Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:01:38.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“I want to go home”: How location at death influences caregiver well-being in bereavement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2020

Deborah P. Waldrop Open the ORCID record for Deborah P. Waldrop [Opens in a new window]  and
Jacqueline M. McGinley
Deborah P. Waldrop*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo School of Social Work, 685 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY
Jacqueline M. McGinley
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, Binghamton University, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, NY
*
Author for correspondence: Deborah P. Waldrop, University at Buffalo School of Social Work, 685 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY14260, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

Goal concordant or congruent care involves having expressed wishes upheld. Yet, the preferred location for end-of-life care may be unaddressed. Caregiver–patient congruence between preferred and actual locations of care may influence the quality of life in bereavement. The study aimed to explore how the congruence between caregiver–patient preferred and actual locations of death influenced well-being in bereavement.

Methods

Mixed methods were employed. In-depth in-person interviews were conducted with 108 bereaved caregivers of a hospice patient about 4 months after the death. An interview guide was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data: demographics, decision-making, Core Bereavement Items (CBI), Health Related Quality of Life, and perspectives on the end-of-life experiences. Data were analyzed with a convergent mixed methods one-phase process.

Results

Patient preference–actual location congruence occurred for 53%; caregiver preference–actual location congruence occurred for 74%; caregiver–patient preference and location of death occurred for 48%. Participants who reported some type of incongruence demonstrated higher levels of distress, including more days of being physically and emotionally unwell and more intense bereavement symptoms. The Acute Separation subscale and CBI total scores demonstrated significant differences for participants who experienced incongruence compared with those who did not. Preference location congruence themes emerged: (1) caregiver–patient location congruence, (2) caregiver–patient location incongruence, and (3) location informed bereavement.

Conclusions

Congruence between a dying person's preferred and actual locations at death has been considered good care. There has been little focus on the reciprocity between caregiver–patient wishes. Discussing preferences about the place of end-stage care may not make location congruence possible, but it can foster shared understanding and support for caregivers’ sense of coherence and well-being in bereavement.

Keywords

Advance care planningDecision-makingGoal-concordant careSense of coherence
Type
Original Article
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 691 - 698
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreassen, P, Asbjorn Neergaard, M, Borgaard, T, et al. (2015) Talking about sensitive topics during the advance care planning discussion: A peek into the black box. Palliative and Supportive Care 13, 1669–1676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonovsky, A (eds) (1979) Health, Stress and Coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Aoun, S, Bird, S, Kristjanson, LJ, et al. (2010) Reliability testing of the FAMCARE-2 scale: Measuring family carer satisfaction with palliative care. Palliative Medicine 24(7), 674–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billingham, MJ and Billingham, SJ (2013) Congruence between preferred and actual place of death according to the presence of malignant or non-malignant disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 3, 144–154.10.1136/bmjspcare-2012-000292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burge, F, Lawson, B, Johnston, G, et al. (2015) Preferred and actual location of death: What factors enable a preferred home death? Journal of Palliative Medicine 18(12), 1054–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnett, PC, Middleton, W, Rapheal, B, et al. (1997) Measuring core bereavement phenomena. Psychological Medicine 27, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control/National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System (2010) Health, United States 2010: Chartbook. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
Chochinov, HM, Kristjanson, LJ, Hack, TF, et al. (2007) Burden to others and the terminally ill. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 34(5), 463–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chochinov, HM, Hassard, T, McClement, S, et al. (2009) The landscape of distress in the terminally ill. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 38(5), 641–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa Oliveira, C (2014) Suffering and salutogenesis. Health Promotion International 30(2), 222–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, JW and Creswell, J (2018) Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, JW and Plano Clarke, VL (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dahlin, C (2013) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 3rd ed. Pittsburgh, PA: National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care.Google Scholar
de Boer, D, Hofstede, JM, de Veer, AJE, et al. (2017) Relatives’ perceived quality of palliative care: Comparisons between care settings in which patients die. BMC Palliative Care 16, 41. doi:10.1186/s12904-017-0224-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, M and Lindstrom, B (2007) Antonovsky's sense of coherence scale and its relation with quality of life: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 61(11), 938–944. Available at: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med5&AN=17933950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, S, Min, S-J, Cervantes, L, et al. (2013) Where do you want to spend your last days of life? Low concordance between preferred and actual site of death among hospitalized adults. Journal of Hospital Medicine 8(4), 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrido, MM and Prigerson, HG (2014) The end-of-life experience: Modifiable predictors of caregivers' bereavement adjustment. Cancer 120(6), 918–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
George, LK (2002) Research design in end-of-life research: State of science. Gerontologist 42(Spec No 3), 86–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Germain, A, Mayland, CR and Jack, BA (2016) The potential therapeutic value for bereaved relatives participating in research: An exploratory study. Palliative and Supportive Care 14, 479–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, JC, Caracelli, VJ and Graham, WF (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruneir, A, Mor, V, Weitzen, S, et al. (2007) Where people die: A multilevel approach to understanding influences on site of death in America. Medical Care Research and Review 64(4), 351–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinoshita, H, Maeda, I, Morita, T, et al. (2015) Place of death and the differences in patient quality of death and dying and caregiver burden. Journal of Clincal Oncology 33(4), 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdsworth, L and Fisher, S (2010) A retrospective analysis of preferred and actual place of death for hospice patients. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 16(9), 424. 426, 428 passim.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute of Medicine (2014) Dying in America-Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preferences Near the End of Life. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Legare, F (2013) Shared decision making: Moving from theorization to applied research and hopefully to clinical practice. Patient Education and Counseling 91, 129–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, MB, Huberman, AM and Saldana, J (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mittelmark, MB and Bauer, GF (eds) (2017) The Meaning of Salutogenesis. Cham (CH): SpringerCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muders, P, Zahrt-Omar, CA, Bussmann, S, et al. (2015) Support for families of patients dying with dementia: A qualitative analysis of bereaved family members' experiences and suggestions. Palliative and Supportive Care 13, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgett, DK (2017) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Puchalski, C, Ferrell, B, Virani, R, et al. (2009) Improving the quality of spiritual care as a dimension of palliative care: The report of the consensus conference. Journal of Palliative Medicine 12(10), 885–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, JJ, Curtis, JR and Tulsky, JA (2018) Achieving goal-concordant care: A conceptual model and approach to measuring serious illness communication and its impact. Journal of Palliative Medicine 21(S2), S17–S27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, R, Hebert, R and Boerner, K (2008) Bereavement after caregiving. Geriatrics 63(1), 20–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Shin, DW, Cho, J, Kim, SY, et al. (2015) Discordance among patient preferences, caregiver preferences, and caregiver predictions of patient preferences regarding disclosure of terminal status and end-of-life choices. Psycho-Oncology 24, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suominen, S and Lindstrom, B (2008) Salutogenesis. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 36, 337–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, ST, Chen, CC, Tang, WR, et al. (2010) Determinants of patient-family caregiver congruence on preferred place of death in Taiwan. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 40(2), 235–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teddlie, C and Tashakkori, A (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Thomas, K, Hudson, P, Trauer, T, et al. (2014) Risk factors for developing prolonged grief during bereavement in family carers of cancer patients in palliative care: A longitudinal study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 47(3), 531–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt-Sherman, D (1998) Reciprocal suffering: The need to improve caregivers' quality of life through palliative care. Journal of Palliative Medicine 1(4), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar