SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Influence of individual, illness and environmental factors on place of death among people with neurodegenerative diseases: a retrospective, observational, comparative cohort study.

BMJ Support Palliat Care · 2021-09-06

DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003105PMID: 34489324

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundIn long-term neurological conditions, location of death is poorly understood but is seen as a marker of quality of dying.ObjectiveTo examine individual, illness and environmental factors on place of death among people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease (PD) in isolation or in combination and compare them with people without either condition.MethodsRetrospective, observational, comparative cohort study of 582 people with MS, 579 people with PD and 95 controls from UK Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's Disease Tissue Bank. A subset of people with MS and PD were selected for analysis of individual clinical encounters 2 years before death and further subset of all groups for analysis of impact of advance care planning (ACP) and recognition of dying.ResultsPeople with MS died more often (50.8%) in hospital than those with PD (35.3%). Examining individual clinical encounters over 2 years (4931 encounters) identified increased contact with services 12 months before death (F(1, 58)=69.71, pF(1, 58)=1.001, p=0.321). The presence of ACPs and recognition of dying were high among people with MS and PD and both associated with a non-hospital death. ACPs were more likely to prevent hospital deaths when initiated by general practitioners (GPs) compared with other professional groups (χ2=68.77, p=0.0007).ConclusionsFor people with MS and PD, ACPs contribute to reducing dying in hospital. ACPs appear to be most effective when facilitated by GPs underlining the importance of primary care involvement in delivering holistic care at the end of life.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.