Dataset Information

Changes in mortality patterns and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic: A descriptive analysis of mortality data across four nations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Understanding patterns of mortality and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to help provide appropriate services and resources.

Aims

To analyse patterns of mortality including place of death in the United Kingdom (UK) (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) during the COVID-19 pandemic to date.

Design

Descriptive analysis of UK mortality data between March 2020 and March 2021. Weekly number of deaths was described by place of death, using the following definitions: (1) expected deaths: average expected deaths estimated using historical data (2015-19); (2) COVID-19 deaths: where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate; (3) additional non-COVID-19 deaths: above expected but not attributed to COVID-19; (4) baseline deaths: up to and including expected deaths but excluding COVID-19 deaths.

Results

During the analysis period, 798,643 deaths were registered in the UK, of which 147,282 were COVID-19 deaths and 17,672 were additional non-COVID-19 deaths. While numbers of people who died in care homes and hospitals increased above expected only during the pandemic waves, the numbers of people who died at home remained above expected both during and between the pandemic waves, with an overall increase of 41%.

Conclusions

Where people died changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in deaths at home during and between pandemic waves. This has implications for planning and organisation of palliative care and community services. The extent to which these changes will persist longer term remains unclear. Further research could investigate whether this is reflected in other countries with high COVID-19 mortality.

SUBMITTER: O'Donnell SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8641034 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost patients with cancer prefer to die at home or in a hospice, but hospitals remain the most common place of death (PoD).This study aims to explore the changing time trends of PoD and the associated factors, which are essential for end-of-life care improvement.Methods and findingsThe study analysed all cancer deaths in England collected by the Office for National Statistics during 1993-2010 (n = 2,281,223). Time trends of age- and gender-standardised proportion of deaths in individual PoDs were evaluated using weighted piecewise linear regression. Variables associated with PoD (home or hospice versus hospital) were determined using proportion ratio (PR) derived from the log-binomial regression, adjusting for clustering effects. Hospital remained the most common PoD throughout the study period (48.0%; 95% CI 47.9%-48.0%), followed by home (24.5%; 95% CI 24.4%-24.5%), and hospice (16.4%; 95% CI 16.3%-16.4%). Home and hospice deaths increased since 2005 (0.87%; 95% CI 0.74%-0.99%/year, 0.24%; 95% CI 0.17%-0.32%/year, respectively, p<0.001), while hospital deaths declined (-1.20%; 95% CI -1.41 to -0.99/year, p<0.001). Patients who died from haematological cancer (PRs 0.46-0.52), who were single, widowed, or divorced (PRs 0.75-0.88), and aged over 75 (PRs 0.81-0.84 for 75-84; 0.66-0.72 for 85+) were less likely to die in home or hospice (p<0.001; reference groups: colorectal cancer, married, age 25-54). There was little improvement in patients with lung cancer of dying in home or hospice (PRs 0.87-0.88). Marital status became the second most important factor associated with PoD, after cancer type. Patients from less deprived areas (higher quintile of the deprivation index) were more likely to die at home or in a hospice than those from more deprived areas (lower quintile of the deprivation index; PRs 1.02-1.12). The analysis is limited by a lack of data on individual patients' preferences for PoD or a clinical indication of the most appropriate PoD.ConclusionsMore efforts are needed to reduce hospital deaths. Health care facilities should be improved and enhanced to support the increased home and hospice deaths. People who are single, widowed, or divorced should be a focus for end-of-life care improvement, along with known at risk groups such as haematological cancer, lung cancer, older age, and deprivation. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:ObjectivesCause-of-death discrepancies are common in respiratory illness-related mortality. A standard epidemiological metric, excess all-cause death, is unaffected by these discrepancies but provides no actionable policy information when increased all-cause mortality is unexplained by reported specific causes. To assess the contribution of unexplained mortality to the excess death metric, we parsed excess deaths in the COVID-19 pandemic into changes in explained versus unexplained (unreported or unspecified) causes.DesignRetrospective repeated cross-sectional analysis, US death certificate data for six influenza seasons beginning October 2014, comparing population-adjusted historical benchmarks from the previous two, three and five seasons with 2019-2020.Setting48 of 50 states with complete data.Participants16.3 million deaths in 312 weeks, reported in categories-all causes, top eight natural causes and respiratory causes including COVID-19.Outcome measuresChange in population-adjusted counts of deaths from seasonal benchmarks to 2019-2020, from all causes (ie, total excess deaths) and from explained versus unexplained causes, reported for the season overall and for time periods defined a priori: pandemic awareness (19 January through 28 March); initial pandemic peak (29 March through 30 May) and pandemic post-peak (31 May through 26 September).ResultsDepending on seasonal benchmark, 287 957-306 267 excess deaths occurred through September 2020: 179 903 (58.7%-62.5%) attributed to COVID-19; 44 022-49 311 (15.2%-16.1%) to other reported causes; 64 032-77 054 (22.2%-25.2%) unexplained (unspecified or unreported cause). Unexplained deaths constituted 65.2%-72.5% of excess deaths from 19 January to 28 March and 14.1%-16.1% from 29 March through 30 May.ConclusionsUnexplained mortality contributed substantially to US pandemic period excess deaths. Onset of unexplained mortality in February 2020 coincided with previously reported increases in psychotropic use, suggesting possible psychiatric or injurious causes. Because underlying causes of unexplained deaths may vary by group or region, results suggest excess death calculations provide limited actionable information, supporting previous calls for improved cause-of-death data to support evidence-based policy.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate recipient characteristics and rates of index angiography among First Nations (FN) and non-FN populations in Manitoba, Canada.SettingPopulation-based, secondary analysis of provincial administrative health data.ParticipantsAll adults 18 years or older who received an index angiogram between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Descriptive statistics for age, sex, income quintile by rural and urban residency and Charlson Comorbidity Index for FN and non-FN recipients. (2) Annual index angiogram rates for FN and non-FN populations and among those rates of 'urgent' angiograms based on acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-related hospitalisations during the previous 7?days. (3) Proportions of people who did not receive an angiogram in the 20 years preceding an ischaemic heart disease (IHD) diagnosis or a cardiovascular death; stratified by age (<65?or ?65 years old).ResultsFN recipients were younger (56.3vs63.8 years; p<0.0001) and had higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (1.32vs0.78; p<0.001). During all years examined, index angiography rates were lower among FN people (2.67vs3.33 per 1000 population per year; p<0.001) with no notable temporal trends. Among the index angiogram recipients, a higher proportion was associated with an AMI-related hospitalisation in the FN group (28.8%vs25.0%; p<0.01) and in both groups rates significantly increased over time. FN people who died from cardiovascular disease or were older (65+years?old) diagnosed with IHD were more likely to have received an angiogram in the preceding 20-30 years (17.8%vs12.5%; p<0.01?and 50.9%vs49.5%; p<0.03, respectively). FN people diagnosed with IHD who were under the age of 65 were less likely to have received an angiogram (47.8%vs53.1%; p<0.01) CONCLUSIONS: Index angiogram use differences are suggested between FN and non-FN populations, which may contribute to reported IHD disparities. Investigating factors driving these rates will determine any association between ethnicity and angiography services.