The place where people are cared towards the end of their life and die is a complex phenomenon, requiring a deeper understanding. Honoring preferences is critical for the delivery of high-quality care. In this umbrella review we examine and synthesize the evidence regarding preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, we conducted a comprehensive search for systematic reviews in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO without language restrictions. The search identified 15 reviews (10 high-quality, three with meta-analysis), covering 229 nonoverlapping primary studies. Home is the most preferred place of end-of-life care for both patients (11%-89%) and family members (23%-84%). It is also the most preferred place of death (patient estimates from two meta-analyses: 51%-55%). Hospitals and hospice/palliative care facilities are preferred by substantial minorities. Reasons and factors affecting preferences include illness-related, individual, and environmental. Differences between preferred places of care and death are underexplored and the evidence remains inconclusive about changes over time. Congruence between preferred and actual place of death ranges 21%-100%, is higher in studies since 2004 and a meta-analysis shows noncancer patients are at higher risk of incongruence than cancer patients (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01-1.49, I2 = 62%). These findings are a crucial starting point to address gaps and enhance strategies to align care with patient and family preferences. To accurately identify patient and family preferences is an important opportunity to change their lives positively.

Most people would prefer to die at home as opposed to hospital; therefore, understanding mortality patterns by place of death is essential for health resources allocation. We examined trends and risk factors for hospital death in conditions needing palliative care in a country without integrated palliative care. This is a death certificate study. We examined factors associated with hospital death using logistic regression. All adults (1,045,381) who died between 2003 and 2012 in Portugal were included. We identified conditions needing palliative care from main causes of death: cancer, heart/cerebrovascular, renal, liver, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases, dementia/Alzheimer’s/senility and HIV/AIDS. Conditions needing palliative care were responsible for 70.7% deaths (N = 738,566, median age 80); heart and cerebrovascular diseases (43.9%) and cancer (32.2%) accounted for most. There was a trend towards hospital death (standardised percentage: 56.3% in 2003, 66.7% in 2012; adjusted odds ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.04–1.04). Hospital death risk was higher for those aged 18–39 years (3.46, 3.25–3.69 vs aged 90+), decreasing linearly with age; lower in dementia/Alzheimer’s/senility versus cancer (0.13, 0.13–0.13); and higher for the married and in HIV/AIDS (3.31, 3.00–3.66). Effects of gender, working status, weekday and month of death, hospital beds availability, urbanisation level and deprivation were small. The upward hospital death trend and fact that being married are risk factors for hospital death suggest that a reliance on hospitals may coexist with a tradition of extended family support. The sustainability of this model needs to be assessed within the global transition pattern in where people die.

Introduction: Since December 2019, more than 925,000 cases of COVID-19 have been reported worldwide, 8,251 cases in Portugal by the end of March. Previous studies related to the SARS pandemic showed a decrease up to 80% in the emergency care episodes. Hence, the objective of this study is to analyze the use of emergency services during the first pandemic month, compared to historical records. Methods: Data from emergency episodes in mainland Portugal, from January 2014 to March 2020, were downloaded from the National Health Service (NHS) Transparency Portal and the NHS monitoring website. The evolution of emergency services from March to September 2020 was forecasted based on historical data from January 2014 to February 2020. Information for March 2020 was forecasted globally, by the Regional Health Administration (RHA) and Manchester Triage System (MTS). Results: Compared with forecasted values, there was a 48% reduction in the number of emergency episodes in March 2020. In the analysis by the RHA, Alentejo had the smallest decrease in the number of episodes; interestingly, Alentejo is also the area with fewer COVID-19 cases in mainland Portugal. In the analysis by the MTS, the episodes classified as yellow showed the highest reduction (50%). For episodes classified as urgent, there is a difference of about 144,000 episodes during March 2020. Discussion: The results of this preliminary study are aligned with the evidence produced for previous pandemics. Data about the use of emergency services, demographic and clinical characteristics of the episodes would be relevant to analyze this reduction. Conclusion: There was a significant drop in the number of emergency service use in March 2020, and although the causes of this reduction are not determined, the association between the beginning of the pandemic and the reduction of demand is evident. Understanding this phenomenon is crucial to plan interventions to avoid unnecessary morbidities or deaths, caused by a delayed visit to the emergency department.

Introduction There is growing concern about the aggressiveness of cancer care at the end of life (ACCEoL), defined as overly aggressive treatments that compromise the quality of life at its end. Recognising the most affected patients is a cornerstone to improve oncology care. Our aim is to identify factors associated with ACCEoL for patients with cancer dying in hospitals. Methods All adult patients with cancer who died in public hospitals in mainland Portugal (January 2010 to December 2015), identified from the hospital morbidity database. This database provided individual clinical and demographic data. We obtained hospital and region-level variables from a survey and National Statistics. The primary outcome is a composite ACCEoL measure of 16 indicators. We used multilevel random effects logistic regression modelling (p14 days in the hospital (43%, 42–43) and surgery (28%, 28–28) in the last 30 days. Older age (p<0·001), breast cancer (OR 0·83; 95% CI 0·76 to 0·91), and metastatic disease (0·54; 95% CI 0·50 to 0·58) were negatively associated with ACCEoL. In contrast, higher Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (p<0·001), gastrointestinal and haematological malignancies (p<0·001), and death at cancer centre (1·31; 95% CI 1·01 to 1·72) or hospital with medical oncology department (1·29; 95% CI 1·02 to 1·63) were positively associated with ACCEoL. There was no association between hospital palliative care services at the hospital of death and ACCEoL. Conclusion Clinical factors related to a better understanding of disease course are associated with ACCEoL reduction. Patients with more comorbidities and gastrointestinal malignancies might represent groups with complex needs, and haematological patients may be at increased risk because of unpredictable prognosis. Improvement of hospital palliative care services could help reduce ACCEoL, particularly in cancer centres and hospitals with medical oncology department, as those services are usually under-resourced, thus reaching few.

Vertical integration is expected to improve communication and coordination between inpatient care and care after discharge. Despite being used across health systems worldwide, evidence about its impact on readmissions is sparse and contradictory. To assess the impact of vertical integration on hospital readmissions. Using difference-in-differences we compared readmissions before and after vertical integration in 6 Portuguese hospitals for years 2004–2013. A control group with 6 similar hospitals not integrated was utilized. Considered outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We used logistic regression at the admission level and accounted for patients’ risk factors using claims data. Analyses for each hospital and selected conditions were also run. Our results suggest that readmissions decreased overall after vertical integration [odds ratio (OR)=0.900; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.812–0.997]. Hospital analysis indicated that there was no impact for 2 hospitals (OR=0.960; 95% CI, 0.848–1.087 and OR=0.944; 95% CI, 0.857–1.038), and a positive effect in 4 hospitals (greatest effect: OR=0.811; 95% CI, 0.736–0.894). A positive evolution was observed for a limited number of conditions, with better results for diabetes with complications (OR=0.689; 95% CI, 0.525–0.904), but no impact regarding congestive heart failure (OR=1.067; 95% CI, 0.827–1.377). Merging acute and primary care providers was associated with reduced readmissions, even though improvements were not found for all institutions or condition-specific groups. There are still challenges to be addressed regarding the success of vertical integration in reducing 30-day hospital readmissions.