No change in personal dignity: Mr. 10.

<p>No change in personal dignity: Mr. 10.</p

Characteristics of respondents.

1<p>Age at the time of the first interview appointment.</p>†<p>deceased within data collection period.</p>*<p>withdrew from the study.</p><p>CVA: Cerebrovascular accident.</p><p>COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. </p

A positive change in personal dignity: Mrs. 18.

<p>A positive change in personal dignity: Mrs. 18.</p

A declining personal dignity: Mrs. 20.

<p>A declining personal dignity: Mrs. 20.</p

Characteristics of GPs, nurses, family carers and patient cases.

<p>Characteristics of GPs, nurses, family carers and patient cases.</p

Preferred place of death, place of death, and number of transfers and hospitalisations of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.

<p>^† Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise. GP = general practitioner; CM = case manager. Total number of patients is 447. Missing values per variable: Preferred place of death known: no missing values, Died at preferred place of death: 90 missing values (Study on case managers 10; Standard GP care 80), Place of death: 2 missing values (Study on case managers 0; Standard GP care 2), Number of transfers: 78 missing values (Study on case managers 73; Standard GP care 5), Number of hospitalisations: 78 missing values (Study on case managers 73; Standard GP care 5).</p><p>^†† Dependent variables coded ‘Standard GP care’ = 0; ‘Study on case managers’ = 1. OR = Odds ratio; CI = 95% confidence interval. Confidence intervals not including the value 1 are considered statistically significant and are boldfaced.</p><p>^§ Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age</p><p>Preferred place of death, place of death, and number of transfers and hospitalisations of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.</p

Control Preference Scale

<p>Control Preference Scale</p

General characteristics of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.

<p>^† Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise. GP = general practitioner; CM = case manager. Total number of patients is 447. Missing values per variable: Age: no missing values, Sex: 2 missing values (Study on case managers 0; Standard GP care 2), Type of cancer: 35 missing values (Study on case managers 4; Standard GP care 31).</p><p>^†† Dependent variables coded ‘Standard GP care’ = 0; ‘Study on case managers ‘ = 1. OR = Odds ratio; CI = 95% confidence interval. Confidence intervals not including the value 1 are considered statistically significant and are boldfaced.</p><p>^§ Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age</p><p>General characteristics of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.</p

Characteristics of participants

<p>*1 patient was not able to pick a card</p

Are older long term care residents accurately prognosticated and consequently informed about their prognosis? Results from SHELTER study data in 5 European countries

<div><p>Background</p><p>Informing residents in long term care facilities (LTCFs) about their prognosis can help them prepare for the end of life. This study aimed to examine which proportion of European LTCF residents, close to death, are accurately prognosticated and consequently informed about their prognosis; and to examine factors related to accurate prognostication and discussion of prognosis.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A subsample of SHELTER study data was used, consisting of: 500 residents from 5 European countries, who died within 6 months after their last assessment, and had a valid answer on the item ‘End stage disease, 6 or fewer months to live’. This item was used to indicate whether an accurate prognosis was established and discussed with residents. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine factors related to establishment and discussion of accurate prognosis.</p><p>Results</p><p>86.4% of residents close to death did not receive an accurate prognosis. Residents with cancer; fatigue; dehydration; and normal mode of nutritional intake were more likely to have an accurate prognosis established and discussed. Accurate prognostication and prognosis discussion was less likely for residents who: had a diagnosis under ‘other’; initiated interactions; and residents from Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The great majority of residents close to death did not receive an accurate prognosis. Prognostication tools might help clinicians to increase their prognostic accuracy and communication training might help to discuss prognosis with residents.</p></div