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

A. Oluyase, I. Higginson, D. Yi, W. Gao, C. Evans, G. Grande, C. Todd, M. Costantini, F. Murtagh, S. Bajwah
{"title":"Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review","authors":"A. Oluyase, I. Higginson, D. Yi, W. Gao, C. Evans, G. Grande, C. Todd, M. Costantini, F. Murtagh, S. Bajwah","doi":"10.3310/HSDR09120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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; I2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I2 = 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; I2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I2 = 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.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"1-218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/HSDR09120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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; I2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I2 = 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; I2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I2 = 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.
对患有晚期疾病的成年人及其护理人员的医院专科姑息治疗与常规护理的比较:一项系统综述
背景大多数死亡仍发生在医院;具有成本效益的报废资源试运行是一个优先事项。这篇综述阐明了以医院为基础的专业姑息治疗的有效性。目的评估以医院为基础的专科姑息治疗的有效性和成本效益。人口患有晚期疾病的成年患者及其无偿护理人员。以介入医院为基础的专业姑息治疗。比较者在进入研究时没有专业姑息治疗输入的住院或门诊医院护理,或在医院环境之外提供的社区护理或临终关怀(常规护理)。主要结果患者健康相关的生活质量和症状负担。数据来源截至2019年8月,共检索了六个数据库(Cochrane Library、MEDLINE、EMBASE、护理和相关健康文献累积索引、PsycINFO和CareSearch)、临床试验登记册、参考文献列表和系统综述。评审方法两名独立评审员筛选、提取数据并评估方法学质量。使用RevMan(The Cochrane Collaboration,The Nordic Cochrane Centre,Copenhagen,Denmark)进行荟萃分析,并单独合成定性数据。结果纳入了42项随机对照试验,涉及7779名参与者(6678名患者和1101名无偿护理人员)。参与者的诊断如下:癌症,21项研究;非癌症患者,14项研究;以及癌症和非癌症混合,七项研究。以医院为基础的专科姑息治疗以以下模式提供:病房为基础(一项研究)、住院咨询(10项研究),门诊(6项研究);在家或医院外展(5项研究)以及包括医院在内的多种环境(20项研究)。荟萃分析显示,在患者健康相关的生活质量(10项研究,标准化平均差0.26,95%置信区间0.15至0.37;I2=3%)和患者对护理的满意度(两项研究,标化平均差0.36,95%置信间隔0.14至0.57;I2=0%)方面,以医院为基础的专业姑息治疗比常规护理有显著改善,患者症状负担显著减轻(6项研究,标准化平均差异-0.26,95%置信区间-0.41至-0.12;I2=0%)和患者抑郁(8项研究,标化平均差异0.22,95%置信间隔-0.34至-0.10;I2=0),患者在首选地点死亡的几率显著增加(以家庭死亡患者人数衡量)(7项研究,比值比1.63,95%置信区间1.23~2.16;I2=0%)。疼痛(四项研究,标准化平均差异0.16,95%置信区间0.33至0.01;I2=0%)和患者焦虑(五项研究,平均差异0.63,95%置信间隔2.22至0.96;I2=76%)没有显著改善。医院的专业姑息治疗没有显示出造成严重伤害的证据。关于死亡率/存活率和成本效益的证据没有定论。定性研究(10项研究,322名参与者)表明,以医院为基础的专业姑息治疗是有益的,因为它确保了对患者及其家人的个性化和全面护理,同时也促进了开放的沟通、共同的决策以及尊重和同情的护理。限制在几乎一半的随机对照试验中,对照组参与了姑息治疗。结论以医院为基础的专业姑息治疗可以为以人为中心的结果带来好处,包括与健康相关的生活质量、症状负担、患者抑郁和对护理的满意度,同时也增加了患者在几乎没有伤害证据的情况下在自己喜欢的地方死亡的机会(以家庭死亡衡量)。未来的工作需要对非恶性疾病人群、不同的医院专业姑息治疗模式和成本效益进行更多的研究。研究注册本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42017083205。资助该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务与交付研究》上全文发表;第9卷第12期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信