Danish general practitioners’ self-reported competences in end-of-life care

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the 843 GPs in the central Denmark region divided into respondents and non-respondents.

	Respondents N = 573	Non-respondents N = 270	Statistical testof difference^a
Age (years, median (IQR^b))	53.5 (14.5)	55.1 (14.8)	p = 0.030^c
Sex (n (%))
Male	279 (48.7)	155 (57.4)
Female	294 (51.3)	115 (42.6)	p = 0.002^d
List size (number, median (IQR’))	1502 (387)	1514 (341)	p = 0.110^c
Organisation of practice (n (%))
Solo practice	119 (21.0)	74 (27.5)
Group practice	447 (79.0)	195 (72.5)	p = 0.024^d
Urbanisation, municipality with (n (%))
University hospital	164 (28.6)	77 (28.5)
Regional hospital	250 (43.6)	127 (47.0)
No hospital	158 (27.6)	63 (23.3)	p = 0.612^e

a Statistically significant differences shown in bold text.

b IQR: Interquartile range.

c Mann–Whitney test.

d Fisher's exact test.

e Kruskal–Wallis test.

Table 2. Frequency of GP-reported provision of 'end of life care' to three different patient groups (N = 573 GPs).

	Cancer		COPD		Heart failure
	n	% (95% CI)	n	% (95% CI)	n	% (95% CI)
Always	215	38.7 (34.7; 42.8)	41	7.4 (5.2; 9.6)	36	6.5 (4.5; 8,6)
Often	256	46.1 (42.0; 50.3)	182	32.9 (28.9; 36.8)	153	27.7 (24.0; 31.5)
Now and then	79	12.6 (9.8; 15.4)	225	40.6 (36.5; 44.7)	215	39.0(34.9; 43.0)
Rarely/never	14	2.5 (1.2; 3.8)	106	19.1 (15.8; 22.4)	148	26.8 (23.1; 30.5)
Total^a	555	100	554	100	552	100

a Missings excluded.

Table 3. The distribution of answers according to confidence and different elements about being a key worker (N = 571 GPs).

	I feel confident about being key worker in palliative trajectories		I am proactive in identifying patients with palliative needs			I take the initiative to talk to my patients about dying			I know where my patients suffering from severe disease want to die
	n	% (95% CI)	n	% (95% CI)	n		% (95% CI)	n		% (95% CI)
Strongly agree	141	25.3 (21.7; 28.9)	82	14.7 (11.7; 17.6)	69		12.3(9.6; 15.1)	50		9.0 (6.6; 11.3)
Agree	284	51.0 (46.8; 55.2)	252	45.1 (40.9; 49.2)	256		45.8 (41.7; 50.0)	260		46.6 (42.4; 50.7)
Neither nor	114	20.6 (17.1; 23.8)	170	30.4 (26.6; 34.2)	187		33.5 (29.5; 37.4)	202		36.2 (32.2; 40.2)
Disagree/strongly disagree	18	3.2 (1.8; 4.7)	55	9.8 (6.3; 10.9)	47		8.4 (6.1; 10.7)	46		7.5 (5.3; 9.7)
Total^a	557	100	559	100	559		100	558		100

a Missings excluded.

Figure 1. Percentage of GPs who reported to feel confident/very confident taking care of nine different elements of EOL care (N = 571 GPs).

Table 4. Associations between GP characteristics and five different questions about EOL care clustered on provider number.

	EOL care to COPD patients				Confidence about being the key worker				Having specific EOL procedures				Confidence with treatment of pain				Confidence with s.c. medicine
	Unadjusted		Adjusted		Unadjusted		Adjusted		Unadjusted		Adjusted		Unadjusted		Adjusted		Unadjusted		Adjusted
	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p	OR	p
Age, years
−45.5	1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1
45.5–53.5	1.52	0.084	1.56	0.08	1.72	0.024	1.74	0.023	1.81	0.055	1.69	0.096	0.83	0.599	0.80	0.536	1.27	0.328	1.22	0.433
53.5–60	1.22	0.443	1.20	0.510	1.70	0.041	1.59	0.077	1.65	0.093	1.32	0.378	1.44	0.352	1.34	0.469	1.14	0.565	1.24	0.378
60−	1.77	0.032	1.77	0.050	1.77	0.039	1.62	0.087	1.65	0.130	1.19	0.615	0.91	0.798	0.76	0.475	1.24	0.362	1.32	0.282
Gender
Male	1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1
Female	0.95	0.770	1.02	0.905	0.81	0.292	0.88	0.547	0.63	0.025	0.67	0.067	0.65	0.094	0.64	0.104	1.4	0.056	1.59	0.013
Organisation
Group	1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1
Solo	1.27	0.274	1.25	0.352	1.81	0.030	1.68	0.065	1.52	0.115	1.40	0.240	1.12	0.525	1.16	0.644	1.03	0.894	1.17	0.524
List size
≤1299	1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1
1299–1510	1.47	0.120	1.52	0.111	0.79	0.411	0.755	0.333	1.12	0.772	1.13	0.750	0.60	0.167	0.57	0.117	1.36	0.234	1.33	0.302
1510–1668	1.44	0.150	1.51	0.116	1.17	0.553	1.09	0.758	0.93	0.834	0.85	0.653	0.75	0.420	0.67	0.252	1.04	0.885	0.99	0.964
≥1668	0.88	0.630	0.86	0.588	0.88	0.637	0.75	0.311	1.24	0.557	1.11	0.792	0.76	0.444	0.68	0.265	0.88	0.612	0.90	0.704
Urbanisation, type of hospital in the municipality
University	1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1
Regional	1.02	0.910	1.07	0.747	0.81	0.379	0.91	0.691	0.76	0.389	0.79	0.458	0.95	0.843	0.97	0.918	1.06	0.783	1.12	0.594
No hospital	0.85	0.500	0.82	0.411	1.08	0.782	1.08	0.758	1.17	0.621	1.20	0.568	1.56	0.191	1.55	0.204	2.40	0.001	2.51	0.000

The table shows both unadjusted and adjusted analyses; associations are adjusted for all other characteristics. Associations are given in odds ratios (ORs) and the associated p values (p) are shown. Statistically significant associations are in ‘bold’.