Background
By 2056, 480,000 Canadian deaths per year are predicted with 90% of those deaths being eligible for palliative care [
1]. The aim of palliative care is to improve the quality of life of patients and families through the prevention and relief of suffering [
2]. Frequently, patients may choose to receive palliative care in the home. Palliative care in the home is the provision of specialized palliative care in the patient’s home, most often provided by nurses and/or physicians with or without connection to a hospital or hospice [
3]. Three factors have been identified as contributing to the decision to receive palliative care in the home: fulfilling a promise to provide care to the patient at home, the wish to maintain a ‘normal family life’, and previous negative experiences in institutional care settings [
4].
In a recent survey of 1200 Canadians, greater than 70% of respondents preferred to be at home near death [
5]. Palliative care in the home interventions vary widely, from interventions attempting to provide hope, to informal caregiver advising or after-hours night respite [
6‐
8]. Frequently, palliative care is evaluated retrospectively through proxy reports and routine data collection [
9]. Palliative care has also been evaluated in terms of cost and resource utilization [
10]. Although location of death, at home or in hospital, has frequently been used as a metric to evaluate palliative care in the home, this measure is widely criticized as it accounts for only the conclusion to the process of dying [
11].
Further, in 2013, a Cochrane review of home based palliative care for patients and their caregivers found positive effects on symptom burden, and no impact on caregiver grief, compared to usual care [
10]. Another recent systematic review found that regular communication with medical professionals, spiritual needs, mobility assistance and financial support, information about illness progression, and respite options for caregivers were not adequately addressed by palliative care in the home [
12].
The breadth of the body of literature examining palliative care in the home is unknown. Palliative care in the home interventions vary significantly in terms of the components of care, providers offering the interventions, and target recipients. The objective of this scoping review is to clarify the current state of the palliative care in the home literature in terms of study quality, primary outcomes measured, and begin to categorize palliative home care interventions. Summarizing the current literature will also assist future contributions to develop intervention evaluations that facilitate comparison and identify value for stakeholders.
Discussion
Fifty-three studies of various study designs, reporting on diverse outcomes and of varying quality were identified within the palliative home care literature. Of note, there are gaps in knowledge related to the outcome of caregiver distress, and the theme of quality improvement of palliative care in the home interventions. The extensive and heterogeneous nature of this body of literature limits our ability to make generalizations about effective palliative care in the home.
Palliative care in the home interventions were evaluated with the primary outcomes of resource use, cost, or place of death in nearly one third of included studies. Some have argued that these outcomes are not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of the intervention [
54,
55]. The effectiveness measure should link to the objective of the intervention; place of death may be a less appropriate outcome than the location of care preceding death [
55]. Our findings underscore the need to expand outcome measurement beyond routinely collected data to measure outcomes that are more tightly linked to the objective of palliative care in the home.
Included interventions differed in terms of providers delivering care and intervention components. The theme of individualized patient centered care was present in 66% of included studies and highlights the focus of these interventions on meeting patient needs. However, the diverse nature of these interventions makes generalizations about what components contributed to positive outcomes difficult. In addition, nine different primary outcomes were identified in the included studies. This diversity in outcomes makes it difficult to understand which components are effective or not. Consensus about which outcomes would be required to demonstrate that an intervention is effective would significantly advance the developing body of literature.
Although quality was mixed, all intervention evaluations reported positive outcomes. This supports the intuitive hypothesis that palliative care in the home is good for patients. However, this may be due to publication bias. Heterogeneity, in terms of intervention components and measurement of primary outcomes, inhibit our ability to assess whether studies with negative effects remain unpublished.
Similar to a meta-ethnography exploring patient and caregiver priorities for palliative care in the home, a focus on the increased availability of healthcare providers, symptom relief, and including caregivers as recipients and participants in care were prominent in intervention evaluations [
56]. Like the findings of this study, a systematic review of systematic reviews of palliative care models also highlighted the diversity present in this body of literature, and the lack of consensus regarding outcome measurement [
57].
There are limitations to our findings. The search strategy used was broad, however there is the possibility that appropriate studies may have been missed. To mitigate this risk, experts were contacted to identify additional literature. During our initial scoping work, the identified grey literature was reported in enough detail to contribute to this work without accompanying interviews to provide additional details. Thus, grey literature was excluded. This may have biased our results as the field is moving rapidly and novel interventions may not be reported in the published literature yet. Lastly, the interventions described in included studies are complex and multifaceted. This may have led to misclassification errors in the thematic analysis. However, we anticipate this error being small as it was done in duplicate and consensus was reached for each classification.
To move this field forward, future research should attempt to reach consensus on meaningful outcomes to be evaluated for palliative care in the home. Clinical events, costs, and place of death are routinely captured, but these may not match patient and caregiver priorities. Ideally, this consensus process would include key stakeholders representing all facets of palliative care at home: patients, caregivers, clinicians, and decision-makers.