Evaluating satisfaction with the quality and provision of end-of-life care for patients from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds.
Culture
End-of-Life Care
Quality of Care
Race/Ethnicity
Satisfaction
Journal
BMC palliative care
ISSN: 1472-684X
Titre abrégé: BMC Palliat Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Sep 2021
17 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
02
06
2021
accepted:
27
08
2021
entrez:
18
9
2021
pubmed:
19
9
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recently immigrated and ethnic minority patients in Ontario, Canada are more likely to receive aggressive life-prolonging treatment at the end of life in comparison to other patients. To explore this finding further, this survey-based observational study aimed to evaluate satisfaction with the quality of end-of-life care for patients from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds. The End-of-Life Satisfaction Survey was used to measure satisfaction with the quality of inpatient end-of-life care from the perspective of next-of-kin of recently deceased patients at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario (between March 2012 to May 2019). The primary outcome was the global rating of satisfaction. Associations with patient ethnicity, patient religion, level of religiosity/spirituality, language/communication barriers, and location of death were assessed using univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regression. Secondary outcomes included differences in satisfaction and rates of dying in intensive care units (ICU) among patient population subgroups, and identification of high priority areas for quality-of-care improvement. There were 1,543 respondents. Patient ethnicities included Caucasian (68.2%), Mediterranean (10.5%), East Asian (7.6%), South Asian (3.5%), Southeast Asian (2.1%) and Middle Eastern (2.0%); religious affiliations included Christianity (66.6%), Judaism (12.3%) and Islam (2.1%), among others. Location of death was most commonly in ICU (38.4%), hospital wards (37.0%) or long-term care (20.0%). The mean(SD) rating of satisfaction score was 8.30(2.09) of 10. After adjusting for other covariates, satisfaction with quality of end-of-life care was higher among patients dying in ICU versus other locations (relative risk [RR] 1.51, 95%CI 1.05-2.19, p=0.028), lower among those who experienced language/communication barriers (RR 0.49 95%CI 0.23-1.06, p=0.069), and lower for Muslim patients versus other religious affiliations (RR 0.46, 95%CI 0.21-1.02, p=0.056). Survey items identified as highest priority areas for quality-of-care improvement included communication and information giving; illness management; and healthcare provider characteristics such as emotional support, doctor availability and time spent with patient/family. Satisfaction with quality-of-care at the end of life was higher among patients dying in ICU and lower among Muslim patients or when there were communication barriers between families and healthcare providers. These findings highlight the importance of measuring and improving end-of-life care across the ethnocultural spectrum.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recently immigrated and ethnic minority patients in Ontario, Canada are more likely to receive aggressive life-prolonging treatment at the end of life in comparison to other patients. To explore this finding further, this survey-based observational study aimed to evaluate satisfaction with the quality of end-of-life care for patients from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds.
METHODS
METHODS
The End-of-Life Satisfaction Survey was used to measure satisfaction with the quality of inpatient end-of-life care from the perspective of next-of-kin of recently deceased patients at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario (between March 2012 to May 2019). The primary outcome was the global rating of satisfaction. Associations with patient ethnicity, patient religion, level of religiosity/spirituality, language/communication barriers, and location of death were assessed using univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regression. Secondary outcomes included differences in satisfaction and rates of dying in intensive care units (ICU) among patient population subgroups, and identification of high priority areas for quality-of-care improvement.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were 1,543 respondents. Patient ethnicities included Caucasian (68.2%), Mediterranean (10.5%), East Asian (7.6%), South Asian (3.5%), Southeast Asian (2.1%) and Middle Eastern (2.0%); religious affiliations included Christianity (66.6%), Judaism (12.3%) and Islam (2.1%), among others. Location of death was most commonly in ICU (38.4%), hospital wards (37.0%) or long-term care (20.0%). The mean(SD) rating of satisfaction score was 8.30(2.09) of 10. After adjusting for other covariates, satisfaction with quality of end-of-life care was higher among patients dying in ICU versus other locations (relative risk [RR] 1.51, 95%CI 1.05-2.19, p=0.028), lower among those who experienced language/communication barriers (RR 0.49 95%CI 0.23-1.06, p=0.069), and lower for Muslim patients versus other religious affiliations (RR 0.46, 95%CI 0.21-1.02, p=0.056). Survey items identified as highest priority areas for quality-of-care improvement included communication and information giving; illness management; and healthcare provider characteristics such as emotional support, doctor availability and time spent with patient/family.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Satisfaction with quality-of-care at the end of life was higher among patients dying in ICU and lower among Muslim patients or when there were communication barriers between families and healthcare providers. These findings highlight the importance of measuring and improving end-of-life care across the ethnocultural spectrum.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34535122
doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00841-z
pii: 10.1186/s12904-021-00841-z
pmc: PMC8449427
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
145Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Transcult Nurs. 2009 Oct;20(4):405-16
pubmed: 19597187
Crit Care. 2014 Nov 18;18(6):604
pubmed: 25403291
CMAJ. 2006 Feb 28;174(5):627-33
pubmed: 16505458
Crit Care Med. 2002 Jul;30(7):1413-8
pubmed: 12130954
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 May;55(5):1408-1419
pubmed: 29366913
JAMA. 2017 Oct 17;318(15):1479-1488
pubmed: 28973088
Emerg Med J. 2003 Jan;20(1):54-60
pubmed: 12533370
Source Code Biol Med. 2008 Dec 16;3:17
pubmed: 19087314
Int J Qual Health Care. 2002 Oct;14(5):353-8
pubmed: 12389801
CMAJ. 2010 Nov 9;182(16):E747-52
pubmed: 20921249
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Jun;42(6):995-1002
pubmed: 26951427
Crit Care Med. 2012 May;40(5):1506-12
pubmed: 22511132
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004 Dec;28(6):593-8
pubmed: 15589084
JAMA. 2017 Oct 17;318(15):1448-1449
pubmed: 28973316
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 17;9(11):e110860
pubmed: 25401710
Crit Care Med. 1998 Jul;26(7):1187-93
pubmed: 9671367
JAMA. 2012 May 2;307(17):1805-6
pubmed: 22550194
Ann Behav Med. 2005 Oct;30(2):174-9
pubmed: 16173914
J Palliat Med. 2009 Oct;12(10):921-7
pubmed: 19807237
JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Dec 1;174(12):e203238
pubmed: 33074289
Physician Leadersh J. 2016 Jan-Feb;3(1):12-7
pubmed: 26882587
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016 Jan;51(1):9-16
pubmed: 26384556
JAMA. 2021 Mar 16;325(11):1049-1052
pubmed: 33616604
J Cult Divers. 2006 Spring;13(1):3-9
pubmed: 16696539
JAMA. 2009 Mar 18;301(11):1140-7
pubmed: 19293414
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 1;159(7):702-6
pubmed: 15033648
JAMA. 2002 Mar 13;287(10):1288-94
pubmed: 11886320
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Crit Care Med. 2001 Jan;29(1):197-201
pubmed: 11176185
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jan;56(1):95-109
pubmed: 12435554
Psychooncology. 2012 Jul;21(7):714-23
pubmed: 21449037
Crit Care Med. 2006 Nov;34(11 Suppl):S404-11
pubmed: 17057606
CMAJ. 2014 Dec 9;186(18):E679-87
pubmed: 25367427
J Palliat Med. 2013 Nov;16(11):1329-34
pubmed: 24073685
Chest. 2017 Aug;152(2):321-329
pubmed: 28483610
CMAJ. 2020 Mar 16;192(11):E266-E274
pubmed: 32179535