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. Improving end-of-life care: development and pilot-test of a clinical pathway. Caregiver bereavement outcome: relationship with hospice at home, satisfaction with care, and home death. Improving the use of hospice services in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial. A quality improvement intervention to increase palliative care in nursing homes. Characteristics and quality of life of patients who choose home care at the end of life. Reducing emotional distress in people caring for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Randomised trial. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls.
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. Prior studies have revealed deficiencies in the care provided to patients dying from advanced medical illnesses in acute care hospitals. These deficiencies are best addressed through system change, which may include the development of clinical pathways and quality improvement models. The Palliative Care for Advanced Disease (PCAD) pathway was developed by an interdisciplinary team and includes a carepath, a daily flowsheet, and a physician order sheet with standard orders for symptom control. To evaluate the utility of PCAD, the clinical pathway was introduced on three hospital units (Oncology, Geriatrics, and an inpatient palliative care/hospice unit) as part of a quality improvement initiative and outcomes were compared to two general medical units receiving usual care. A chart audit tool (CAT) was used to review medical records of 101 patients who died on one of these five units during the year prior to implementation (baseline) and 156 who died during the nine months of the PCAD intervention. Four indices from CAT evaluated change over time: the mean number of 1) symptoms assessed, 2) problematic symptoms, 3) interventions consistent with PCAD, and 4) consultations requested. Nine of 27 (33%) patients on the Oncology/Geriatrics units and all 50 patients who died on the palliative care/hospice unit were placed on PCAD. During the PCAD intervention, dying patients who resided on Geriatrics, Oncology and palliative care/hospice units were more likely to have DNR orders than the comparison units, whereas the comparison units were more likely to use "morphine infusions" and cardiopulmonary resuscitation than the units that received the PCAD intervention. The mean number of symptoms assessed increased significantly in all units (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The number of problematic symptoms identified (P=0.014) and the number of interventions consistent with PCAD increased only on the palliative care/hospice unit (P=0.021). The number of medical consultations declined on all units and reached significance on the Geriatrics and Oncology units (P=0.037). Although these results reflect less than one year of the PCAD intervention and must be considered preliminary, they suggest that 1) a clinical pathway such as PCAD can serve as a managerial and educational tool to improve the care of the imminently dying inpatient; 2) a PCAD clinical pathway can be implemented on hospital units as a quality improvement initiative--a "PCAD intervention;" 3) a PCAD intervention can change outcomes in a positive direction, as measured using a chart audit tool; 4) a PCAD intervention can promote aggressive symptom assessment and treatment when goals of care are aimed at comfort; and 5) changes may occur in units that do not directly receive the intervention, a phenomenon that suggests the possibility of diffusion. Further study of this systems-oriented approach to change is warranted and should include direct assessment of patient and family outcomes, as well as measures of process. This study used a randomized controlled trial design to investigate the impact of hospice at home (HAH) on caregiver bereavement outcome. Secondary analyses considered the association between bereavement, place of death, and carers' assessment of support. Ninety-six informal carers of patients referred to HAH were surveyed six weeks post-bereavement about the quality of terminal care. Carers next completed measures of their own bereavement response and general health six months post-bereavement. There was no evidence that HAH had an impact on bereavement outcome. In contrast, perceptions of inadequate terminal support and high symptom severity were associated with worse carer bereavement response. However, it remains unclear whether carers' retrospective ratings constitute an accurate account of symptoms and care. Home deaths were associated with both better bereavement response and better physical health post-bereavement than were inpatient deaths. Further research is needed to investigate the implications of death at home for the carer. Hospice care may improve the quality of end-of-life care for nursing home residents, but hospice is underutilized by this population, at least in part because physicians are not aware of their patients' preferences.
                To determine whether it is possible to increase hospice utilization and improve the quality of end-of-life care by identifying residents whose goals and preferences are consistent with hospice care.
                Randomized controlled trial (December 2003-December 2004) of nursing home residents and their surrogate decision makers (N=205) in 3 US nursing homes.
                A structured interview identified residents whose goals for care, treatment preferences, and palliative care needs made them appropriate for hospice care. These residents' physicians were notified and asked to authorize a hospice informational visit.
                The primary outcome measures were (1) hospice enrollment within 30 days of the intervention and (2) families' ratings of the quality of care for residents who died during the 6-month follow-up period.
                Of the 205 residents in the study sample, 107 were randomly assigned to receive the intervention, and 98 received usual care. Intervention residents were more likely than usual care residents to enroll in hospice within 30 days (21/107 [20%] vs 1/98 [1%]; P<.001 [Fisher exact test]) and to enroll in hospice during the follow-up period (27/207 [25%] vs 6/98 [6%]; P<.001). Intervention residents had fewer acute care admissions (mean: 0.28 vs 0.49; P = .04 [Wilcoxon rank sum test]) and spent fewer days in an acute care setting (mean: 1.2 vs 3.0; P = .03 [Wilcoxon rank sum test]). Families of intervention residents rated the resident's care more highly than did families of usual care residents (mean on a scale of 1-5: 4.1 vs 2.5; P = .04 [Wilcoxon rank sum test]).
                A simple communication intervention can increase rates of hospice referrals and families' ratings of end-of-life care and may also decrease utilization of acute care resources. Death is common in nursing homes, but access to palliative care is limited.
                To test whether a quality improvement (QI) intervention in nursing homes increases hospice, pain management, and advance care planning.
                The QI intervention was tested in seven nursing homes using a prepoststudy design. Two additional nursing homes served as control sites.
                Nine nursing homes serving 1169 residents.
                The intervention included recruitment and training of Palliative Care Leadership Teams in each facility, followed by six technical assistance meetings for team members. Hospice providers delivered six educational sessions for all nursing home staff using a structured curriculum. Teams received feedback of performance data on hospice enrollment, pain management, and advance care planning at 0, 3, and 6 months.
                Percentage of residents receiving hospice or palliative services, pain assessment, pain treatment among residents in pain, and documented advance care planning discussions.
                Intervention facilities increased hospice enrollment from 4.0% of residents at baseline to 6.8% postintervention (p = .01) and increased pain assessments from 18% to 60% (p < .001). Among resident in pain, orders for nonpharmacologic pain treatments increased from 15% to 35% (p < .001), but pain medication use did not change. Residents with in-depth discussions about end-of-life care increased from 4% to 17% (p < .001). There were no significant changes in control sites.
                A quality improvement intervention was effective in increasing hospice enrollment, pain assessment, nonpharmacologic pain treatment, and advance care planning discussions. Cancer patients with advanced disease and short-survival expectancy were given hospital-based advanced home care (AHC) or conventional care (CC), according to their preference. The two groups were compared at baseline to investigate whether there were differences between the AHC and the CC patients that may help explain their choice of care. The patients were consecutively recruited over 2(1/2) years. Sociodemographic and medical data, and the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of the two groups were compared. HRQL was assessed using a self-reporting questionnaire, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Impact of Event Scale (IES), five questions about social support, and two items concerning general well-being. The AHC group showed significantly poorer functioning on all the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and an overall higher symptom burden than the CC patients. Fewer of the AHC patients were receiving cancer treatment. The AHC patients had lived longer with their cancer diagnosis, had a significantly shorter survival after study enrollment, and a significantly poorer performance status. The major differences between the two groups seemed to be related to being at different stages in their disease. The results indicate that patients are reluctant to accept home care until absolutely necessary due to severity of functioning impairments and symptom burden. These findings should be taken into consideration in planning palliative care services. 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. 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.
The evidence included in this review supports the use of end of life home-care programmes for increasing the number of patients who will die at home, although the numbers of patients being admitted to hospital while receiving end of life care should be monitored. Future research should also systematically assess the impact of end of life home care on care givers.