Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care. A palliative-care intervention and death at home: a cluster randomised trial. A psycho-educational intervention for family caregivers of patients receiving palliative care: a randomized controlled trial. Reducing emotional distress in people caring for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Randomised trial. Effectiveness of palliative care services in symptom control of patients with advanced terminal cancer: a spanish, multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental, pre-post study. Does hospital at home for palliative care facilitate death at home? Randomised controlled trial. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. Randomised controlled trial of effects of coordinating care for terminally ill cancer patients. Evaluation of a hospital-based palliative support service with particular regard to financial outcome measures.
To determine whether an in-home palliative care intervention for terminally ill patients can improve patient satisfaction, reduce medical care costs, and increase the proportion of patients dying at home.
                A randomized, controlled trial.
                Two health maintenance organizations in two states.
                Homebound, terminally ill patients (N=298) with a prognosis of approximately 1 year or less to live plus one or more hospital or emergency department visits in the previous 12 months.
                Usual versus in-home palliative care plus usual care delivered by an interdisciplinary team providing pain and symptom relief, patient and family education and training, and an array of medical and social support services.
                Measured outcomes were satisfaction with care, use of medical services, site of death, and costs of care.
                Patients randomized to in-home palliative care reported greater improvement in satisfaction with care at 30 and 90 days after enrollment (P<.05) and were more likely to die at home than those receiving usual care (P<.001). In addition, in-home palliative care subjects were less likely to visit the emergency department (P=.01) or be admitted to the hospital than those receiving usual care (P<.001), resulting in significantly lower costs of care for intervention patients (P=.03).
                In-home palliative care significantly increased patient satisfaction while reducing use of medical services and costs of medical care at the end of life. This study, although modest in scope, presents strong evidence for reforming end-of-life care. The Palliative Medicine Unit at University Hospital of Trondheim, Norway, started an intervention programme that aims to enable patients to spend more time at home and die there if they prefer. Close cooperation was needed with the community health-care professionals, who acted as the principal formal caregivers, and a multidisciplinary consultant team coordinated the care. We did a cluster randomised trial to assess the intervention's effectiveness compared with conventional care
                Community health-care districts in and around Trondheim, Norway, were defined as the clusters to be randomised. We enrolled 434 patients (235 assigned intervention and 199 conventional care [controls]) in these districts who had incurable malignant disease and an expected survival of 2-9 months. Main outcomes were place of death and time spent in institutions in the last month of life.
                395 patients died. Of these, more intervention patients than controls died at home (54 [25%] vs 26 [15%], p<0.05). The time spent at home was not significantly increased, although intervention patients spent a smaller proportion of time in nursing homes in the last month of life than did controls (7.2 vs 14.6%, p<0.05). Hospital use was similar in the two groups.
                The palliative-care intervention enabled more patients to die at home. More resources for care in the home (palliative care training and staff) and an increased focus on use of nursing homes would be necessary, however, to increase time at home and reduce hospital admissions. This study describes an evaluation of a psycho-educational intervention for family caregivers of patients dying of cancer at home. In a randomized controlled trial, participants (n = 106) received standard home-based palliative care services (n = 52) or these services plus the new intervention (n = 54). Data were collected at three time points: upon commencement of home-based palliative care (Time 1), five weeks later (Time 2), and then eight weeks following patient death (Time 3). No intervention effects were identified with respect to preparedness to care, self-efficacy, competence, and anxiety. However, participants who received the intervention reported a significantly more positive caregiver experience than those who received standard care at both Times 2 and 3. The findings indicate that it is possible to increase caregiver rewards despite being immersed in challenging circumstances that often yield considerable negative psychosocial sequelae. Furthermore, it is feasible for health professionals to discuss emotive topics, such as impending death, with caregivers without adverse effects. Caring for relatives with advanced cancer may cause psychological and physical ill health.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of increased support for distressed, informal carers of patients receiving palliative care.
                The sample was composed of 271 informal carers who scored over 5 on the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). The intervention comprised six weekly visits by a trained advisor. Primary outcome was carer distress (GHQ-28) at 4-week, 9-week and 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were carer strain and quality of life, satisfaction with care, and bereavement outcome.
                Scores on the GHQ-28 fell below the threshold of 5/6 in a third of participants in each trial arm at any follow-up point. Mean scores in the intervention group were lower at all time points but these differences were not significant. No difference was observed in secondary outcomes. Carers receiving the intervention reported qualitative benefit.
                The intervention might have been too brief, and ongoing help might have had accruing benefits. Alternatively, informal carers of patients with cancer may already receive considerable input and the advisor's help gave little additional advantage; or caring for a dying relative is extremely stressful and no amount of support is going to make it much better. In implementing the National Strategy of Palliative Care in Spain, there needs to be an evaluation of services, especially of their effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of patients and families.
                To assess the effectiveness of palliative care services (PCS) in improving symptom control in Spain.
                This multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention study evaluated symptoms, such as pain, breakthrough pain, anorexia, nausea/vomiting, constipation, insomnia, dyspnea at rest and with movement, anxiety, and depression, using patient-reported numeric rating scales on Days 0, 7, and 14 after referral to a PCS.
                Of the 318 PCSs included in the National Directory for 2004, 105 services in the 17 autonomous regions of Spain were able to report 265 eligible (treatment-naïve) patients. Nonparticipation by some centers was because of excessive workload or because their patients were not treatment-naïve. Median survival was 42 days. Pain severity and number of crises of breakthrough pain significantly improved, as did other indicators of patient satisfaction. Symptom improvement was independent of type of service (in acute bed hospitals, medium-term stay facilities, hospital support teams, home care support teams, and outpatient clinics).
                Our national plan appears to be successful in reducing symptoms irrespective of the type of organization providing the PCS. An area for improvement could be to lessen the workload of individual teams.
                Copyright © 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. To evaluate the impact on place of death of a hospital at home service for palliative care.
                Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting: Former Cambridge health district.
                229 patients referred to the hospital at home service; 43 randomised to control group (standard care), 186 randomised to hospital at home.
                Hospital at home versus standard care.
                Place of death.
                Twenty five (58%) control patients died at home compared with 124 (67%) patients allocated to hospital at home. This difference was not significant; intention to treat analysis did not show that hospital at home increased the number of deaths at home. Seventy three patients randomised to hospital at home were not admitted to the service. Patients admitted to hospital at home were significantly more likely to die at home (88/113; 78%) than control patients. It is not possible to determine whether this was due to hospital at home itself or other characteristics of the patients admitted to the service. The study attained less statistical power than initially planned.
                In a locality with good provision of standard community care we could not show that hospital at home allowed more patients to die at home, although neither does the study refute this. Problems relating to recruitment, attrition, and the vulnerability of the patient group make randomised controlled trials in palliative care difficult. While these difficulties have to be recognised they are not insurmountable with the appropriate resourcing and setting. To evaluate a palliative care home support team based on an inpatient unit.
                Randomised controlled trial with waiting list. Patients in the study group received the service immediately, those in the control group received it after one month. Main comparison point was at one month.
                A city of 300,000 people with a publicly funded home care service and about 200 general practitioners, most of whom provide home care.
                Pain and nausea levels were measured at entry to trial and at one month, as were quality of life for patients and care givers' health.
                Because of early deaths, problems with recruitment, and a low compliance rate for completion of questionnaires, the required sample size was not attained.
                In designing evaluations of palliative care services, investigators should be prepared to deal with the following issues: attrition due to early death, opposition to randomisation by patients and referral sources, ethical problems raised by randomisation of dying patients, the appropriate timing of comparison points, and difficulties of collecting data from sick or exhausted patients and care givers. Investigators may choose to evaluate a service from various perspectives using different methods: controlled trials, qualitative studies, surveys, and audits. Randomised trials may prove to be impracticable for evaluation of palliative care. To measure effects on terminally ill cancer patients and their families of coordinating the services available within the NHS and from local authorities and the voluntary sector.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Inner London health district.
                Cancer patients were routinely notified from 1987 to 1990. 554 patients expected to survive less than one year entered the trial and were randomly allocated to a coordination or a control group.
                All patients received routinely available services. Coordination group patients received the assistance of two nurse coordinators, whose role was to ensure that patients received appropriate and well coordinated services, tailored to their individual needs and circumstances.
                Patients and carers were interviewed at home on entry to the trial and at intervals until death. Interviews after bereavement were also conducted. Outcome measures included the presence and severity of physical symptoms, psychiatric morbidity, use of and satisfaction with services, and carers' problems. Results from the baseline interview, the interview closest to death, and the interview after bereavement were analysed.
                Few differences between groups were significant. Coordination group patients were less likely to suffer from vomiting, were more likely to report effective treatment for it, and less likely to be concerned about having an itchy skin. Their carers were more likely to report that in the last week of life the patient had had a cough and had had effective treatment for constipation, and they were less likely to rate the patient's difficulty swallowing as severe or to report effective treatment for anxiety. Coordination group patients were more likely to have seen a chiropodist and their carers were more likely to contact a specialist nurse in a night time emergency. These carers were less likely to feel angry about the death of the patient.
                This coordinating service made little difference to patient or family outcomes, perhaps because the service did not have a budget with which it could obtain services or because the professional skills of the nurse-coordinators may have conflicted with the requirements of the coordinating role. The object of this study was a financial assessment of a hospital-based palliative support service, to be made by comparing the study group with a matched historical control group and a group of contemporary reference patients. The staff consisted of one full-time nurse supported by a surgeon one half-day per week. The patients in the study group utilized fewer institutional days than the control group, according to such parameters as duration of terminal hospitalization (P < 0.05), ratio of days at home to total inclusion days (P < 0.001), and days at home during last two months of life (P < 0.01). These three outcome measures all focus on the most care-intensive last months of life and appeared to be sensitive enough to identify economic advantages of palliative care intervention. The palliative support service defrayed its own costs and in excess of that saved another SK17000 per patient (US$2500).
The results provide clear and reliable evidence that home palliative care increases the chance of dying at home and reduces symptom burden in particular for patients with cancer, without impacting on caregiver grief. This justifies providing home palliative care for patients who wish to die at home. More work is needed to study cost-effectiveness especially for people with non-malignant conditions, assessing place of death and appropriate outcomes that are sensitive to change and valid in these populations, and to compare different models of home palliative care, in powered studies.