Abstract
Background Ageing populations necessitate increased focus on home-based care. The best models and components for community-based palliative and end-of-life care are unknown.
Aim To identify and synthesise review-level evidence on models of palliative and end-of-life care for adults living at home, and examine components of these models and their association with outcomes.
Design A review of narrative, scoping and systematic reviews, using key concepts established a priori from Firth et al. and Brereton et al.’s model descriptions. Quality assessment used AMSTAR-2 or equivalent.
Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Epistemonikos searched from inception to August 2024, supplemented by CareSearch, PROSPERO, and citation searches.
Results From 6683 initial papers, n=66 reviews were included. Seven models of care were identified; by setting (in-home, outpatient); type of professionals (specialist, integrated, non-specialist); or mode (telehealth, education/training). Components included: holistic person-centred assessment, skilled professionals, access to medicines/care/equipment, patient/family support, advance care planning, integration of services, virtual/remote technology, and education. We categorised outcomes into: i) patient outcomes, ii) family/informal caregiver outcomes, iii) professional outcomes, and iv) service utilisation/cost outcomes. The ‘in-home palliative care’ model was most researched with good evidence of positive benefit. Specialist and integrated models of care were next most researched, with evidence of improved patient and service utilisation outcomes. Cost-effectiveness evidence was lacking.
Conclusion This meta-level evidence supports provision of in-home palliative care, with most review level evidence showing positive effect on patient outcomes. There was also evidence to support specialist palliative care and integration of primary palliative care with specialist support.
What is already known about the topic?
Care at home for people approaching the last months or year of life has become increasingly important in recent years, due to the increase in deaths, multimorbidity, and preference of the majority for care at home.
Individual reviews of the evidence on palliative and end of life care at home have been undertaken, with some evidence of benefit.
What this paper adds
This paper reports the overall evidence, which largely supports in-home palliative care, especially if delivered via specialist palliative care models or integrated palliative care models (where integration refers to coordination between specialist and non-specialist services).
It also provides evidence of benefit for education and training, both for informal family carers, and for professionals.
Detailed narrative synthesis links models of care, with their components and sub-components, and related outcomes.
Implications for practice, theory or policy There is clear evidence supporting provision of in-home palliative care, with common components related to addressing (and delivering positive impact on) patients’ symptoms, psychological distress, and functional status.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was conducted as part of the Better End of Life Programme, which is funded by Marie Curie (grant MCSON-20-102) and awarded to KES, IJH, FEMM and SB. The research was carried out by King′s College London in collaboration with Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, and University of Cambridge. The funder was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis, or interpretation of results. KES is the Laing Galazka Chair in palliative care at King′s College London, funded by an endowment from Cicely Saunders International and the Kirby Laing Foundation. IJH is an NIHR Senior Investigator Emeritus. FEMM is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. IJH and SB are supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London (SL) and NIHR ARC East of England, respectively. SG′s time was funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research under the TRANSFORM programme (award reference HEND405SPT). The views expressed in the report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Joint first author
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
