Abstract
Context
Antibiotic prescribing in hospice patients is complicated by the focus on palliative rather than curative care and concerns regarding increasing antibiotic resistance.
Objectives
To estimate antibiotic use in a national sample of hospice patients and identify facility and patient characteristics associated with antibiotic use in this population.
Methods
This was an analysis of data from the 2007 National Home and Hospice Care Survey, a nationally representative sample of U.S. hospice agencies. We included data from 3884 patients who died in hospice care. The primary outcome measure was prevalence of antibiotic use in the last seven days of life. Diagnoses, including potential infectious indications for antibiotic use, were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. Chi-square tests and t-tests were used to quantify associations of patient and facility characteristics with antibiotic use.
Results
During the last seven days of life, 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24%, 30%) of patients received at least one antibiotic and 1.3% (95% CI 0.7%, 2.0%) received three or more antibiotics. Among patients who received at least one antibiotic, 15% (95% CI 10%, 20%) had a documented infectious diagnosis, compared with 9% (95% CI 7%, 11%) who had an infectious diagnosis but received no antibiotics.
Conclusion
In this nationally representative sample, 27% of hospice patients received an antibiotic during the last seven days of life, most without a documented infectious diagnosis. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of antibiotics in this patient population to maintain palliative care goals while reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.
Keywords: Hospice, antibiotics, NHHCS, infection
Introduction
Hospice is intended to provide palliative care for patients with a terminal diagnosis and offer support to them and their families. In the U.S., the number of patients utilizing hospice care has increased sharply. In 2009, an estimated 1.56 million patients received hospice care in the U.S., a 30% increase from 2005, and 41% of all U.S. deaths occurred in a hospice setting (1). Furthermore, the aging of the U.S. population will no doubt continue to increase utilization of hospice services, especially among those aged 85 and older, who constitute the fastest growing group of hospice patients (2).
Hospice patients are especially vulnerable to infection because of suppressed immune function following chemotherapeutic regimens in those with advanced cancer or as the result of multiple comorbid conditions, functional debility, and complex diseases that also compromise host resistance (1, 3). Despite this increased risk, health care providers have little guidance regarding antibiotic use when caring for hospice patients (4). Hospice care represents a change in focus from curative care to symptom management, thereby complicating the decision to use antibiotics (5).
Although Medicare Hospice Benefit guidelines explicitly define hospice care as “palliative rather than curative,” in reality, many treatments do not clearly fit in one category of treatment goals (6). Antibiotics are a case in point, because current evidence is divided regarding whether they improve symptoms (7, 8). Furthermore, excess antibiotic use may unnecessarily increase patient and societal burdens in terms of side effects, use of invasive devices such as intravenous lines, and increasing health care costs, as well as potentially increase selective pressure and the development and spread of antimicrobial-resistant organisms (4).
The frequency and determinants of antibiotic use in hospice patients have not been well described. A better understanding of prescribing patterns is essential for structuring guidelines for antibiotic use in this growing health care population. In this study, we used data from the 2007 National Home and Hospice Care Survey (NHHCS) to estimate antibiotic utilization in hospice care patients and identify potential infectious indications, and facility and patient characteristics associated with antibiotic use in this population.
Methods
The 2007 NHHCS was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Center for Health Statistics, and is a nationally representative sample of U.S. home health and hospice agencies that was designed to provide descriptive information on the agencies along with their staff, services, and patients. The survey design has been previously described in detail (9). Briefly, the survey used a stratified two-stage probability sample design. In the first stage, 1545 agencies were systematically and randomly sampled with probability proportional to agency size. The second stage comprised randomly selecting up to 10 current home health patients per home health agency, up to 10 hospice discharges per hospice agency, and a combination of up to 10 current home health patients and hospice discharges per mixed agency. Hospice discharges were defined as patients who were discharged from the hospice agency during the three-month period beginning four months before the agency interview (9). For this study, we only included patients who were deceased at discharge.
Patient data were collected through in-person interviews with the hospice agency directors and designated staff, in consultation with patients’ medical records. Neither patients nor family members were interviewed. Patient data collected for the NHHCS included demographic variables, as well as the current primary and secondary diagnoses at discharge, medication use in the last seven days of care, and location of hospice care. Each patient received only one current primary diagnosis code, which referred to the patient’s primary diagnosis at discharge.
NHHCS medication data were collected using hospice care discharge medical records. The names of up to 25 medications that the patient received in the seven days prior to and on the day of death were recorded. The medications were not recorded in any specified order and some patients may have received more than 25 drugs. Medications were categorized by therapeutic class using the Multum Lexicon (10). We identified antibiotics using the Multum level 2 and level 3 categories, which grouped these into 13 classes based on chemical structure. A 14th class, called “miscellaneous antibiotics,” included aztreonam, bacitracin, atovaquone, linezolid, rifaximin, daptomycin, and vancomycin.
For descriptive purposes, we categorized the most prevalent primary diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. These categories included cancer (140.xx-239.xx), heart failure (428.xx), cardiovascular disease (CVD) (410.92, 413.9, 414.00, 414.9, 424.0, 424.1, 427.31, 427.9, 441.4, 441.9, 443.9, 447. ), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (490.xx – 496.xx), dementia (290.0, 290.42, 294.8, 294.9, 331.0, 331.11, 331.4, 331.82, 331.9), debility (799.3, 783.7), cerebrovascular disease (430.x, 431.x, 432.1, 432.9, 434.11, 434.90, 437.3, 437.9, 438.20, 438.31, 438.89, 438.9), renal disease (585.6, 585.9, 586.x), and liver disease (570.x, 571.2, 571.3, 571.5, 571.9, 572.2, 572.3, 572.4, 572,8, 573.9). The remaining primary diagnoses were grouped as “other” in our analyses.
Potential infectious indications were identified using ICD-9 codes assigned for the current primary diagnosis and up to 15 current secondary diagnoses. The NHHCS does not include infection-specific variables beyond urinary tract infections, respiratory tract infections, and wound infections as “reasons for obtaining emergent care.” The diagnosis codes used to identify potential infectious indications are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Potential Infectious Indications Among Patients Receiving Antibiotics from Primary and Secondary Current Diagnosis Codes, N=1028
| Infection | ICD-9 Codesa | n (%) b |
|---|---|---|
| Urinary tract infections | *590.x infections of kidney, *595.x cystitis, *599.0 urinary tract infection, *996.62 due to vascular device, implant and graft, 996.64 infection and inflammatory reaction due to indwelling urinary catheter |
32 (4) |
| Respiratory tract infections | 382.x suppurative and unspecified otitis media, 460 acute nasopharyngitis, 461.x acute sinusitis, 465.x acute upper respiratory infections of multiple or unspecified sites, 466.x acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis, *472.0 chronic rhinitis, *473.9, unspecified chronic sinusitis, *490.x bronchitis, not specified as acute or chronic |
0 |
| Rheumatic fever, bloodstream infection, endocarditis |
390.x – 392.x acute rheumatic fever, 421.x acute and sub-acute endocarditis, *424.9 endocarditis valve unspecified, 790.7 bacteremia of blood |
4 (1) |
| Mouth/pharynx infections | 034 streptococcal sore throat and scarlet fever, 462 acute pharyngitis, 463 acute tonsillitis |
0 |
| Skin and soft tissue infections | 035 erysipelas, 680.x carbuncle and furuncle, *681.x cellulitis and abscess of finger and toe, *682.x other cellulitis and abscess, 684 impetigo, *686.x other local infections of skin and subcutaneous tissue * |
9 (<1) |
| Pressure ulcers | 707.0x pressure ulcer, *707.1x ulcer of lower limbs, except pressure ulcer, *707.9 chronic ulcer unspecified |
20 (2) |
| Pneumonia | *480.x -483.x pneumonia, 484.x pneumonia in infectious diseases classified elsewhere, *486.x organism unspecified, 487.x influenza |
|
| HIV | *042 human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] disease | 9 (1) |
| Thrush | *112.x candidiasis | 1 (<1) |
| Gastrointestinal tract infections | 001.x cholera, 002.x typhoid and paratyphoid fevers, 003.x other salmonella infections, 004.x shigellosis, 005.x other food poisoning (bacterial), 006.x amebiasis, 007.x other protozoal intestinal diseases, *008.x intestinal infections due to other organisms (includes Clostridium difficile), 009.x ill-defined intestinal infections, *567.x peritonitis and retroperitoneal infections |
5 (<1) |
| Tuberculosis/other mycobacteria | *010.x – 018.x tuberculosis, 031.x diseases due to other mycobacteria | 2 (<1) |
| Septicemia | *038.x septicemia | 7 (<1) |
| Other bacterial diseases | 030.x leprosy, 032.x diphtheria, 033.x whooping cough, 036.x meningococcal infection, 037 tetanus, 039.x actinomycotic infections, 040 other bacterial diseases |
0 |
| Infections in other conditions | *041.xx bacterial infection in conditions classified elsewhere and of unspecified site | 8 (<1) |
| Any infectious indication | 129 (15) c |
ICD-9 codes marked with an * represent infections present at least once in this dataset.
Weighted percentages.
Column does not add up to 129 because of multiple diagnoses per patient.
The location of hospice care corresponded to the site where the patient received hospice care on the day of discharge or death. Hospice care locations were categorized as one of the following: agency-run inpatient or residential facility, a private home, a residential care facility (assisted living), a nursing home or skilled nursing facility, or a hospital. Profit status of the hospice agency was derived from agency-level data and coded as either for-profit or other, which included non-profit and government run hospices.
Data analysis was performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and all percentage and confidence interval estimates were weighted to account for the survey’s complex sampling design. The frequencies reported are unweighted to provide a clear description of the underlying data distribution. Descriptive statistics were calculated for patients’ demographics, patients’ clinical characteristics relating to hospice care, and hospice characteristics. The overall frequency of antibiotic use was calculated. The patient’s primary diagnosis, presence of any infectious diagnosis, demographics, and facility characteristics were evaluated as potential factors associated with antibiotic use. The frequency of antibiotic use was compared between patient groups using Chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. All comparisons accounted for the sample weighting using subgroup analysis. This was accomplished in SAS using indicator variables in the SURVEYFREQ procedure for Chi-square tests and indicator variables in the SURVEYREG procedure for t-tests. All tests were assessed for statistical significance at the P<0.05 level.
The institutional review boards (IRBs) at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and Oregon State University, Portland, determined that this study was exempt from IRB oversight because of the use of publically available, fully de-identified data.
Results
The 2007 NHHCS contains data on 4733 hospice discharges, 3884 (84%) of whom were deceased at the time of discharge. Characteristics of the sample are given in Table 2. The mean±SD age of patients at discharge was 78±0.4 years and 55% were female. The mean±SD number of days of hospice care was 52±3 days. The majority of the patients were non-Hispanic white (88%) and either married (42%) or widowed (38%).
Table 2.
Characteristics of Hospice Discharges by Antibiotic Utilization in the Last Seven Days of Life, N=3884a
| Characteristic | All Hospice Discharges N=3,884 |
Antibiotics N=1,028 |
No Antibiotics N=2,856 |
P-valueb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| mean (standard deviation) | 77.9 (0.4) | 76.3 (0.7) | 78.4 (0.5) | 0.001 |
| < 65 years, n (%) | 668 (17) | 210 (20) | 458 (16) | 0.09 |
| ≥ 65 years, n (%) | 3216 (83) | 818 (80) | 2398 (84) | |
| Sex, n (%) | 0.2 | |||
| Female | 2103 (55) | 522 (52) | 1581 (56) | |
| Male | 1781 (45) | 506 (48) | 1275 (44) | |
| Days Received Hospice Care, mean (standard deviation) |
51.6 (3.1) | 60.2 (6.9) | 48.4 (3.6) | 0.001 |
| Race and Ethnicity | 0.2 | |||
| Hispanic | 119 (4) | 37 (5) | 82 (3) | |
| White | 3435 (88) | 906 (86) | 2529 (89) | |
| Black | 195 (6) | 53 (7) | 142 (6) | |
| Other | 58 (2) | 13 (1) | 45 (2) | |
| Marital Status | 0.2 | |||
| Married | 1728 (42) | 478 (31) | 1250 (70) | |
| Widowed | 1475 (38) | 384 (27) | 1091 (73) | |
| Divorced | 270 (6) | 73 (27) | 197 (73) | |
| Other | 411 (13) | 93 (25) | 318 (75) | |
| Primary Current Diagnosis | 0.008 | |||
| Cancer | 1847 (45) | 509 (45) | 1338 (45) | |
| Heart failure and cardiovascular | 377 (9) | 80 (8) | 297 (9) | |
| disease | 214 (5) | 96 (8) | 118 (4) | |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary | 336 (11) | 83 (10) | 253 (11) | |
| disease| | 369 (10) | 84 (9) | 285 (10) | |
| Dementia | 176 (5) | 30 (2) | 146 (5) | |
| Debility | 109 (2) | 27 (2) | 82 (2) | |
| Cerebrovascular Disease | 456 (13) | 119 (15) | 337 (13) | |
| Renal and Liver Disease | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Location of Hospice Care | 0.1 | |||
| Agency Inpatient/Residential | 377 (14) | 74 (13) | 303 (15) | |
| Private Home | 2011 (49) | 578 (53) | 1433(47) | |
| Residential Care Place | 187 (5) | 50 (4) | 137 (5) | |
| Nursing Home/Skilled Nursing | 913 (23) | 241 (24) | 672 (22) | |
| Hospital | 335 (8) | 73 (6) | 262 (9) | |
| Other | 45 (1) | 12 (1) | 33 (1) | |
| Profit Status | 0.6 | |||
| For-Profit | 778 (29) | 219 (30) | 559 (28) | |
| Other | 3106 (71) | 809 (70) | 2297 (72) | |
| Infectious Disease Diagnosis | 380 (11) | 129 (15) | 251 (9) | 0.01 |
Weighted frequencies.
P-values from Chi-square test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables.
Cancer, heart failure, CVD, COPD, dementia, debility, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease and liver disease accounted for 87% of all current primary diagnoses, with cancer representing the majority (45%). At discharge, the majority of patients were receiving care in a private home (49%), followed by a nursing home/skilled nursing facility (23%). Not-for-profit hospices, including both government-run and traditional non-profits, provided services for 71% of hospice patients.
Hospice patients received a mean of 10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9, 10) different medications in the last seven days of life. There were 63 (1.5%) patients with the maximum number of medications documented (i.e., 25 medications). Approximately 27% of patients received antibiotics in the last seven days of life. The mean number of antibiotics received by these patients was 1.3 (95% CI 1.3, 1.4) and the maximum number of antibiotics received was six. Furthermore, 1.3% of patients received three or more antibiotics. Among patients who received antibiotics, macrolide derivatives (49%), fluoroquinolones (26%) and miscellaneous antibiotics (19%) were most frequently received (Table 3). The class-specific frequencies of antibiotics received by patients differed by their primary current diagnosis (data not shown).
Table 3.
Distribution of Antibiotic Classes Among Deceased Patients Who Received Antibiotics in the Last Seven Days of Life, N=3884a
| Antibiotic Class | All N (%) |
|---|---|
| Aminoglycosides | 11 (0.6) |
| Carbapenems | 2 (0.4) |
| Cephalosporins | 104 (9) |
| Miscellaneousb | 171 (19) |
| Nitrofurans | 44 (3) |
| Penicillins | 73 (9) |
| Fluoroquinolones | 234 (26) |
| Sulfanomides | 101 (9) |
| Tetracyclines | 26 (2) |
| Macrolides | 520 (49) |
| Lincomycin Deriv. | 12 (0.5) |
| Antimalarials | 36 (3) |
| Antituberculosis | 3 (0.4) |
| Any Antibiotic | 1,028 (27) |
Weighted percents.
Category includes aztreonam, bacitracin, atovaquone, linezolid, rifaximin, daptomycin, and vancomycin.
Patients who received antibiotics differed from patients who did not receive antibiotics (Table 2). They were younger, with a mean±SD age of 76±0.7 years vs. 78±0.5 years (P=0.001). Patients who received antibiotics had a longer duration of care; the mean±SD length of hospice stay was 60±7) days compared with 48±4) days for those who did not receive antibiotics (P=0.001). Approximately 91% of patients who received antibiotics had advance directives compared with 92% of those who did not receive antibiotics (P=0.4). Few patients (2%) had documented preferences to limit medications such as antibiotics. These did not differ significantly between patients who received antibiotics and did not receive antibiotics (1.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.4).
Antibiotic use also varied significantly by current primary diagnosis. When the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics was examined within each diagnosis group, we observed that hospice discharges with a current primary diagnosis of COPD were more likely to receive antibiotics (34%) compared with discharges with cancer (23%), heart failure and CVD (16%), dementia (18%), debility (16%), cerebrovascular disease (6%), renal and liver diseases (11%) or other diseases (24%) (P=0.008).
Among patients receiving antibiotics, 129 (15%) had documentation (primary or secondary ICD-9 diagnosis codes) for potential infectious indications (Fig. 1). Pneumonia (7%), urinary tract infections (UTI) (4%), and skin and soft tissue infections including pressure ulcers (3%) accounted for the majority of these indications. Other documented infectious disease ICD-9 codes were for endocarditis, septicemia, tuberculosis, HIV, candidiasis, and intestinal infections. Patients with a documented UTI were not more likely to receive fluoroquinolones (P=0.7), the antibiotic class most frequently used to treat UTIs, although patients receiving any antibiotic were significantly more likely to have a documented urinary catheter than patients who did not receive antibiotics (43% vs. 35%; P<0 .001). Among patients receiving antibiotics, those with documentation of a potential infectious indication differed significantly by facility type and primary diagnosis. Patients in nursing homes were most likely to have a documented potential infectious indication (26%) whereas those receiving hospice at a residential care facility were least likely (8%) (P=0.01). Finally, among those receiving antibiotics, patients with cerebrovascular disease were most likely to have a potential infectious indication documented (32%) whereas patients with cancer were least likely (8%) (P=0.004).
Figure 1. Relationship between receiving antibiotics and having a documented infection among hospice discharges in the final week of care.
Among 1,028 patients who received an antibiotic in the final 7 days of hospice care, only 129 (15%) had documentation of a potentially infection indication for antibiotic use.
Discussion
There is ongoing debate regarding the appropriateness of antibiotic use in hospice patients. Concerns regarding antibiotic use in this patient population include potential lack of efficacy in reducing symptoms, increased patient burden, excess costs and risk of adverse effects, and increased antibiotic selective pressure and subsequent resistance. We examined the magnitude of antibiotic use in a nationally representative sample of hospice patients and observed that 27% of hospice patients received antibiotics in the last seven days of life. Although lower than previous estimates of antibiotic utilization in hospice patients, which ranged from 36%-84%, those studies focused on specific patient subgroups, e.g., cancer patients, and examined antibiotic utilization for the entire duration of hospice care (3, 11-13).
In addition to providing estimates of antibiotic use, we sought to better understand facility and patient characteristics associated with receiving antibiotics. We observed that only 15% of patients who received antibiotics had an infectious disease diagnosis code. Medicare and most commercial hospice benefits provide reimbursement at a predetermined per diem rate for all hospice care, and as such, hospice providers do not have an incentive to document an infectious indication for antibiotic reimbursement. However, previous research also has suggested that, aside from UTIs, treatment of known or suspected infections often does not improve symptoms among hospice patients (3, 7, 8, 14). Additional research with better documentation of therapeutic rationale and symptom outcomes would improve current understanding of why antibiotics are prescribed in the last week of hospice care and whether or not they are effective.
Patients with a longer length of hospice care were more likely to receive antibiotics. However, an underlying rationale for this association could not be explored in this cross-sectional study. Patients may have developed infections as a result of a longer length of hospice care or receiving antibiotics may have prolonged their lives. Previous research is divided on an explanation for this association. Some studies have observed a longer survival time in patients receiving antibiotics, whereas others have noted no significant difference in survival time (3, 7, 8). Taken together with the observation that patients who received antibiotics were younger on average, it also is possible that those not receiving antibiotics were more severely ill and, therefore, survived a shorter period of time.
We observed that most patients had advance directives, but few patients had specific directives regarding life-sustaining medications. A previous study of 255 patients with advanced cancer upon admission to a community-based outpatient hospice facility observed that 79% of patients stated a preference for either no antimicrobial use or use directed only at alleviating symptoms (7). However, a study of 870 patients in nursing facilities with POLST (Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment) antibiotic orders observed that the small proportion of patients with orders to limit antibiotics received them approximately as often as patients without orders to limit antibiotics (15). Currently, the role of advance care planning in directing antibiotic therapy is unclear and warrants further study.
This study had several limitations. The NHHCS was designed to provide descriptive data on home health and hospice agencies, providers and patients. As such, data on route of administration or whether medication use resulted in symptom improvement were not available. In addition, and as was described earlier, the NHHCS data created antibiotic categories based upon therapeutic class, but also combined several antibiotics including bacitracin and vancomycin into a miscellaneous category. As such, the frequency of these individual and potentially frequently used medications could not be estimated. Furthermore, documented infectious indications necessitating antibiotic use were identified using diagnosis codes; microbiology culture data were not available. Therefore, potentially appropriate empiric or prophylactic use of antibiotics may have seemed otherwise because of the lack of an infectious indication.
Despite these limitations, our study has several strengths. This is the first study to examine nationally representative data on antibiotic utilization in the last seven days of life for hospice patients. Previous studies examining antibiotic use in hospice or palliative care have been limited to small studies of a single hospice facility or have focused primarily on cancer or dementia patients (3, 12, 16, 17). As such, the generalizability of these studies may have been limited by geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences that could influence hospice care decisions including use of antibiotics.
The decision to use antibiotics in hospice care is difficult and complicated by provider, patient, and family beliefs. The probability of symptom improvement must be weighed against the burdens imposed on the patient, as well as against hospital and societal concerns regarding increasing antibiotic resistance. The increasing utilization of hospice care and lack of clear guidelines regarding antibiotic use may lead to a growing number of patients receiving potentially unnecessary treatment for infection or not receiving potentially palliative treatments; thus, further research is needed to guide antibiotic use in hospice care.
Disclosures and Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant R36HS021068-01 (J.S.A) and National Institutes of Health grants KL2RR024141 (J.C.M.), K07CA109511 (E.K.K.), and K01AI071015-05 (J.P.F.). The sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
J.S.A. and J.C.M. report no conflicts. E.K.K. has received travel support from the California Health Care Foundation and support for educational presentations from The Kinsman Foundation. D.T.B. has received a lecture honorarium from Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. J.P.F. has served as a consultant for Health Care Management Solutions, LLC and Easton Associates, LLC, and has received an unrestricted research grant from Merck & Co., Inc.
The authors would like to thank Miriam R. Elman, MPH, Faculty Research Analyst, Oregon State University/Oregon Health & Science University College of Pharmacy for her critical review of the manuscript and the statistical methods. No compensation was provided for Ms. Elman’s contribution.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization . NHPCO facts and figures: Hospice care in America. NHPCO; Alexandria, VA: Sep, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hospice Association of America . Hospice facts and statistics. Hospice Association of America; Washington, DC: Nov, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Vitetta L, Kenner D, Sali A. Bacterial infections in terminally ill hospice patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000;20(5):326–334. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(00)00189-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ford P, Fraser T, Davis M, Kodish E. Anti-infective therapy at the end of life: ethical decision-making in hospice-eligible patients. Bioethics. 2005;19(4):379–392. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00450.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hutcheson A. Hospice care in the United States. Prim Care. 2011;38(2):173–182. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2011.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . Medicare Benefit Policy Manual. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Baltimore, MD: 2011. Chapter 9: Coverage of hospice services under hospital insurance. [Google Scholar]
- 7.White P, Kuhlenschmidt H, Vancura B, Navari R. Antimicrobial use in patients with advanced cancer receiving hospice care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003;25(5):438–443. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(03)00040-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Reinbolt R, Shenk A, White P, Navari R. Symptomatic treatment of infections in patients with advanced cancer receiving hospice care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30(2):175–182. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.National Center for Health Statistics . National Home and Hospice Care Survey: survey methodology and documentation. Long-term Care Statistics Branch, Division of Health Care Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD: 2011. p. 11. (6/6) [Google Scholar]
- 10.National Center for Health Statistics . Technical notes for the 2007 NHHCS medication public-use file. Long-term Care Statistics Branch, Division of Health Care Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD: [(Revised 2/2/11)]. 2011. p. 25. (6/6) [Google Scholar]
- 11.Stiel S, Krumm N, Pestinger M, et al. Antibiotics in palliative medicine--results from a prospective epidemiological investigation from the HOPE survey. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(2):325–333. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1084-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pereira J, Watanabe S, Wolch G. A retrospective review of the frequency of infections and patterns of antibiotic utilization on a palliative care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1998;16(6):374–381. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(98)00093-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Oh DY, Kim JH, Kim DW, et al. Antibiotic use during the last days of life in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care. 2006;15(1):74–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2005.00603.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Nakagawa S, Toya Y, Okamoto Y, et al. Can anti-infective drugs improve the infection-related symptoms of patients with cancer during the terminal stages of their lives? J Palliat Med. 2010;13(5):535–540. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2009.0336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hickman S, Nelson C, Moss A, et al. The consistency between treatments provided to nursing facility residents and orders on the physician orders for life-sustaining treatment form. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:2091–2099. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03656.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Abdel-Karim I, Sammel R, Prange M. Causes of death at autopsy in an inpatient hospice program. J Palliat Med. 2007;10(4):894–898. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2006.0240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chen J, Lamberg J, Chen Y, et al. Occurrence and treatment of suspected pneumonia in long-term care residents dying with advanced dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(2):290–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00524.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]