Respiratory physician Lutz Beckert considers chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management, including the prevention of COPD, the importance of smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation, and the lifesaving potential of addressing treatable traits. He also discusses the logic of inhaler therapy, moving from single therapy to dual and triple therapy when indicated, as well as other aspects of management
Limited evidence for effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care
Vault Navigation
Limited evidence for effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care
Compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care, how effective is home-based end-of-life care?
Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (high-quality evidence). It was unclear whether home-based end-of-life care increased or decreased the probability of being admitted to hospital. Home-based end-of-life care might slightly improve patient satisfaction at 1-month follow-up and reduce it at 6-month follow-up (low-quality evidence). The effect on caregivers was uncertain (low-quality evidence). The intervention might slightly reduce healthcare costs (low-quality evidence). No trial reported costs to patients and caregivers.
Trials were non-blinded, and participants crossed over between intervention and control groups. There are ethical concerns with randomising people at the end of their life rather than letting them exercise their choice of where they want to be cared for. In addition, measuring symptoms and quality of life is difficult, and may be done by a proxy (eg, a nurse, doctor or caregiver).
The policy in a number of countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home. This policy is supported by surveys indicating the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home.
Shepperd S et al. Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care. Cochrane Reviews, 2016, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD009231.DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD009231.pub2. This review contains 4 studies involving 823 participants.
Cochrane Systematic Reviews for primary care practitioners
Developed by the Cochrane Primary Care Field, New Zealand Branch of the Australasian Cochrane Centre at the Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland and funded by the Ministry of Health and New Zealand Doctor. PEARLS are meant for educational use and not to guide clinical care. New Zealanders can access the Cochrane Library free via www.cochrane.org.nz