Page 3 - 20191216_Medical-SocialCollabEOLCare
P. 3

acquisition and enhance the motivation of our citizens to seek appropriate care that meet holistic needs
            should be in place.

            Crucial factors to maximize end-of-life stay in the community include an enabling environment, and
            accessible support for individuals and families to facilitate end-of-life journeys. Such services exist but
            are fragmented, and our study further affirmed that people are largely unaware of available assistance in
            the community.
            Understanding factors that will affect decisions to seek EoLC is also important in planning the
            expansion of related services. Respondents expressed multi-faceted needs when facing the final stages of
            life. For instance, 48.9% of respondents stressed on the importance of a comfortable environment,       Q6
            41.1% indicated the significance of professional guidance and 38.0% pointed towards the need for
            regular community healthcare services. We put forward that existing community initiatives should be
            scaled up in meeting the all-rounded needs of our citizens in handling end-of-life related matters.

            Study Highlights (3)

            Sufficient support could realise wishes to stay in the community towards the end of life
            Up to 86.1% of respondents stated their preference for staying in the community [Note 1] until the end     Q7
            of their lives. When further reiterating the availability of sufficient community support, the percentage
            of people willing to stay in the community reached close to 90%. This reveals public preference and
            readiness to receive community-based EoLC, and a promising opportunity to shift care burden from
            hospitals into the community. Findings substantiate the need to expand EoLC services, particularly at
            the community-level so that preferences of citizens are realised and concurrently, relief is brought to
            overstretched public hospitals.

            More than half of the respondents opted for relatives and acquaintances from non-religious affiliations

            as their most trusted type of personnel for non-medical EoLC support (55.2%). Healthcare professionals    Q8
            in the community were the next most popular option (40.8%), followed closely by hospital-based
            healthcare professionals (39.6%). However, a notable mismatch exists between preferred and actual
            channels of information on EoLC services; this was particularly noticeable for sources of support
            outside of hospitals and in community settings (40.8% vs 8.8% for medical professionals in the          Q9
            community; 24.0% vs. 12.8% for social workers; 16.6% and 4.8% for religious acquaintances; and
            30.8% vs. 21.2% for relatives or non-religious acquaintances). This further demonstrates that our
            primary care system has great potential for further development and that we are yet to optimise our
            utilisation of community resources to meet citizens’ needs and expectations.

   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8