Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review

Background Most deaths still take place in hospital; cost-effective commissioning of end-of-life resources is a priority. This review provides clarity on the effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care. Objectives The objectives were to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care. Population Adult patients with advanced illnesses and their unpaid caregivers. Intervention Hospital-based specialist palliative care. Comparators Inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry to the study, or community care or hospice care provided outside the hospital setting (usual care). Primary outcomes Patient health-related quality of life and symptom burden. Data sources Six databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and CareSearch), clinical trial registers, reference lists and systematic reviews were searched to August 2019. Review methods Two independent reviewers screened, data extracted and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark), with separate synthesis of qualitative data. Results Forty-two randomised controlled trials involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 unpaid caregivers) were included. Diagnoses of participants were as follows: cancer, 21 studies; non-cancer, 14 studies; and mixed cancer and non-cancer, seven studies. Hospital-based specialist palliative care was offered in the following models: ward based (one study), inpatient consult (10 studies), outpatient (six studies), hospital at home or hospital outreach (five studies) and multiple settings that included hospital (20 studies). Meta-analyses demonstrated significant improvement favouring hospital-based specialist palliative care over usual care in patient health-related quality of life (10 studies, standardised mean difference 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.37; I 2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I 2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I 2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I 2 = 0%), and a significant increase in the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by number of patients with home death) (seven studies, odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.16; I 2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I 2 = 76%). Hospital-based specialist palliative care showed no evidence of causing serious harm. The evidence on mortality/survival and cost-effectiveness was inconclusive. Qualitative studies (10 studies, 322 participants) suggested that hospital-based specialist palliative care was beneficial as it ensured personalised and holistic care for patients and their families, while also fostering open communication, shared decision-making and respectful and compassionate care. Limitation In almost half of the included randomised controlled trials, there was palliative care involvement in the control group. Conclusions Hospital-based specialist palliative care may offer benefits for person-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, symptom burden, patient depression and satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death) with little evidence of harm. Future work More studies are needed of populations with non-malignant diseases, different models of hospital-based specialist palliative care, and cost-effectiveness. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017083205. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BackgroundSerious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital‐based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co‐ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.Data collection and analysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random‐effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.Our primary outcomes were patient health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost‐effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.Main resultsWe identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty‐one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non‐cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non‐cancer populations (mixed diagnoses).HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward‐based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital‐at‐home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain.Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I2 = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low‐quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person‐centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of ‐0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI ‐0.41 to ‐0.12; I2 = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low‐quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low‐quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I2 = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low‐quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD ‐0.16, 95% CI ‐0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, very low‐quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low‐quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low‐quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost‐effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low‐quality evidence).Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Authors' conclusionsVery low‐ to low‐quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person‐centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person‐centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non‐malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward‐based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out‐of‐hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost‐effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person‐centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations

What is different about living alone with cancer in older age? A qualitative study of experiences and preferences for care

Background: Increasing numbers of older patients with advanced cancer live alone but there is little research on how well health services meet their needs. The aim of this study was to compare the experiences and future preferences for care between two groups of older people with cancer in their last year of life; those who live alone, and those who live with co-resident carers. Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 people aged between 70 and 95 years who were living with cancer. They were recruited from general practices and hospice day care, when the responsible health professional answered no to the question, of whether they would be surprised if the patient died within twelve months. Twenty participants lived alone. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and the data analysed using a Framework approach, focussing on the differences and commonalities between the two groups. Results: Many experiences were common to all participants, but had broader consequences for people who lived alone. Five themes are presented from the data: a perception that it is a disadvantage to live alone as a patient, the importance of relational continuity with health professionals, informal appraisal of care, place of care and future plans. People who lived alone perceived emotional and practical barriers to accessing care, and many shared an anxiety that they would have to move into a care home. Participants were concerned with remaining life, and all who lived alone had made plans for death but not for dying. Uncertainty of timescales and a desire to wait until they knew that death was imminent were some of the reasons given for not planning for future care needs. Conclusions: Older people who live alone with cancer have emotional and practical concerns that are overlooked by their professional carers. Discussion and planning for the future, along with continuity in primary care may hold the key to enhancing end-of-life care for this group of patients

The influence of patient and carer age in access to palliative care services

Background: older patients are less likely to receive palliative care than younger patients. As patient and primary carer age correlate positively, patterns may be due to carer rather than patient age, and reflect better ability to obtain support among younger carers. Objective: to investigate how both patient and carer age relate to palliative care use, controlling for relevant variables. Design: comparison of patients who received community Macmillan nurse specialist advice, Marie Curie nursing or inpatient hospice care with patients who did not, using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression. Patient and carer data were collected through electronic service record linkage and carer post-bereavement interviews. Sample: patients referred to a hospice at home service whose primary carer could be interviewed (n = 123). Results: whilst a cancer diagnosis was an important determinant of access for all services considered, logistic regression shows that carer age, but not patient age, and hospice at home access predicted Marie Curie nursing use. Both patient and carer age predicted use of Macmillan nurse advice. Age of the patient, but not carer age, predicted admission to inpatient hospice, alongside requiring care for over a month (all P<0.05). Conclusions: carer age may be as important a predictor of palliative home care use as patient age. We need to investigate whether younger carers have greater support needs or show greater effectiveness in obtaining help and to assess whether older carers need more assistance in recruitment of support