Advanced heart failure: parenteral diuretics for breathlessness and peripheral oedema - systematic review

BACKGROUND

Advanced heart failure patients suffer with breathlessness and peripheral oedema, which are frequently treated with parenteral diuretics despite limited evidence.

AIM

To analyse the effectiveness of parenteral diuretics on breathlessness and peripheral oedema in advanced heart failure patients.

METHODS

We searched Embase, MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, CINAHL and CENTRAL from their respective inceptions to 2021, and performed handsearching, citation searching and grey literature search; limited to English publications. Selection criteria included parenteral (intravenous/subcutaneous) diuretic administration in advanced heart failure patients (New York Heart Association class III-IV). Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion; one author extracted data. Data were synthesised through narrative synthesis or meta-analysed as appropriate.

RESULTS

4646 records were screened; 6 trials (384 participants) were included. All were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous continuous furosemide infusion (CFI) versus intravenous bolus furosemide infusion (BFI). Improvement in breathlessness and peripheral oedema (two studies, n=161, OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 5.40; I2=0%), and increase in urine output (four studies, n=234, mean difference, MD 344.76, 95% CI 132.87 to 556.64; I2=44%), were statistically significant in favour of CFI. Significantly lower serum potassium was found in BFI compared with CFI (three studies, n=194, MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.01; I2=0%). There was no difference between CFI and BFI on reduction in weight, renal function or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

CFI appears to improve congestion in advanced heart failure patients in the short term. Available data came from small trials. Larger, prospective RCTs are recommended to address the evidence gap.

Adaptation and multicentre validation of a patient-centred outcome scale for people severely ill with COVID (IPOS-COV)

BACKGROUND

Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach.

METHODS

We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined.

RESULTS

In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died.

CONCLUSIONS

IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.

Prohibit, Protect, or Adapt? The Changing Role of Volunteers in Palliative and Hospice Care Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Multinational Survey (Covpall)

BACKGROUND

Volunteers are common within palliative care services, and provide support that enhances care quality. The support they provided, and any role changes, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are unknown. The aim of this study is to understand volunteer deployment and activities within palliative care services, and to identify what may affect any changes in volunteer service provision, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Multi-national online survey disseminated via key stakeholders to specialist palliative care services, completed by lead clinicians. Data collected on volunteer roles, deployment, and changes in volunteer engagement. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a multivariable logistic regression, and analysis of free-text comments using a content analysis approach.

RESULTS

458 respondents: 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, and 95 rest of the world. 68.5% indicated volunteer use pre-COVID-19 across a number of roles (from 458): direct patient facing support (58.7%), indirect support (52.0%), back office (48.5%) and fundraising (45.6%). 11% had volunteers with COVID-19. Of those responding to a question on change in volunteer deployment (328 of 458) most (256/328, 78%) indicated less or much less use of volunteers. Less use of volunteers was associated with being an in-patient hospice, (odds ratio [OR]=0.15, 95% CI=0.07-0.3, P<.001). This reduction in volunteers was felt to protect potentially vulnerable volunteers, with policy changes preventing volunteer support. However, adapting was also seen where new roles were created, or existing roles pivoted to provide virtual support.

CONCLUSION

Volunteers were mostly prevented from supporting many forms of palliative care which may have quality and safety implications given their previously central roles. Volunteer re-deployment plans are needed that take a more considered approach, using volunteers more flexibly to enhance care while ensuring safe working practices. Consideration needs to be given to widening the volunteer base away from those who may be considered to be most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Charitably funded hospices and the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study (CovPall)

Background

Independent charitably funded hospices have been an important element of the UK healthcare response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices usually have different funding streams, procurement processes, and governance arrangements compared to NHS provision, which may affect their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to understand the challenges faced by charitably funded hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Eligible Organisations providing specialist palliative or hospice care completed the online CovPall survey (2020) which explored their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible organisations were then purposively selected to participate in interviews as part of qualitative case studies (2020-21) to understand challenges in more depth. Free-text responses from the survey were analysed using content analysis and were categorised accordingly. These categorisations were used a priori for a reflexive thematic analysis of interview data.

Results

143 UK independent charitably funded hospices completed the online CovPall survey. Five hospices subsequently participated in qualitative case studies (n = 24 staff interviews). Key themes include: vulnerabilities of funding; infection control during patient care; and bereavement support provision. Interviewees discussed the fragility of income due to fundraising events stopping; the difficulties of providing care to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients within relatively small organisations; and challenges with maintaining the quality of bereavement services.

Conclusion

Some unique care and provision challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by charitably funded hospices. Funding core services charitably and independently may affect their ability to respond to pandemics, or scenarios where resources are unexpectedly insufficient.

Symptom Control and Survival for People Severely ill With COVID: A Multicentre Cohort Study (CovPall-Symptom)

CONTEXT

Evidence of symptom control outcomes in severe COVID is scant.

OBJECTIVES

To determine changes in symptoms among people severely ill or dying with COVID supported by palliative care, and associations with treatments and survival.

METHODS

Multicentre cohort study of people with COVID across England and Wales supported by palliative care services, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. We analysed clinical, demographic and survival data, symptom severity at baseline (referral to palliative care, first COVID assessment) and at three follow-up assessments using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - COVID version.

RESULTS

We included 572 patients from 25 services, mostly hospital support teams; 496 (87%) were newly referred to palliative care with COVID, 75 (13%) were already supported by palliative care when they contracted COVID. At baseline, patients had a mean of 2.4 co-morbidities, mean age 77 years, a mean of five symptoms, and were often bedfast or semiconscious. The most prevalent symptoms were: breathlessness, weakness/lack of energy, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, confusion/delirium, and pain. Median time in palliative care was 46 hours; 77% of patients died. During palliative care, breathlessness, agitation, anxiety, delirium, cough, fever, pain, sore/dry mouth and nausea improved; drowsiness became worse. Common treatments were low dose morphine and midazolam. Having moderate to severe breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity were associated with shorter survival.

CONCLUSION

Symptoms of COVID quickly improved during palliative care. Breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity could be used as triggers for timelier referral, and symptom guidance for wider specialities should build on treatments identified in this study.

Experiences of staff providing specialist palliative care during COVID-19: a multiple qualitative case study

Objective

To explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

Qualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.

Setting

Organisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting.

Participants

Staff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience.

Main outcome measures

Experiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Five cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants’ ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a ‘crescendo effect’ in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided ‘moral comfort’ for some.

Conclusions

This study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.

Change in Activity of Palliative Care Services during the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Multinational Survey (CovPall)

Objectives:

To identify factors associated with palliative care services being busier during Covid-19.

Methods:

Cross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services (April to July 2020) (CovPall). Ethical approval was received from King's College London Research Ethics committee (LRS-19/20-18541). The primary outcome was change in busyness (five-point ordinal scale). Ordinal logistic regression investigated factors associated with the primary outcome.

Results:

Of 277 responses, 71 (26%) reported being a lot more busy, 62 (22%) slightly more, 53 (19%) about the same, 50 (18%) slightly less, and 28 (10%) much less busy. Increased business was associated with homecare services (odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–3.25), nursing care at home (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.70–6.19), publicly managed services (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.11–4.34), Covid-19 cases (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01), and staff shortages (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64–4.48).

Conclusion:

Services providing community care, and publicly managed services, may have been better able to respond to escalating needs during Covid-19. This has potential implications for both service delivery and funding models.

The Challenges of Caring for People Dying From COVID-19: A Multinational, Observational Study (CovPall)

CONTEXT

Systematic data on the care of people dying with COVID-19 are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To understand the response of and challenges faced by palliative care services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and identify associated factors.

METHODS

We surveyed palliative care and hospice services, contacted via relevant organizations. Multivariable logistic regression identified associations with challenges. Content analysis explored free text responses.

RESULTS

A total of 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world; 81% cared for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, 77% had staff with suspected or confirmed COVID-19; 48% reported shortages of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), 40% staff shortages, 24% medicines shortages, 14% shortages of other equipment. Services provided direct care and education in symptom management and communication; 91% changed how they worked. Care often shifted to increased community and hospital care, with fewer admissions to inpatient palliative care units. Factors associated with increased odds of PPE shortages were: charity rather than public management (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.81-5.20), inpatient palliative care unit rather than other settings (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.46-3.75). Being outside the UK was associated with lower odds of staff shortages (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.76). Staff described increased workload, concerns for their colleagues who were ill, whilst expending time struggling to get essential equipment and medicines, perceiving they were not a front-line service.

CONCLUSION

Palliative care services were often overwhelmed, yet felt ignored in the COVID-19 response. Palliative care needs better integration with health care systems when planning and responding to future epidemics/pandemics.

Understanding and addressing challenges for advance care planning in the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the UK CovPall survey data from specialist palliative care services

BACKGROUND

Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt.

AIM

Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations.

DESIGN

Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services' response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges.

RESPONDENTS

Two hundred and seventy-seven services.

RESULTS

More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model.

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.

Do the Clinical Management Guidelines for Covid-19 in African Countries Reflect the African Quality Palliative Care Standards? A Review of Current Guidelines

CONTEXT

Palliative care should be a component of COVID-19 management to relieve suffering, improve patient outcomes and save cost.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify and critically appraise the palliative care recommendations within COVID-19 case management guidelines in African countries.

METHODS

The study employed systematic guideline review design. All guidelines from any country in Africa, of any language, published between December 2019 and June 2020 were retrieved through online search and email to in-country key contacts. We conducted a content analysis of the palliative care recommendations within the guidelines and appraised the recommendations using African Palliative Care Association standards for providing quality palliative care.

RESULTS

We retrieved documents from 29 of 54 African countries. Fifteen documents from 15 countries were included in the final analysis, of which eight countries have identifiable PC recommendations in their COVID-19 management guidelines. Of these eight, only one country (South Sudan) provided comprehensive palliative care recommendations covering the domains of physical, psychological, social and spiritual wellbeing, two (Namibia and Uganda) addressed only physical and psychological wellbeing while the remaining five countries addressed only physical symptom management.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive palliative care which addresses physical, psychological, social and spiritual concerns must be prioritized within case management guidelines in African countries.

'Necessity is the mother of invention': Specialist palliative care service innovation and practice change in response to COVID-19. Results from a multinational survey (CovPall)

BACKGROUND

Specialist palliative care services have a key role in a whole system response to COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is a need to understand service response to share good practice and prepare for future care.

AIM

To map and understand specialist palliative care services innovations and practice changes in response to COVID-19.

DESIGN

Online survey of specialist palliative care providers (CovPall), disseminated via key stakeholders. Data collected on service characteristics, innovations and changes in response to COVID-19. Statistical analysis included frequencies, proportions and means, and free-text comments were analysed using a qualitative framework approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Inpatient palliative care units, home nursing services, hospital and home palliative care teams from any country.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-eight respondents: 277 UK, 85 Europe (except UK), 95 World (except UK and Europe), 1 missing country. 54.8% provided care across 2+ settings; 47.4% hospital palliative care teams, 57% in-patient palliative care units and 57% home palliative care teams. The crisis context meant services implemented rapid changes. Changes involved streamlining, extending and increasing outreach of services, using technology to facilitate communication, and implementing staff wellbeing innovations. Barriers included; fear and anxiety, duplication of effort, information overload and funding. Enablers included; collaborative teamwork, staff flexibility, a pre-existing IT infrastructure and strong leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist palliative care services have been flexible, highly adaptive and have adopted low-cost solutions, also called 'frugal innovations', in response to COVID-19. In addition to financial support, greater collaboration is essential to minimise duplication of effort and optimise resource use.ISRCTN16561225 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16561225.

Patient and public involvement in palliative care research: What works, and why? A qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Public involvement is increasingly considered a prerequisite for high-quality research. However, involvement in palliative care is impeded by limited evidence on the best approaches for populations affected by life-limiting illness.

AIM

To evaluate a strategy for public involvement in palliative care and rehabilitation research, to identify successful approaches and areas for improvement.

DESIGN

Co-produced qualitative evaluation using focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis undertaken by research team comprising public contributors and researchers.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Researchers and public members from a palliative care and rehabilitation research institute, UK.

RESULTS

Seven public members and 19 researchers participated. Building and maintaining relationships, taking a flexible approach and finding the 'right' people were important for successful public involvement. Relationship building created a safe environment for discussing sensitive topics, although public members felt greater consideration of emotional support was needed. Flexibility supported involvement alongside unpredictable circumstances of chronic and life-limiting illness, and was facilitated by responsive communication, and opportunities for in-person and virtual involvement at a project- and institution-level. However, more opportunities for two-way feedback throughout projects was suggested. Finding the 'right' people was crucial given the diverse population served by palliative care, and participants suggested more care needed to be taken to identify public members with experience relevant to specific projects.

CONCLUSION

Within palliative care research, it is important for involvement to focus on building and maintaining relationships, working flexibly, and identifying those with relevant experience. Taking a strategic approach and developing adequate infrastructure and networks can facilitate public involvement within this field.

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.