Optimum models of hospice at home services for end-of-life care in England: a realist-informed mixed-methods evaluation

C. Butler, P. Wilson, V. Abrahamson, Rasa Mikelyte, H. Gage, Peter Williams, Charlotte Brigden, Brooke Swash, M. Rees-Roberts, G. Silsbury, Mary Goodwin, Kay Greene, B. Wee, S. Barclay
{"title":"Optimum models of hospice at home services for end-of-life care in England: a realist-informed mixed-methods evaluation","authors":"C. Butler, P. Wilson, V. Abrahamson, Rasa Mikelyte, H. Gage, Peter Williams, Charlotte Brigden, Brooke Swash, M. Rees-Roberts, G. Silsbury, Mary Goodwin, Kay Greene, B. Wee, S. Barclay","doi":"10.3310/msay4464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Many people prefer to die at home when the time comes. Hospice at home services aim to support patients to achieve this. A range of hospice at home services exist; some services have been evaluated, but there has been limited evidence synthesis.\n \n \n \n The main objective was to find out what models of hospice at home services work best, for whom and in what circumstances. Other objectives supported this aim, including an analysis of the health economic costs of hospice at home models.\n \n \n \n The study was an overarching, non-interventional, realist evaluation comprising three phases. Phase 1 was a survey of hospice at home services. Phase 2 involved 12 case studies, grouped into four models on the basis of size and 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (24/7), operations, from which quantitative and health economics data were gathered. Qualitative interview data from bereaved carers, commissioners and providers were analysed to generate context–mechanism–outcome configurations. Phase 3 comprised stakeholder consensus meetings.\n \n \n \n Hospice at home services across England.\n \n \n \n A total of 70 hospice at home managers responded to the survey. A total of 339 patient and family/informal carer dyads were recruited; 85 hospice at home providers and commissioners were interviewed. A total of 88 stakeholders participated in consensus meetings.\n \n \n \n The quality of dying and death of patients was assessed by bereaved carers (using the Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire). A patient’s use of services was collected using the Ambulatory and Home Care Record.\n \n \n \n Hospice at home services varied; two-thirds were mainly charitably funded, and not all operated 24/7. Most patients (77%) had cancer. Hospice at home services overall provided care that was likely to deliver ‘a good death’, and 73% of patients died in their preferred place. Six context–mechanism–outcome configurations captured factors relevant to providing optimum hospice at home services: (1) sustainability (of the hospice at home service); (2) volunteers (use of, in the hospice at home service); (3) integration and co-ordination (with the wider health and social care system); (4) marketing and referral (of the hospice at home service); (5) knowledge, skills and ethos (of hospice at home staff); and (6) support directed at the carer at home. Key markers of a good service included staff who had time to care, providing hands-on care; staff whose knowledge and behaviour promoted supportive relationships and confidence through the process of dying; and services attending to the needs of the informal carer. Areas of potential improvement for most hospice at home services were the use of volunteers in hospice at home, and bereavement care.\n \n \n \n The study had the following limitations – heterogeneity of hospice at home services, variations in numbers and patient clinical statuses at recruitment, a low Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire response rate, and missing data. Only patients with an informal carer involved on a daily basis were eligible for the study.\n \n \n \n Hospice at home services delivered high-quality care and a ‘good death’, with the majority of patients dying in their stated preferred place. Hospice at home providers can improve their impact by focusing on the features identified that deliver the best patient outcomes. Commissioners can facilitate patient preference and reduce the number of hospital deaths by working with hospice at home services to secure their financial sustainability and increase the numbers and range of patients admitted to hospice at home services.\n \n \n \n Future research should explore the use of volunteers in the hospice at home setting and evaluate approaches to bereavement support.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/msay4464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Many people prefer to die at home when the time comes. Hospice at home services aim to support patients to achieve this. A range of hospice at home services exist; some services have been evaluated, but there has been limited evidence synthesis. The main objective was to find out what models of hospice at home services work best, for whom and in what circumstances. Other objectives supported this aim, including an analysis of the health economic costs of hospice at home models. The study was an overarching, non-interventional, realist evaluation comprising three phases. Phase 1 was a survey of hospice at home services. Phase 2 involved 12 case studies, grouped into four models on the basis of size and 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (24/7), operations, from which quantitative and health economics data were gathered. Qualitative interview data from bereaved carers, commissioners and providers were analysed to generate context–mechanism–outcome configurations. Phase 3 comprised stakeholder consensus meetings. Hospice at home services across England. A total of 70 hospice at home managers responded to the survey. A total of 339 patient and family/informal carer dyads were recruited; 85 hospice at home providers and commissioners were interviewed. A total of 88 stakeholders participated in consensus meetings. The quality of dying and death of patients was assessed by bereaved carers (using the Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire). A patient’s use of services was collected using the Ambulatory and Home Care Record. Hospice at home services varied; two-thirds were mainly charitably funded, and not all operated 24/7. Most patients (77%) had cancer. Hospice at home services overall provided care that was likely to deliver ‘a good death’, and 73% of patients died in their preferred place. Six context–mechanism–outcome configurations captured factors relevant to providing optimum hospice at home services: (1) sustainability (of the hospice at home service); (2) volunteers (use of, in the hospice at home service); (3) integration and co-ordination (with the wider health and social care system); (4) marketing and referral (of the hospice at home service); (5) knowledge, skills and ethos (of hospice at home staff); and (6) support directed at the carer at home. Key markers of a good service included staff who had time to care, providing hands-on care; staff whose knowledge and behaviour promoted supportive relationships and confidence through the process of dying; and services attending to the needs of the informal carer. Areas of potential improvement for most hospice at home services were the use of volunteers in hospice at home, and bereavement care. The study had the following limitations – heterogeneity of hospice at home services, variations in numbers and patient clinical statuses at recruitment, a low Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire response rate, and missing data. Only patients with an informal carer involved on a daily basis were eligible for the study. Hospice at home services delivered high-quality care and a ‘good death’, with the majority of patients dying in their stated preferred place. Hospice at home providers can improve their impact by focusing on the features identified that deliver the best patient outcomes. Commissioners can facilitate patient preference and reduce the number of hospital deaths by working with hospice at home services to secure their financial sustainability and increase the numbers and range of patients admitted to hospice at home services. Future research should explore the use of volunteers in the hospice at home setting and evaluate approaches to bereavement support. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
英国临终关怀家庭服务的最佳模型:现实主义知情混合方法评估
时机成熟时,许多人宁愿死在家里。家庭临终关怀服务旨在支持患者实现这一目标。有一系列的家庭临终关怀服务;已经对一些服务进行了评估,但综合证据有限。主要目的是找出什么样的家庭临终关怀服务模式最有效,对谁最有效,在什么情况下最有效。其他目标支持了这一目标,包括分析家庭临终关怀模式的健康经济成本。该研究是一项总体的、非干预性的、现实主义的评估,包括三个阶段。第一阶段是对临终关怀家庭服务的调查。第二阶段涉及12个案例研究,根据规模和每周7天、每天24小时(24/7)的操作分为四个模型,从中收集定量和健康经济学数据。对来自丧亲护理人员、专员和提供者的定性访谈数据进行了分析,以生成背景-机制-结果配置。第三阶段包括利益相关者协商会议。英国各地的家庭临终关怀服务。共有70名临终关怀院管理人员对调查做出了回应。共招募了339名患者和家庭/非正式护理人员;85名家庭临终关怀服务提供者和专员接受了采访。共有88个利益攸关方参加了协商一致会议。患者的死亡和死亡质量由丧亲护理人员评估(使用死亡和死亡的质量问卷)。使用门诊和家庭护理记录收集患者的服务使用情况。家庭临终关怀服务各不相同;三分之二的资金主要来自慈善机构,并非所有机构都全天候运作。大多数患者(77%)患有癌症。总体而言,家庭临终关怀服务提供的护理可能会带来“好的死亡”,73%的患者在他们喜欢的地方死亡。六种情境-机制-结果配置捕捉了与提供最佳临终关怀服务相关的因素:(1)(临终关怀服务的)可持续性;(2) 志愿者(在临终关怀服务中使用);(3) 整合和协调(与更广泛的卫生和社会护理系统);(4) 营销和推荐(在家临终关怀服务);(5) (家庭临终关怀工作人员的)知识、技能和精神;以及(6)针对家中护理人员的支持。良好服务的关键标志包括有时间护理的工作人员,提供亲自护理;其知识和行为在死亡过程中促进了支持关系和信心的工作人员;以及满足非正式看护人需求的服务。大多数家庭临终关怀服务的潜在改进领域是在家庭临终关怀和丧亲护理中使用志愿者。该研究存在以下局限性——家庭临终关怀服务的异质性、招募时人数和患者临床状态的差异、死亡和死亡质量问卷的低应答率以及数据缺失。只有每天有非正式护理人员参与的患者才有资格参加这项研究。家庭临终关怀服务提供了高质量的护理和“良好的死亡”,大多数患者都在他们指定的首选地点死亡。家庭临终关怀服务提供者可以通过关注已确定的能为患者带来最佳结果的功能来提高其影响力。专员可以通过与家庭临终关怀服务合作,确保其财务可持续性,并增加接受家庭临终关怀的患者数量和范围,从而促进患者的偏好,减少医院死亡人数。未来的研究应该探索志愿者在临终关怀家庭环境中的使用,并评估丧亲支持的方法。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第24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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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