Understanding what works,why and in what circumstances in hospice at home services for end-of-life care: Applying a realist logic of analysis to a systematically searched literature review
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online January, 2020
Understanding what works,why and in what circumstances in hospice at home services for end-of-life care: Applying a realist logic of analysis to a systematically searched literature review
We have undertaken a systematically searched literature review using a realist logic of analysis to help synthesise the diverse range of literature available on hospice at home services.
Aim:
To find out in the existing literature what features of hospice at home models work best, for whom and under what circumstances.
Design:
A realist logic of analysis was applied to synthesise the evidence focusing on mechanisms by which an intervention worked (or did not work). An initial programme theory was developed using the National Association for Hospice at Home standards, Normalisation Process Theory and through refinement using stakeholder engagement.
Data sources:
PubMed, Science Direct, AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, Health Business Elite, HMIC, Medline, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, DARE, Google Scholar, NHS Evidence, NIHR CRN portfolio database, NIHR journal library of funded studies, including searches on websites of relevant professional bodies (August 2014, June 2017, June 2019).
Results:
Forty-nine papers were reviewed, of which 34 contributed evidence to at least one of the eight theory areas: marketing and referral, sustainable funding model, service responsiveness and availability, criteria for service admission, knowledge and skills of care providers, integration and coordination, anticipatory care, support directed at carers.
Conclusions:
Our literature review showed how it was possible to develop a coherent framework and test it against 34 published papers and abstracts. Central to this review was theory building, and as further evidence emerges, our programme theories can be refined and tested against any new empirical evidence.
World Health Organisation (WHO). Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into primary health care: A WHO guide for planners, implementers and planners. Geneva: WHO, 2018.
GomesBHigginsonIJCalanzaniN, et al. Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Ann Oncol2012; 23(8): 2006–2015.
4.
ShepperdSWeeBStrausSE. Hospital at home: home-based end of life care. In: ShepperdS (ed.) Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2016, p. CD009231.
5.
GomesBCalanzaniNGyselsM, et al. Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care2013; 12: 7.
6.
HigginsonIJSarmentoVPCalanzaniN, et al. Dying at home – is it better: a narrative appraisal of the state of the science. Palliat Med2013; 27(10): 918–924.
JackBABaldryCRGrovesKE, et al. Supporting home care for the dying: an evaluation of healthcare professionals’ perspectives of an individually tailored hospice at home service. J Clin Nurs2013; 22: 2778–2786.
10.
KingGMackenzieJSmithH, et al. Dying at home: evaluation of a hospice rapid-response service. Int J Palliat Nurs2000; 6(6): 280–287.
11.
RichardsonHThomsonA. Feedback on the survey of hospice at home. Help the Hospices. Oral Presentation, 2012.
12.
BellGGreeneKHuntJVS. Developing national standards for hospice-at-home services. End Life J2013; 3: 1–5.
13.
ButlerCBrigdenCGageH, et al. Optimum hospice at home services for end-of-life care: protocol of a mixed-methods study employing realist evaluation. BMJ Open2018; 8(5): e021192.
14.
Rycroft-MaloneJMcCormackBHutchinsonAM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci2012; 7: 33.
15.
BhaskarR.On the possibility of social scientific knowledge and the limits of naturalism. J Theor Soc Behav1978; 8: 1–28.
16.
MarchalBKegelGVanBelleS.Theory and realist method. In: EmmelNGreenhalghJManzanoA, et al. Doing realist research. London: SAGE, 2018, pp. 79–89.
17.
PawsonRGreenhalghTHarveyG, et al. Realist synthesis – an introduction. Manchester: ESRC Research Methods Program, University of Manchester, 2004.
JagoshJPluyePWongG, et al. Critical reflections on realist review: insights from customizing the methodology to the needs of participatory research assessment. Res Synth Methods2014; 5: 131–141.
20.
HoldsworthLMGageHCoultonS, et al. A quasi-experimental controlled evaluation of the impact of a hospice rapid response community service for end-of-life care on achievement of preferred place of death. Palliat Med2015; 29(9): 817–825.
21.
JagoshMMacaulayAPluyeP, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q2012; 90(2): 311–346.
22.
StoszL.Literature review of the evidence base for a hospice at home service. Canterbury: Centre for Health Service Studies University of Kent, 2008.
23.
Addington-HallJGerardKBrienS, et al. Variations in ‘out of hours’ end of life care service provision across primary care organisations in England and Scotland: the case of nursing care (oral presentation). Palliat Med2012; 26: 426–427.
24.
Addington-HallJGerardKBrienS, et al. Variations in out of hours end of life care provision across primary care organisations in England and Scotland. Final report, NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme, http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/files/project/SDO_FR_08-1813-259_V01.pdf (2013, accessed 20 July 2017).
25.
PurdySLasseterGGriffinT, et al. Impact of the Marie Curie cancer care delivering choice programme in Somerset and North Somerset on place of death and hospital usage: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Support Palliat Care2015; 5(1): 34–39.
WyeLLasseterGPercivalJ, et al. What works in ‘real life’ to facilitate home deaths and fewer hospital admissions for those at end of life? Results from a realist evaluation of new palliative care services in two English counties. BMC Palliat Care2014; 13: 37.
28.
JohnsonMJMayCR.Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open2015; 5: e008592.
29.
MayCRFinchTBalliniL, et al. Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled tool kit. BMC Health Serv Res, 2011; 11: 245.
30.
WilsonPMathieEPolandF, et al. How embedded is public involvement in mainstream health research in England a decade after policy implementation? A realist evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy2018; 23(2): 98–106.
31.
PawsonR.Evidence-based policy : a realist perspective. London: SAGE, 2006.
32.
CarrTQuinlanERobertsonS, et al. Adapting realist synthesis methodology: the case of workplace harassment interventions. Res Synth Methods2017; 8: 496–505.
33.
CooperCLhussierMShucksmithJ, et al. Protocol for a realist review of complex interventions to prevent adolescents from engaging in multiple risk behaviours. BMJ Open2017; 7: e015477.
34.
BaldryCJackBGrovesK, et al. ‘Made to fit’: filling critical gaps with a hospice at home service. BMJ Support Palliat Care2011; 1: 236–236.
BuckJMothLWebbL, et al. Hospice at home optimising care and enabling home death. BMJ Support Palliat Care2014; 4(Suppl. 1): A44.
37.
BuckJWebbLMothL, et al. Persistent inequalities in hospice at home provision. BMJ Support Palliat Care. Epub ahead of print 14 February 2018. DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2017-001367.
ButlerCHoldsworthLMCoultonS, et al. Evaluation of a hospice rapid response community service: a controlled evaluation. BMC Palliat Care2012; 11: 11.
40.
ButlerCHoldsworthL.Setting up a new evidence-based hospice-at-home service in England. Int J Palliat Nurs2013; 19(7): 355–359.
41.
CampbellMGrandeGWilsonC, et al. Exploring differences in referrals to a hospice at home service in two socio-economically distinct areas of Manchester, UK. Palliat Med2010; 24(4): 403–409.
42.
ExleyCTyrerF.Bereaved carers’ views of a hospice at home service. Int J Palliat Nurs2005; 11(5): 242–246.
43.
GageHHoldsworthLMFlanneryC, et al. Impact of a hospice rapid response service on preferred place of death, and costs. BMC Palliat Care2015; 14: 75.
44.
GradyATraversE.Hospice at home 2: evaluating a crisis intervention service. Int J Palliat Nurs2003; 9(8): 326–335.
45.
TraversEGradyA.Hospice at home 1: the development of a crisis intervention service. Int J Palliat Nurs2002; 8(4): 162–168.
46.
GrandeGEToddCJBarclaySIG, et al. Does hospital at home for palliative care faciliate death at home? Randomised controlled trial. BMJ1999; 319: 1472.
47.
GrandeGEMcKerralAToddCJ.Which cancer patients are referred to Hospital at Home for palliative care. Palliat Med2002; 16(2): 115–123.
48.
GrandeGEFarquharMCBarclaySIG, et al. Caregiver bereavement outcome: relationship with hospice at home, satisfaction with care, and home death. J Palliat Care2004; 20(2): 69–77.
49.
HoldsworthLM.Bereaved carers’ accounts of the end of life and the role of care providers in a ‘good death’: a qualitative study. Palliat Med2015; 29(9): 834–841.
50.
JackBAO’BrienMRScruttonJ, et al. Supporting family carers providing end-of-life home care: a qualitative study on the impact of a hospice at home service. J Clin Nurs2014; 24: 131–140.
51.
JackBAMitchellTKCopeLC, et al. Supporting older people with cancer and life-limiting conditions dying at home: a qualitative study of patient and family caregiver experiences of hospice at home care. J Adv Nurs2016; 72(9): 2162–2172.
52.
LucasBSmallNGreasleyP, et al. A reassuring presence: an evaluation of Bradford District hospice at home service. BMC Palliat Care2008; 7: 9.
53.
McLaughlinDSullivanKHassonF.Hospice at Home service: the carer’s perspective. Support Care Cancer2007; 15(2): 163–170.
54.
PayneSSeymourJIngletonC, et al. Independent evaluation of the Marie Curie Cancer Care ‘delivering choice programme’. Leeds: Marie Curie Cancer Care, 2008.
55.
SullivanKAMcLaughlinDHassonF.Exploring district nurses’ experience of a hospice at home service. Int J Palliat Nurs2005; 11: 458–466.
56.
ToddCGrandeGBarclayS, et al. General practitioners’ and district nurses’ views of hospital at home for palliative care. Palliat Med2002; 16(3): 251–254.
57.
WaightCNobleB.Dying at home the Midhurst way. Future Healthc J2018; 5(1): 7–9.
MilewaT.Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom. Health Policy2008; 85(3): 356–362.
60.
McIlfatrickSNobleHMcCorryNK, et al. Exploring public awareness and perceptions of palliative care: a qualitative study. Palliat Med2014; 28: 273–280.
61.
AhmedNAhmedzaiSHCollinsK, et al. Holistic assessment of supportive and palliative care needs: the evidence for routine systematic questioning. BMJ Support Palliat Care2014; 4(3): 238–246.
62.
National Palliative End of Life Care Partnership. Ambitions for palliative and end of life care: a national framework for local action 2015–2020, www.endoflifecareambitions.org.uk (accessed 5 October 2018).
63.
FieldsAFinucaneAMOxenhamD.Discussing preferred place of death with patients: staff experiences in a UK specialist palliative care setting. Int J Palliat Nurs2013; 19: 558–565.
64.
Bliss Sarah Cowley Alison While J. Interprofessional working in palliative care in the community: a review of the literature. J Interprof Care2000; 14: 281–290.
65.
BakerALeakPRitchieLD, et al. Anticipatory care planning and integration: a primary care pilot study aimed at reducing unplanned hospitalisation. Br J Gen Pract2012; 62: e113–e120.
66.
DenvirMAMurraySABoydKJ.Future care planning: a first step to palliative care for all patients with advanced heart disease. Heart2015; 101: 1002–1007.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
