Table 1.
Comparison of characteristics of RRS users and non-users
| Intervention group N = 688 (%) | Non-user (N = 441) | User (N = 247) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at death | (Mean, SD) | 75.10 (12.21) | 75.10 (10.22) | T test 0.985 |
| Days in study | (Mean, SD) | 69.1 (76.50) | 73.1 (81.23) | T test 0.521 |
| Area | 1 Canterbury | 229 (51.9) | 131 (53.0) | |
| 2 Thanet | 158 (35.8) | 92 (37.2) | ||
| 3 Ashford | 54 (12.2) | 24 (9.7) | ||
| Sex | Male | 245 (55.6) | 143 (57.9) | χ2 0.553 |
| Female | 196 (44.4) | 104 (42.1) | ||
| Initial PPDa | Home | 227 (51.5) | 190 (76.9) | χ2 < 0.0005 |
| Care Home | 47 (10.7) | 2 (0.8) | ||
| Hospice | 158 (35.8) | 52 (21.1) | ||
| Hospital | 4 (0.9) | 0 (0) | ||
| Other | 5 (1.1) | 3 (1.2) | ||
| Final PPD | Home | 221 (50.1) | 184 (74.5) | χ2 < 0.0005 |
| Care Home | 47 (10.7) | 3 (1.2) | ||
| Hospice | 164 (37.2) | 58 (23.5) | ||
| Hospital | 4 (0.9) | 0 (0) | ||
| Other | 5 (1.1) | 2 (0.8) | ||
| APDa | Home | 114 (26.3) | 156 (63.2) | χ2 < 0.0005 |
| N = 434 non-users | Care Home | 65 (15.0) | 11 (4.5) | |
| Hospice | 200 (46.1) | 61 (24.7) | ||
| Hospital | 55 (12.7) | 19 (7.7) | ||
| Residential situation | At Home not alone | 218 (58.8) | 164 (76.3) | χ2 < 0.0005 |
| N = 371 non-users | At home alone | 103 (27.8) | 48 (22.3) | |
| N = 215 users | Residential care | 50 (13.5) | 3 (1.4) | |
| Achieving PPD (using initial PPD) | Yes | 257 (59.2) | 171 (69.2) | χ2 0.009 |
| N = 434 non-users | No | 177 (40.8) | 76 (30.8) | |
APD Actual Place of Death
PPD Preferred Place of Death
aEach care home resident whose PPD (n = 47) and/or APD (n = 31) was recorded as ‘home’ in the hospice database was individually investigated to assess whether this referred to the ‘care home’ or to their own independent accommodation so that it could be appropriately coded. Following enquiries all APD, and, except for four PPD, were found to be ‘care home’