Last week, I made the
politically incorrect suggestion that patients don’t always know what it is that they don’t know. Continuing my contrarian streak, I’m going to suggest this
week that home isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be, at least not for frail older people.
A recent study provides
valuable information about the homebound population in the US. Examining
cross-sectional data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (collected
in 2011), the authors were able to identify a nationally representative sample
of just over 7500 non-institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries who were 65 or
older. What they found is that 5.6% of the elderly, community-dwelling
population were completely or mostly homebound. Extrapolating to the entire
country, that comes to nearly 2 million people, where “completely homebound”
refers to someone who never went out in the last month and “mostly homebound”
refers to someone who went out rarely (once a week or less) in the last month. Another 5.3 million older people are
“semi-homebound,” which means they go out at least sometimes (twice a week) but
not by themselves (somewhat over one million people) or only with difficulty (the
other 4 million people).
Interestingly, the
study observes that the semi-homebound individuals are very similar to the
completely homebound individuals in terms of disease burden and functional
capacity. This suggests that social support is as important as medical
conditions in determining the course of a person’s life. Environmental and
psychological factors may also play a role. It is entirely reasonable to
conclude--as the authors do--that providing adaptations such as stair lifts or grab bars and
assistive devices (walkers and canes) could transform a person from being homebound
to being semi-homebound or even from being semi-homebound to non-homebound. Other
services such as home-based primary care could also make a difference.
The authors of the
new study are also right to conclude that the information they have uncovered could
“inform improvements in clinical and social services” for frail older
people. But it is equally reasonable to ask
whether at least some of those dependent, disabled individuals might not be
better off in a well-designed facility that offered social stimulation as well
as physical assistance and medical care. I made a similar argument years ago in
my paper, “Long-term care options for the frail elderly.” I made a similar
argument just a few years ago in the paper “No place like the hospital,” where
I suggested that the widely quoted claim that 80% of people want to die at
home but only one-third do reflects what people say they want when
they aren’t dying. When they actually get sick and are facing imminent death,
at least some of the people who were previously so sure they wanted to die at
home discover that they feel more secure and better cared for when they have
round-the-clock nursing care and some of the technological interventions of the
hospital. When hospitals were terrible at pain management and resolutely
focused on maximally invasive medical treatment, they weren’t good places to
die. As the availability of palliative care in the hospital has increased and
the quality of pain management has improved, hospitals aren’t always such an awful place to spend one’s final days.
The same is true for nursing homes. When the
quality of nursing homes was abysmal, when residents sat tied up in chairs,
lined up along dark, dingy corridors, and when they developed pressure ulcers
because they were neglected by poorly trained staff, of course nursing homes
were to be avoided. As standards were raised and resident-centered care took
root in nursing homes, the quality of care improved. Sometimes nursing home
care is superior to home care.
It’s still true that
nobody wants to live in a nursing home. It’s also true that the majority of
people don’t want to die in a hospital. But what many of those people really mean
when they say they don’t want to live in a nursing home is that they don’t want
to be very disabled and dependent. What they really mean when they
say they don’t want to die in a hospital is often that they don’t want to die.
It's all too easy--and too commonplace--to confuse an undesirable state of being (disabled, dying) with a site of care (the nursing home, the hospital). But preventing disability and death is one thing; figuring out where to go when frailty develops or death is imminent is something else entirely.
It's all too easy--and too commonplace--to confuse an undesirable state of being (disabled, dying) with a site of care (the nursing home, the hospital). But preventing disability and death is one thing; figuring out where to go when frailty develops or death is imminent is something else entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment