Patient preferences for PPOC and PPOD vary according to their diagnoses; tailoring palliative needs to patients' preferences is important regardless of their diagnosis.

ObjectivesAdvance care planning (ACP) can be a way to meet patients’ end-of-life preferences and enhance awareness of end-of-life care. Thereby it may affect actual place of death (APOD) and decrease the rate of hospitalisations. The aim was to investigate if ACP among terminally ill patients with lung, heart and cancer diseases effects fulfilment of preferred place of death (PPOD), amount of time spent in hospital and APOD.MethodsThe study was designed as a randomised controlled trial. Patients were assessed using general and disease-specific criteria and randomised into groups: one received usual care and one received usual care plus ACP. The intervention consisted of a discussion between a healthcare professional, the patient and their relatives about preferences for end-of-life care. The discussion was documented in the hospital file.ResultsIn total, 205 patients were randomised, of which 111 died during follow-up. No significant differences in fulfilment of PPOD (35% vs 52%, p=0.221) or in amount of time spent in hospital among deceased patients (49% vs 23%, p=0.074) were found between groups. A significant difference in APOD was found favouring home death in the intervention group (17% vs 40%, p=0.013).ConclusionConcerning the primary outcome, fulfilment of PPOD, and the secondary outcome, time spent in hospital, no differences were found. A significant difference concerning APOD was found, as more patients in the intervention group died at home, compared with the usual care group.Trial registration numberNCT01944813.

The study reveals great diversity in patient and relative experiences of ACP. The study challenges previous research which mainly emphasises ACP as a valuable tool to optimise EOL care. This study stresses the importance of awareness of the highly individual nature of preferences and needs of patients and relatives regarding information, involvement and communication about EOL care.

Background: Socio-economic factors play important roles in place of death. However, up-to-date knowledge on socio-economic determinants for place of death is warranted including analysis of collinearity between socio-economic determinants. Aim: To examine associations between socio-economic determinants (social class, deprivation level in area of residence, income, education, occupation, urbanisation) and place of death among adult patients with life-limiting illnesses. Furthermore, to describe how these factors are operationalised and examined for collinearity. Design: A systematic review was performed (PROSPERO, record: CRD42018091218) and quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Data sources: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO was conducted for studies published from 1 January 2008 until the date of the search (23 March 2018) in English or Scandinavian languages. Results: Of the 1599 unique citations identified, 34 studies were eligible. Dying at home was to a high degree associated with better financial situation and living in rural areas. Furthermore, hospital death was associated with a high level of deprivation in the area of residence and being employed. Regarding educational level, we found mixed and inconclusive results. Conclusion: Inequalities concerning place of death were found, and attention towards socio-economic inequality concerning place of death is necessary, especially in patients with a poor financial status, patients living in deprived and metropolitan areas and patients who are employed. Furthermore, we found a low degree of assessment for collinearity and adjustment of socio-economic variables. These issues should be considered in planning of future studies of socio-economic determinants for place of death.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) has been suggested to improve the quality of life (QoL) and mental wellbeing in severely ill patients and their relatives. Aim: To investigate the effects of ACP among patients with lung, heart and cancer diseases with an estimated life-span of up to 12 months. Methods: Patients and relatives were randomised into two groups: one receiving usual care and one receiving ACP and usual care. Themes from the ACP discussion were documented in patients' electronic medical file. Participants completed self-reported questionnaires four to five weeks after randomisation. Findings: In total, 141 patients and 127 relatives participated. No significant differences were found according to outcomes. However, patients with non-malignant diseases had the highest level of anxiety and depression; these patients seemed to benefit the most from ACP, though not showing statistically significant results. Conclusion: No significant effects of ACP among patients with lung, heart, and cancer diseases and their relatives regarding HRQoL, anxiety, depression, and satisfaction with healthcare were found.