| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Therapeutics |
Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care
Geriatrics
Key Words: hospice care • nursing homes • referral and consultation
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
METHODS
Design:
randomised controlled trial.
Allocation:
{not concealed*}
.
Blinding:
{unblinded*}.
Follow up period:
6 months or death.
Setting:
3 nursing homes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. All 3 homes had existing hospice programmes or relationships with community hospice programmes.
Patients:
205 nursing home residents (mean age 84 y, 75% women) and their surrogate decision makers. Exclusion criteria were admission for respite, already receiving hospice care, or inability to complete the interview because of cognitive impairment and no available surrogate.
Intervention:
all residents and/or surrogates were read scripted interview questions to assess the resident’s appropriateness for hospice care. Residents were deemed appropriate for hospice care if either the resident or surrogate (1) expressed goals for care that focused on comfort, (2) refused both cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, and (3) identified 
1 need for palliative care. 107 residents were allocated to the intervention, in which the results of the
Tara F Bishop, MD
Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York, USA
Relevant Article
Evid. Based Med. 2006 11: 63a.
(in Glossary)
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
