the age-related growth in deaths from chronic illness, by focusing on integration and boosting of palliative care across health and social care disciplines. Countries with similar demographic and disease changes will likely experience comparable rises in need.

Priorities for treatment, care and information if faced with serious illness: a comparative population-based survey in seven European countries.

Background: Health-care costs are growing, with little population-based data about people’s priorities for end-of-life care, to guide service development and aid discussions. Aim: We examined variations in people’s priorities for treatment, care and information across seven European countries. Design: Telephone survey of a random sample of households; we asked respondents their priorities if ‘faced with a serious illness, like cancer, with limited time to live’ and used multivariable logistic regressions to identify associated factors. Setting/participants: Members of the general public aged ≥16 years residing in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Results: In total, 9344 individuals were interviewed. Most people chose ‘improve quality of life for the time they had left’, ranging from 57% (95% confidence interval: 55%–60%, Italy) to 81% (95% confidence interval: 79%–83%, Spain). Only 2% (95% confidence interval: 1%–3%, England) to 6% (95% confidence interval: 4%–7%, Flanders) said extending life was most important, and 15% (95% confidence interval: 13%–17%, Spain) to 40% (95% confidence interval: 37%–43%, Italy) said quality and extension were equally important. Prioritising quality of life was associated with higher education in all countries (odds ratio = 1.3 (Flanders) to 7.9 (Italy)), experience of caregiving or bereavement (England, Germany, Portugal), prioritising pain/symptom control over having a positive attitude and preferring death in a hospice/palliative care unit. Those prioritising extending life had the highest home death preference of all groups. Health status did not affect priorities. Conclusions: Across all countries, extending life was prioritised by a minority, regardless of health status. Treatment and care needs to be reoriented with patient education and palliative care becoming mainstream for serious conditions such as cancer.

To be involved or not to be involved: A survey of public preferences for self-involvement in decision-making involving mental capacity (competency) within Europe

Background: The Council of Europe has recommended that member states of European Union encourage their citizens to make decisions about their healthcare before they lose capacity to do so. However, it is unclear whether the public wants to make such decisions beforehand. Aim: To examine public preferences for self-involvement in end-of-life care decision-making and identify associated factors. Design: A population-based survey with 9344 adults in England, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Results: Across countries, 74% preferred self-involvement when capable; 44% preferred self-involvement when incapable through, for example, a living will. Four factors were associated with a preference for self-involvement across capacity and incapacity scenarios, respectively: higher educational attainment ((odds ratio = 1.93–2.77), (odds ratio = 1.33–1.80)); female gender ((odds ratio = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 1.14–1.41), (odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.20–1.42)); younger-middle age ((30–59 years: odds ratio = 1.24–1.40), (50–59 years: odds ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.46)) and valuing quality over quantity of life or valuing both equally ((odds ratio = 1.49–1.58), (odds ratio = 1.35–1.53)). Those with increased financial hardship (odds ratio = 0.64–0.83) and a preference to die in hospital (not a palliative care unit) (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.60–0.88), a nursing home or residential care (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.54–0.99) were less likely to prefer self-involvement when capable. For the incapacity scenario, single people were more likely to prefer self-involvement (odds ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = 1.18–1.53). Conclusions: Self-involvement in decision-making is important to the European public. However, a large proportion of the public prefer to not make decisions about their care in advance of incapacity. Financial hardship, educational attainment, age, and preferences regarding quality and quantity of life require further examination; these factors should be considered in relation to policy.

Population, mortality and place of death in Germany (1950–2050) – Implications for end-of-life care in the future

OBJECTIVES European populations are ageing, but data on the associated end-of-life care needs are scarce. This study aimed to analyse population, mortality and place of death (PoD) trends in Germany since 1950, and to project mortality by PoD until 2050. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Secondary analysis of national statistics on population, mortality and PoD by age and gender. Future numbers and proportions of deaths by PoD - hospital deaths (HDs) and non-hospital deaths (NHDs) - were based on recent trends (2005-2009). Linear models accounted for the effect of age and gender. RESULTS The German population increased by 19.0% between 1950 and 2002, and has remained relatively stable ever since. However, it is expected that it will decrease (15.4%) from 2009 to 2050 (from 81.8 to 69.4 million). The annual number of deaths has shown an increasing trend, except for a decrease in 1975-2004. A 26.0% increase is expected from 2009 to 2050 (854,544 to 1,077,000 deaths). Older people (age ≥ 75 years) will account for 87.8% of all deaths in 2050 (64.4% in 2009). The proportion of HDs was stable, with an annual mean of 47.0% (range 44.9-47.8%). The models estimated that most people will continue to die outside of hospital in 2050 (48.6 or 54.1%), and absolute numbers of both HDs and NHDs will increase from 2009 to 2050 [HD: by 20.1 million (30.6%); NHD: by 35.5 million (17.0%)]. CONCLUSIONS Unlike in other industrialized countries, most people in Germany die outside of hospital. The need to plan for growing end-of-life care needs and ageing is urgent in Germany but also applies to the rest of Europe. A joint European policy must inform national strategies.