Components of home-based palliative and supportive care for adults with heart failure: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Palliative care and supportive care provided in the home for people with heart failure can improve quality of life, caregiver wellbeing and reduce healthcare costs. Identifying components of home-based palliative and supportive care in heart failure is useful to inform tailored care to people with heart failure.

AIM

To identify and describe components of home-based palliative and supportive care in adults with heart failure.

DESIGN

A scoping review was undertaken in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. The protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GHCME).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched from inception in May 2023 and re-run in January 2024. Original research focussed on palliative and supportive care in the home setting that included adults diagnosed with heart failure who have not undergone nor awaiting a heart transplant was included.

RESULTS

Results were extracted from 13 papers based on eight studies. The findings highlight that nurses supported by a multidisciplinary team, providing symptom management, patient and carer education and discussion of goals of care and advance care planning, facilitates home-based palliative and supportive care for people with heart failure.

CONCLUSION

Ensuring patient and caregiver-centred care supported by a multidisciplinary team is essential to delivering home-based palliative and supportive care for people with heart failure. Further research focussed on the role of digital interventions in home-based palliative and supportive care, the composition of the multidisciplinary team and research which includes individuals across all stages of heart failure is needed.

Palliative care for patients with heart failure and family caregivers in rural Appalachia: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a debilitating disease with worsening symptoms and family caregiving burden. HF affects more than 8 million Americans. West Virginia has the highest HF death rate in the U.S. and limited healthcare services. This study tested whether the family HF palliative and end-of-life care intervention (FamPALcare) improved patient and caregiver outcomes at 3- and 6-month study endpoints.

METHODS

This study used a randomized controlled trial design. Patients with HF and their caregivers were randomly assigned together to the intervention (n = 21) or control (n = 18) group. The intervention included five telephone coaching sessions on the HF home, palliative, and end-of-life care. The outcome data collected at baseline and at 3 and 6 months were from the patients' (a) HF-related health status and depression/anxiety scale scores; and from caregivers' (b) caregiving burden and depression/anxiety scale scores; and (c) anonymous ratings on the 11-item FamPALcare helpfulness scale, completed by the intervention participants.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 65.66 (SD = 13.72) years, and 67% were White males. The mean age of the caregivers was 62.05 (SD = 13.14) years, and 77% were White females. Compared to the controls, patients in the intervention group had significantly greater scores for HF-related health status (p < .05) and lower depression/anxiety scores at 6 months, the study endpoint. The family caregivers in the intervention group had significantly lower scores on caregiving burden (p < .05) and depression/anxiety (p < .01) at 3 months. The mean helpfulness rating was M = 4.46 out of 5 (SD = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

The FamPALcare intervention was found to be effective at improving patient HF-related health status and reducing caregiver burden and improving both patient and caregiver depression and anxiety scores. The FamPALcare HF intervention was found feasible and consistently delivered (fidelity). The FamPALcare intervention's cost-effectiveness and helpfulness ratings information will be used to plan for subsequent clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153890, Registered on 4 November 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04153890 .

Criteria for Referral of Patients With Advanced Heart Failure for Specialized Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced heart failure have substantial supportive care needs. Specialist palliative care can be beneficial, but it is unclear who is most appropriate for referral and when patients should be referred.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify consensus referral criteria for specialist palliative care for patients with advanced heart failure.

METHODS

Clinicians from 5 continents with expertise in the integration of cardiology and palliative care were asked to rate 34 disease-based, 24 needs-based, and 9 time-based criteria over 3 rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥70% agreement. A criterion was coded as major if the experts endorsed that meeting that criterion alone was adequate to justify a referral.

RESULTS

The response rate was 44 of 46 (96%), 41 of 46 (89%), and 43 of 46 (93%) in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. Panelists reached consensus on 25 major criteria for specialist palliative care referral. The 25 major criteria were categorized under 6 topics, including "advanced/refractory heart failure, comorbidities, and complications" (eg, cardiac cachexia, cardiorenal syndrome) (n = 8), "advanced heart failure therapies" (eg, chronic inotropes, precardiac transplant) (n = 4), "hospital utilization" (eg, emergency room visits, hospitalization) (n = 2), "prognostic estimate" (n = 1), "symptom burden/distress" (eg, severe physical/emotional/spiritual distress) (n = 6), and "decision making/social support" (eg, goals-of-care discussions) (n = 4). The majority (68%) of major criteria had ≥90% agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

International experts reached consensus on a large number of criteria for referral to specialist palliative care. With further validation, these criteria may be useful for standardizing palliative care access in the inpatient and/or outpatient settings.

Elements of Integrated Palliative Care in Chronic Heart Failure Across the Care Continuum: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Individuals with chronic heart failure experience high symptom burden, reduced quality of life and high health care utilisation. Although there is growing evidence that a palliative approach, provided concurrently with usual treatment improves outcomes, the method of integrating palliative care for individuals living with chronic heart failure across the care continuum remains elusive.

AIM

To examine the key elements of integrated palliative care recommended for individuals living with chronic heart failure across the care continuum.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Databases searched were CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and OpenGrey. Studies written in English and containing key strategic elements specific to chronic heart failure were included. Search terms relating to palliative care and chronic heart failure and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was used.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (79) articles were selected that described key elements to integrate palliative care for individuals with chronic heart failure. This review identifies four levels of key strategic elements: 1) clinical; 2) professional; 3) organisational and 4) system-level integration. Implementing strategies across these elements facilitates integrated palliative care for individuals with chronic heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-sectorial collaborations across systems and the intersection of health and social services are essential to delivering integrated, person-centred palliative care. Further research focussing on patient and family needs at a system-level is needed. Research with strong theoretical underpinnings utilising implementation science methods are required to achieve and sustain complex behaviour change to translate key elements.

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

BACKGROUND

Serious 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.

OBJECTIVES

To 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 METHODS

We 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 CRITERIA

We 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 ANALYSIS

We 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 RESULTS

We 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 evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very 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.

Referral Criteria to Palliative Care for Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure have significant symptom burden, care needs, and often a progressive course to end-stage disease. Palliative care referrals may be helpful but it is currently unclear when patients should be referred and by whom. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine referral criteria for palliative care among patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We searched Ovid, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases for articles in the English language from the inception of databases to January 17, 2019 related to palliative care referral in patients with heart failure. Two investigators independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the referral criteria. Referral criteria were then categorized thematically.

RESULTS

Of the 1199 citations in our initial search, 102 articles were included in the final sample. We identified 18 categories of referral criteria, including 7 needs-based criteria and 10 disease-based criteria. The most commonly discussed criterion was physical or emotional symptoms (n=51 [50%]), followed by cardiac stage (n=46 [45%]), hospital utilization (n=38 [37%]), prognosis (n=37 [36%]), and advanced cardiac therapies (n=36 [35%]). Under cardiac stage, 31 (30%) articles suggested New York Heart Association functional class ≥III and 12 (12%) recommended New York Heart Association class ≥IV as cutoffs for referral. Prognosis of ≤1 year was mentioned in 21 (21%) articles as a potential trigger; few other criteria had specific cutoffs.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for the involvement of palliative care in patients with heart failure. Further research is needed to identify appropriate and timely triggers for palliative care referral.

The First Steps Taken to Implement Palliative Care in Advanced Heart Disease: A Position Statement from Denmark

According to the World Health Organization, palliative care must be available for everyone with life-threatening diseases. However, in daily practice the primary focus worldwide is on cancer patients. The aim of the article was to generate a national position statement as the first step in implementing palliative care in severe heart disease with focus on advanced heart failure, including tools to identify the need for and timing of palliative care and how palliative care could be organized in Denmark. A task force was formed in the Danish Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Working Group, and the position statement was prepared in collaboration with members from a broad group of specialties, including palliative medicine. Because of major gaps in evidence, the position statement was based on small and low-quality studies and clinical practice statements. This position statement was aligned with the European Society of Cardiology recommendation, focusing on relieving suffering from the early disease stages parallel to standard care and supplementing life-prolonging treatment. The statement delivers practical guidance on clinical aspects and managing symptoms during the three stages of advanced heart disease. Furthermore, the statement describes the importance of communication and topics to be broached, including deactivating implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The statement recommends a targeted effort on organizational strategies using high-quality assessment tools and emphasizes multidisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration. Danish cardiologists supported by allied professionals acknowledge the importance of palliative care in advanced heart disease. This national position statement intended to inform and influence policy and practice and can hopefully inspire other countries to take action toward implementing palliative care in advanced heart disease.

Advance care planning for adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

People with heart failure report various symptoms and show a trajectory of periodic exacerbations and recoveries, where each exacerbation event may lead to death. Current clinical practice guidelines indicate the importance of discussing future care strategies with people with heart failure. Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of discussing an individual's future care plan according to their values and preferences, and involves the person with heart failure, their family members or surrogate decision-makers, and healthcare providers. Although it is shown that ACP may improve discussion about end-of-life care and documentation of an individual's preferences, the effects of ACP for people with heart failure are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of advance care planning (ACP) in people with heart failure compared to usual care strategies that do not have any components promoting ACP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, and two clinical trials registers in October 2019. We checked the reference lists of included studies. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ACP with usual care in people with heart failure. Trials could have parallel group, cluster-randomised, or cross-over designs. We included interventions that implemented ACP, such as discussing and considering values, wishes, life goals, and preferences for future medical care. The study participants comprised adults (18 years of age or older) with heart failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted outcome data from the included studies, and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted trial authors when we needed to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (1242 participants and 426 surrogate decision-makers) in this review. The meta-analysis included seven studies (876 participants). Participants' mean ages ranged from 62 to 82 years, and 53% to 100% of the studies' participants were men. All included studies took place in the US or the UK. Only one study reported concordance between participants' preferences and end-of-life care, and it enrolled people with heart failure or renal disease. Owing to one study with small sample size, the effects of ACP on concordance between participants' preferences and end-of-life care were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.55; participants = 110; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). It corresponded to an assumed risk of 625 per 1000 participants receiving usual care and a corresponding risk of 744 per 1000 (95% CI 569 to 969) for ACP. There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.38; participants = 156; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). However, one study, which was not included in the meta-analysis, showed that the quality of life score improved by 14.86 points in the ACP group compared with 11.80 points in the usual care group. Completion of documentation by medical staff regarding discussions with participants about ACP processes may have increased (RR 1.68. 95% CI 1.23 to 2.29; participants = 92; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). This corresponded to an assumed risk of 489 per 1000 participants with usual care and a corresponding risk of 822 per 1000 (95% CI 602 to 1000) for ACP. One study, which was not included in the meta-analysis, also showed that ACP helped to improve documentation of the ACP process (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.59; participants = 232). Three studies reported that implementation of ACP led to an improvement of participants' depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.34; participants = 278; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). We were uncertain about the effects of ACP on the quality of communication when compared to the usual care group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.61 to 0.81; participants = 9; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). We also noted an increase in all-cause mortality in the ACP group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67; participants = 795; studies = 5). The studies did not report participants' satisfaction with care/treatment and caregivers' satisfaction with care/treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACP may help to increase documentation by medical staff regarding discussions with participants about ACP processes, and may improve an individual's depression. However, the quality of the evidence about these outcomes was low. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low due to the small number of studies and participants included in this review. Additionally, the follow-up periods and types of ACP intervention were varied. Therefore, further studies are needed to explore the effects of ACP that consider these differences carefully.

Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: Clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care

Background:

Integrating heart-failure and palliative care combines expertise from two cultures, life-saving cardiology and palliative care, and involves ethically difficult situations that have to be considered from various perspectives. We found no studies describing experiences of clinical ethical support (CES) in integrated cardiology and palliative care teams.

Objective:

Our aim is to describe experiences of CES among professionals after a period of three years working in a multidisciplinary team in integrated heart-failure and palliative homecare.

Method:

The study design was descriptive qualitative, comprising interviews with seven professionals from one integrated heart-failure and palliative care team who received CES over a three-year period. The interview data were subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Results:

The CES was found to offer possibilities for meeting in an ethical ‘free-zone’ where the participants could relate to each other beyond their various professional roles and specialties. The trust within the team seemed to increase and the participants were confident enough to express their points of view. Together they developed an integrated understanding, and acquired more knowledge and a comprehensive view of the ethically difficult situation of concern. The CES sessions were considered a means of becoming better prepared to deal with ethical care issues and developing action strategies to apply in practice, from shared standpoints.

Conclusion:

Participating in CES was experienced as meeting in an ethical ‘free-zone’ and seemed to be a means of facilitating integration of palliative and heart-failure care.

Disease management interventions for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.

Palliative medicine for patients with advanced heart failure: New evidence

Although heart failure is one of the most common clinical syndromes in medicine and has a high mortality rate, few patients have access to adequate palliative care for their clinical situation. Several trials have recently been published on the usefulness of starting palliative treatment along with cardiac treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. In this review, we analyse the aspects of diagnosing and controlling the symptoms of patients with advanced heart failure and provide a collection of clinical trials that have analysed the efficacy of a palliative intervention in this patient group. Physicians need to be equipped with strategies for recognizing the need for this type of intervention without it resulting in neglecting the active treatment of the patient's heart failure.

Understanding new models of integrated care in developed countries: a systematic review

Background

The NHS has been challenged to adopt new integrated models of service delivery that are tailored to local populations. Evidence from the international literature is needed to support the development and implementation of these new models of care.

Objectives

The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of international evidence to enhance understanding of the mechanisms whereby new models of service delivery have an impact on health-care outcomes.

Design

The study combined rigorous and systematic methods for identification of literature, together with innovative methods for synthesis and presentation of findings.

Setting

Any setting.

Participants

Patients receiving a health-care service and/or staff delivering services.

Interventions

Changes to service delivery that increase integration and co-ordination of health and health-related services.

Main outcome measures

Outcomes related to the delivery of services, including the views and perceptions of patients/service users and staff.

Study design

Empirical work of a quantitative or qualitative design.

Data sources

We searched electronic databases (between October 2016 and March 2017) for research published from 2006 onwards in databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index and The Cochrane Library. We also searched relevant websites, screened reference lists and citation searched on a previous review.

Review methods

The identified evidence was synthesised in three ways. First, data from included studies were used to develop an evidence-based logic model, and a narrative summary reports the elements of the pathway. Second, we examined the strength of evidence underpinning reported outcomes and impacts using a comparative four-item rating system. Third, we developed an applicability framework to further scrutinise and characterise the evidence.

Results

We included 267 studies in the review. The findings detail the complex pathway from new models to impacts, with evidence regarding elements of new models of integrated care, targets for change, process change, influencing factors, service-level outcomes and system-wide impacts. A number of positive outcomes were reported in the literature, with stronger evidence of perceived increased patient satisfaction and improved quality of care and access to care. There was stronger UK-only evidence of reduced outpatient appointments and waiting times. Evidence was inconsistent regarding other outcomes and system-wide impacts such as levels of activity and costs. There was an indication that new models have particular potential with patients who have complex needs.

Limitations

Defining new models of integrated care is challenging, and there is the potential that our study excluded potentially relevant literature. The review was extensive, with diverse study populations and interventions that precluded the statistical summary of effectiveness.

Conclusions

There is stronger evidence that new models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction and perceived quality and increase access; however, the evidence regarding other outcomes is unclear. The study recommends factors to be considered during the implementation of new models.

Future work

Links between elements of new models and outcomes require further study, together with research in a wider variety of populations.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD37725.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Strategies used in improving and assessing the level of reporting of implementation fidelity in randomised controlled trials of palliative care complex interventions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Implementation fidelity is critical in evaluating effectiveness of interventions.

AIM

Identifying and summarising strategies to improve and assess the level of reporting of implementation fidelity in randomised controlled trials of palliative care complex interventions.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Published and completed randomised controlled trials from 2000 to current evaluating effectiveness of specialised palliative care services on patient-centred outcomes in adult patients were examined. MEDLINE was searched from 2008 to 29 September 2015 and supplemented by randomised controlled trials identified in a 2008 systematic review.

RESULTS

Altogether, 20 randomised controlled trials involving 8426 patients were reviewed using 40 subcomponents of five elements of implementation fidelity (resulting in 20 × 40 = 800 items). Over 88 strategies were identified, classified under the following elements: 'treatment design', 'training providers', 'delivery of treatment', 'receipt of treatment' and 'enactment of treatment skills'. No single overarching strategy was discovered. Strategies under 'treatment design' aimed to ensure equivalent treatment dose between and within intervention and control groups, and delivery of necessary ingredients. Ongoing 'training (of) providers' included supervision and ensuring skill acquisition. Use of treatment manuals and implementation checklists aimed to aid 'delivery of treatment'. Research teams aimed to improve 'receipt of treatment' by transmitting clear information and verifying understanding, while improving 'enactment of treatment skills' by reviewing and reinforcing prior content. Only 26% of the items received sufficient reporting; 34% were either not used or reported on.

CONCLUSION

Implementation fidelity in palliative care is under-recognised. A table to collate these strategies to improve implementation fidelity in palliative care research and clinical practice is proposed.

Anaemia, but not iron deficiency, is associated with clinical symptoms and quality of life in patients with severe heart failure and palliative home care: A substudy of the PREFER trial

BACKGROUND

To explore the relationships between anaemia or iron deficiency (ID) and symptoms, quality of life (QoL), morbidity, and mortality.

METHODS

A post-hoc, non-prespecified, explorative substudy of the prospective randomized PREFER trial. One centre study of outpatients with severe HF and palliative need managed with advanced home care. Associations between anaemia, ID, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Euro QoL (EQ-5D), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questions (KCCQ) were examined only at baseline but at 6months for morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients (51 males, 21 females), aged 79.2±9.1years. Thirty-nine patients (54%) had anaemia and 34 had ID (47%). Anaemia was correlated to depression (r=0.37; p=0.001), anxiety (r=0.25; p=0.04), and reduced well-being (r=0.26; p=0.03) in the ESAS; mobility (r=0.33; p=0.005), pain/discomfort (r=0.27; p=0.02), and visual analogue scale of health state (r=-0.28; p=0.02) in the EQ-5D; and physical limitation (r=-0.27; p=0.02), symptom stability; (r=-0.43; p<0.001); (r=-0.25; p=0.033), social limitation;(r=-0.26; p=0.03), overall summary score; (r=-0.24, p=0.046) and clinical summary score; (r=-0.27; p=0.02) in the KCCQ. ID did not correlate to any assessment item. Anaemia was univariably associated with any hospitalization (OR: 3.0; CI: 1.05-8.50, p=0.04), but not to mortality. ID was not significantly associated with any hospitalization or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Anaemia, but not ID, was associated although weakly with symptoms and QoL in patients with advanced HF and palliative home care.

Patients' experiences of person-centred integrated heart failure care and palliative care at home: an interview study

OBJECTIVES

Patients with severe heart failure (HF) suffer from a high symptom burden and high mortality. European and Swedish guidelines for HF care recommend palliative care for these patients. Different models for integrated palliative care and HF care have been described in the literature. No studies were found that qualitatively evaluated these models. The purpose of this study is to describe patients' experiences of a new model of person-centred integrated HF and palliative care at home.

METHOD

Interviews were conducted with 12 patients with severe HF (New York Heart Association class IIIâ€"IV) and included in the research project of Palliative advanced home caRE and heart FailurE caRe (PREFER). Qualitative content analysis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Two themes and a total of five categories were identified. The first theme was feeling secure and safe through receiving care at home with the categories: having access to readily available care at home, being followed up continuously and having trust in the team members' ability to help. The second theme was being acknowledged as both a person and a patient, with the following two categories: being met as a person, participating in decisions about one's care and receiving help for symptoms of both HF and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Person-centred integrated HF and palliative care provides a secure environment and holistic care for patients with severe HF. This approach is a way to improve the care management in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01304381; Results.

Areas for quality improvements in heart failure care: quality of care from the family members' perspective

BACKGROUND

The complex needs of people with chronic heart failure (HF) place great demands on their family members, and it is important to ask family members about their perspectives on the quality of HF care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe family members' perceptions of quality of HF care in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using a short form of the Quality from Patients' Perspective (QPP) questionnaire for data collection. The items in the questionnaire measure four dimensions of quality, and each item consists of both the perceived reality of the care and its subjective importance. The study included 57 family members of patients with severe HF in NYHA class III-IV.

RESULTS

Family members reported areas for quality improvements in three out of four dimensions and in dimensionless items. The lowest level of perceived reality was reported for treatment for confusion and loss of appetite. Treatment for shortness of breath, access to the apparatus and access to equipment necessary for medical care were the items with the highest subjective importance for the family members.

CONCLUSION

Family members identified important areas for quality improvement in the care for patients with HF in an outpatient setting. In particular, symptom alleviation, information to patients, patient participation and access to care were identified as areas for improvements. Thus, measuring quality from the family members' perspective with the QPP might be a useful additional perspective when it comes to the planning and implementation of changes in the organisation of HF care.

A cost-effectiveness study of person-centered integrated heart failure and palliative home care: Based on a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous economic studies of person-centered palliative home care have been conducted mainly among patients with cancer. Studies on cost-effectiveness of advanced home care for patients with severe heart failure are lacking when a diagnosis of heart failure is the only main disease as the inclusion criterion.

AIM

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a new concept of care called person-centered integrated heart failure and palliative home care.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial was conducted from January 2011 to 2013 at a center in Sweden. Data collection included cost estimates for health care and the patients' responses to the EQ-5D quality of life instrument.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients with chronic and severe heart failure were randomly assigned to an intervention (n = 36) or control (n = 36) group. The intervention group received the Palliative Advanced Home Care and Heart Failure Care intervention over 6 months. The control group received the same care that is usually provided by a primary health care center or heart failure clinic at the hospital.

RESULTS

EQ-5D data indicated that the intervention resulted in a gain of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years, and cost analysis showed a significant cost reduction with the Palliative Advanced Home Care and Heart Failure Care intervention. Even if costs for staffing are higher than usual care, this is more than made up for by the reduced need for hospital-based care. This intervention made it possible for the county council to use €50,000 for other needs.

CONCLUSION

The Palliative Advanced Home Care and Heart Failure Care working mode saves financial resources and should be regarded as very cost-effective.

Impacts of person-centred integrated chronic heart failure and palliative home care on pharmacological heart failure treatment: a substudy of a randomised trial

Objective

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) may be insufficiently treated pharmacologically. Recently, we presented a person-centred integrated Palliative advanced homecaRE and heart FailurE caRe (PREFER) strategy and compared it with usual care (control). Patients managed according to PREFER had improved health-related quality of life and markedly reduced hospitalisations compared with the control group. We hypothesised that these improvements may have been partly due to better drug treatments within the PREFER strategy. Thus, our aim in this study was to explore the management of drug treatments in the PREFER group compared with the control group.

Methods

Doses and numbers of drugs and the number of patients receiving the target doses based on current guidelines were measured and compared between the groups at the start and finish of the study.

Results

The percentages of ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) increased, while loop diuretics decreased in the PREFER arm during the study, although the differences were not significant. Beta-receptor blockers (BBs) decreased somewhat in both groups. The number of patients treated with MRAs differed the most between groups, and increased from 10 (28%) to 15 (48%) in the PREFER arm compared with 13 (35%) vs 13 (39%) in the control group. The change in patients receiving full target doses (+8 vs. +1) of the ACEIs/angiotensin receptor blockers, BBs and MRAs were significantly higher (p=0009) in the PREFER arm than in the control arm.

Conclusions

Person-centred integrated care of patients with severe CHF was associated with increased evidence-based drug treatments, especially MRAs.

Clinical trial number

NCT01304381.

Barriers and Facilitators to Palliative Care of Patients with Chronic Heart Failure in Germany: A Study Protocol

Background

Despite its high prevalence, similar symptoms and symptom burden, people suffering from chronic heart failure receive less palliative care than patients with malignant diseases. Internationally, numerous barriers to palliative care of patients with chronic heart failure are known, however, there are no credible data regarding barriers and facilitators to palliative care of people suffering from chronic heart failure available for Germany.

Design and Methods

Tripartite study. First part of this study evaluates health care providers’ (physicians and nurses) perceived barriers and facilitators to palliative care of patients with chronic heart failure using a qualitative approach. At least 18 persons will be interviewed. In the second part, based on the results of part one, a questionnaire about barriers and facilitators to palliative care of patients with chronic heart failure will be designed and applied to at least 150 physicians and nurses. In the last part a classic Delphi method will be used to develop specific measures to improve the palliative care for chronic heart failure patients.

Expected Impact for Public Health

The results of this study will help to understand why patients with heart failure are seldom referred to palliative care and will provide solutions to overcome these barriers. Developed solutions will be the first step to improve palliative care in patients with heart failure in Germany. In addition, the results will help health care providers in other countries to take action to improve palliative care situations for heart failure patients.

The provision of home-based palliative care for those with advanced heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although widely recognized as best practice for advanced heart failure patients, palliative care is underused by this population. The purpose of this brief review is to highlight recent findings related to home-based palliative care among patients with advanced heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review considers new models of home-based palliative care and reports recent evidence on the effectiveness, and burden of these models for patients with advanced heart failure and their caregivers. New models currently under investigation and gaps in current research are presented.

SUMMARY

New models integrating home-based palliative care and standard heart failure care have shown to be effective in reducing both physical and psychological symptoms in patients. Recent evidence suggests that home-based palliative care reduces hospitalizations and decrease the probability of 30-day re-admissions in patients with advanced heart failure; thus, potentially reducing costs of care and increasing likelihood of dying at home. However, caregiver burden for families of those with heart failure remains an issue. Research that addresses caregiver burden and the challenges of providing palliative care to patients with the uncertain disease trajectory seen in advanced heart failure require further research.

Struggling with issues about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for end-stage heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Integrating heart failure and palliative care teams combines unique expertise from both cardiology and palliative care. However, professionals from the two arenas of life-saving cardiology and palliative care may well have different experiences with and approaches to patient care. Little is known how to optimally discuss cardiopulmonary resuscitation with patients and their relatives and what challenges are for healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the experiences and thoughts of members of an integrated heart failure and palliative care team concerning talking about CPR with end-stage heart failure patients.

METHOD

We used a descriptive qualitative design, conducting group interviews during 2011 with professionals from different disciplines working with heart failure patients over a 1-year period. A qualitative content analysis was performed to examine the interview data.

RESULTS

Professional caregivers in integrated heart failure and palliative homecare are struggling with the issue of CPR of end-stage heart failure patients. They wrestle with the question of whether CPR should be performed at all in these terminally ill patients. They also feel challenged by the actual conversation about CPR with the patients and their relatives. Despite talking them about CPR with patients and relatives is difficult, the study participants described that doing so is important, as it could be the start of a broader end-of-life conversation.

CONCLUSION

Talking with patient and relatives about CPR in end-stage heart failure, as suggested in the current heart failure guidelines, is a challenge in daily clinical practice. It is important to discuss the difficulties within the team and to decide whether, whom, how and when to talk about CPR with individual patients and their relatives.

Effects of person-centred and integrated chronic heart failure and palliative home care. PREFER: a randomized controlled study

AIMS

We evaluated the outcome of person-centred and integrated Palliative advanced home caRE and heart FailurE caRe (PREFER) with regard to patient symptoms, health-related quality of life (HQRL), and hospitalizations compared with usual care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2011 to October 2012, 36 (26 males, 10 females, mean age 81.9 years) patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA class III-IV) were randomized to PREFER and 36 (25 males, 11 females, mean age 76.6 years) to the control group at a single centre. Prospective assessments were made at 1, 3, and 6 months using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, Euro Qol, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and rehospitalizations. Between-group analysis revealed that patients receiving PREFER had improved HRQL compared with controls (57.6 ± 19.2 vs. 48.5 ± 24.4, age-adjusted P-value = 0.05). Within-group analysis revealed a 26% improvement in the PREFER group for HRQL (P = 0.046) compared with 3% (P = 0.82) in the control group. Nausea was improved in the PREFER group (2.4 ± 2.7 vs. 1.7 ± 1.7, P = 0.02), and total symptom burden, self-efficacy, and quality of life improved by 18% (P = 0.035), 17% (P = 0.041), and 24% (P = 0.047), respectively. NYHA class improved in 11 of the 28 (39%) PREFER patients compared with 3 of the 29 (10%) control patients (P = 0.015). Fifteen rehospitalizations (103 days) occurred in the PREFER group, compared with 53 (305 days) in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Person-centred care combined with active heart failure and palliative care at home has the potential to improve quality of life and morbidity substantially in patients with severe chronic heart failure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01304381.

Development of a practice tool for community-based nurses: the Heart Failure Palliative Approach to Care (HeFPAC)

BACKGROUND

Patients living with advanced heart failure (HF) require a palliative approach to reduce suffering. Nurses have described significant knowledge gaps about the disease-specific palliative care (PC) needs of these patients. An intervention is required to facilitate appropriate end-of-life care for HF patients.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to develop a user-friendly, evidence-informed HF-specific practice tool for community-based nurses to facilitate care and communication regarding a palliative approach to HF care.

METHODS

Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, we identified key HF-specific issues related to advanced HF care provision within the context of a palliative approach to care. Informed by current evidence and subsequent iterative consultation with community-based and specialist PC and HF nurses, a pocket guide tool for community-based nurses was created.

RESULTS

We developed the Heart Failure Palliative Approach to Care (HeFPAC) pocket guide to promote communication and a palliative approach to care for HF patients. The HeFPAC has potential to improve the quality of care and experiences for patients with advanced HF. It will be piloted in community-based practice and in a continuing education program for nurses.

CONCLUSION

The HeFPAC pocket guide offers PC nurses a concise, evidence-informed and practical point-of care tool to communicate with other clinicians and patients about key HF issues that are associated with improving disease-specific HF palliative care and the quality of life of patients and their families. Pilot testing will offer insight as to its utility and potential for modification for national and international use.

Palliative care consultations for heart failure patients: how many, when, and why?

OBJECTIVE

In preparation for development of a palliative care intervention for patients with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers, we aimed to characterize the HF population receiving palliative care consultations (PCCs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Reviewing charts from January 2006 to April 2011, we analyzed HF patient data including demographic and clinical characteristics, Seattle Heart Failure scores, and PCCs. Using Atlas qualitative software, we conducted a content analysis of PCC notes to characterize palliative care assessment and treatment recommendations. There were 132 HF patients with PCCs, of which 37% were New York Heart Association functional class III and 50% functional class IV. Retrospectively computed Seattle Heart Failure scores predicted 1-year mortality of 29% [interquartile range (IQR) 19-45] and median life expectancy of 2.8 years [IQR 1.6-4.2] years. Of the 132 HF patients, 115 (87%) had died by the time of the audit. In that cohort the actual median time from PCC to death was 21 [IQR 3-125] days. Reasons documented for PCCs included goals of care (80%), decision making (24%), hospice referral/discussion (24%), and symptom management (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recommendations, PCCs are not being initiated until the last month of life. Earlier referral for PCC may allow for integration of a broader array of palliative care services.

Examining the effects of an outpatient palliative care consultation on symptom burden, depression, and quality of life in patients with symptomatic heart failure

BACKGROUND

We conducted this prospective comparative study to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of a palliative care consultation along with standard heart failure care in an outpatient setting regarding symptom burden, depression, and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (53.6 ± 8.3 years old) were referred for an outpatient palliative care consultation after discharge. Changes in symptom burden, depression, and QOL at 3 months were compared with 36 patients with symptomatic heart failure matched on age, sex, race, and New York Heart Association functional class. Improvements were observed in symptom burden, depression, and QOL in both groups over time (all P < .005), but were more pronounced in patients receiving a palliative care consultation (all P < .035).

CONCLUSIONS

A palliative care consultation may reduce symptom burden and depression and enhance QOL in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Larger-scale randomized controlled trials sufficiently powered to assess clinical outcomes are warranted to determine the efficacy of palliative care services in outpatient settings regarding symptom distress, depression, and QOL in patients with symptomatic heart failure.