» Articles » PMID: 35162586

Patient Factors Associated with Different Hospice Programs in Korea: Analyzing Healthcare Big Data

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 Feb 15
PMID 35162586
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Korean government has implemented a pilot project that introduces a new type of hospice care program called "Consultative Hospice Care" (COHC) since August 2017. The COHC is a new type of hospice program for terminally ill patients in acute care wards, which is different from the Independent Hospice Unit (IHU) care. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of two groups of hospice patients: COHC care only and both IHU care and COHC groups. Healthcare claim data from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2020 were retrieved from the HIRA data warehouse system. The main outcome variable was patients receiving COHC only or both COHC and IHU care. The total number of hospice patients was 6482. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. Of 6482 hospice care recipients, 3789 (58.5%) received both COHC and IHU care. Those who received both COHC and IHU care were significantly associated with several factors: period from the first evaluation to death (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.026; 95% confidence internal (CI), 1.024-1.029; < 0.0001), disease severity measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (aOR, 1.032; CI, 1.017-1.047; < 0.0001), consciousness (aOR, 3.654; CI, 3.269-4.085; < 0.0001), and awareness of end-stage disease (aOR, 1.422; CI, 1.226-1.650; < 0.0001). The COHC program had a critical role in hospice delivery to terminally ill patients. Policymakers on hospice care need to establish plans that promote efficient hospice care delivery systems.

Citing Articles

Use and impact of a novel nurse-led consultation model in a palliative care consultation service for terminally ill cancer patients in Taiwan: an 11-year observational study.

Lin L, Huang L, Chien S, Wang C, Lee L, Hu C Support Care Cancer. 2023; 31(4):246.

PMID: 37000288 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07697-4.

References
1.
Ahn E, Song I, Choi J, Jho H, Park I, Sung S . Effectiveness of home hospice care: a nationwide prospective observational study. Support Care Cancer. 2019; 28(6):2713-2719. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05091-7. View

2.
Cagle J, Lee J, Ornstein K, Guralnik J . Hospice Utilization in the United States: A Prospective Cohort Study Comparing Cancer and Noncancer Deaths. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019; 68(4):783-793. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.16294. View

3.
Schorr C, Angelo M, John G, LeCompte K, Dellinger R . The Association of Increasing Hospice Use With Decreasing Hospital Mortality: An Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample. J Healthc Manag. 2020; 65(2):107-120. DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-18-00280. View

4.
Furuno J, Noble B, McPherson M, Lapane K, Sera L, Izumi S . Variation in Hospice Patient and Admission Characteristics by Referral Location. Med Care. 2020; 58(12):1069-1074. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001415. View

5.
Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi J . Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005; 43(11):1130-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83. View