Cargando…

Decision Tree Model for Predicting Hospice Palliative Care Use in Terminal Cancer Patients

PURPOSE: This study attempted to develop clinical guidelines to help patients use hospice and palliative care (HPC) at an appropriate time after writing physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST) by identifying the characteristics of HPC use of patients with terminal cancer. METHODS: Thi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Hee-Ja, Na, Im-Il, Kang, Kyung-Ah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society for Hospice and Palliative Care 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10180062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37674561
http://dx.doi.org/10.14475/jhpc.2021.24.3.184
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: This study attempted to develop clinical guidelines to help patients use hospice and palliative care (HPC) at an appropriate time after writing physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST) by identifying the characteristics of HPC use of patients with terminal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted to understand the characteristics of HPC use of patients with terminal cancer through decision tree analysis. The participants were 394 terminal cancer patients who were hospitalized at a cancer-specialized hospital in Seoul, South Korea and wrote POLST from January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2021. RESULTS: The predictive model for the characteristics of HPC use showed three main nodes (living together, pain control, and period to death after writing POLST). The decision tree analysis of HPC use by terminal cancer patients showed that the most likely group to use HPC use was terminal cancer patients who had a cohabitant, received pain control, and died 2 months or more after writing a POLST. The probability of HPC usage rate in this group was 87.5%. The next most likely group to use HPC had a cohabitant and received pain control; 64.8% of this group used HPC. Finally, 55.1% of participants who had a cohabitant used HPC, which was a significantly higher proportion than that of participants who did not have a cohabitant (1.7%). CONCLUSION: This study provides meaningful clinical evidence to help make decisions on HPC use more easily at an appropriate time.