IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v32y1991i2p147-152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of hospice and conventional care

Author

Listed:
  • Seale, Clive

Abstract

Interviews with relatives and others who knew a group of people dying of cancer in England are reported. The bulk of the paper compares 45 such patients who received hospice care with 126 who received conventional care. The sampling procedure showed that 2.9% of people aged 15 or over at death died in a hospice, and 6.9% received some form of hospice service. The hospice patients differed in several ways from other cancer patients. They had fewer conditions other than cancer recorded on the death certificate, were believed to be more religious and were more likely to suffer from a variety of symptoms and restrictions, including pain. Hospice patients were reported more likely to know that they were dying and respondents' levels of satisfaction with hospice home nursing and in-patient hospice care were significantly higher than for other forms of care. Hospice home nurses were found to have adopted a more advisory approach to nursing care than other home nurses who focused more on practical care. When final admissions were considered, in-patient hospice care involved fewer medical interventions and, in the last year of life, those receiving hospice services were less likely to have an operation. There were few differences between the two groups in what happened at the time of death, although for in-patient deaths, respondents judged the staff of hospices to be more understanding. The relatives of hospice patients were more likely to be visited by a nurse at home after the death. Few differences in bereavement reaction were found, but those that there were suggested that respondents for the hospice group were adjusting better. The study covered 14 different hospice in-patient units.

Suggested Citation

  • Seale, Clive, 1991. "A comparison of hospice and conventional care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 147-152, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:2:p:147-152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(91)90054-G
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:2:p:147-152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.