Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review

Adam E. Singer, Joy R. Goebel, Yan S. Kim, Sydney E Dy, Sangeeta C. Ahluwalia, Megan Clifford, Elizabeth Dzeng, Claire E. O'Hanlon, Aneesa Motala, Anne M. Walling, Jaime Goldberg, Daniella Meeker, Claudia Ochotorena, Roberta Shanman, Mike Cui, Karl A. Lorenz

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Importance: Evidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes. Objective: To inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. Evidence Review: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015). Results: Randomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62%, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58%, 11 of 19), and dementia (60%, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73%, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70%, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39%, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56%, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64%, 28 of 44; vs. 46%, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70%, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36%, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41%, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40%, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63%, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65%, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20%, 2 of 10). Conclusions: Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)995-1008
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Palliative Medicine
Volume19
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Terminal Care
Palliative Care
Caregivers
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Population
Costs and Cost Analysis
Nurses
Dementia
Heart Failure
Communication
Databases
MEDLINE
Health Care Costs
Health Services
Neoplasms
Anxiety
Randomized Controlled Trials
Economics
Depression
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Medicine(all)
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Singer, A. E., Goebel, J. R., Kim, Y. S., Dy, S. E., Ahluwalia, S. C., Clifford, M., ... Lorenz, K. A. (2016). Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 19(9), 995-1008. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2015.0367

Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care : A Systematic Review. / Singer, Adam E.; Goebel, Joy R.; Kim, Yan S.; Dy, Sydney E; Ahluwalia, Sangeeta C.; Clifford, Megan; Dzeng, Elizabeth; O'Hanlon, Claire E.; Motala, Aneesa; Walling, Anne M.; Goldberg, Jaime; Meeker, Daniella; Ochotorena, Claudia; Shanman, Roberta; Cui, Mike; Lorenz, Karl A.

In: Journal of Palliative Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 995-1008.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Singer, AE, Goebel, JR, Kim, YS, Dy, SE, Ahluwalia, SC, Clifford, M, Dzeng, E, O'Hanlon, CE, Motala, A, Walling, AM, Goldberg, J, Meeker, D, Ochotorena, C, Shanman, R, Cui, M & Lorenz, KA 2016, 'Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review', Journal of Palliative Medicine, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 995-1008. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2015.0367
Singer, Adam E. ; Goebel, Joy R. ; Kim, Yan S. ; Dy, Sydney E ; Ahluwalia, Sangeeta C. ; Clifford, Megan ; Dzeng, Elizabeth ; O'Hanlon, Claire E. ; Motala, Aneesa ; Walling, Anne M. ; Goldberg, Jaime ; Meeker, Daniella ; Ochotorena, Claudia ; Shanman, Roberta ; Cui, Mike ; Lorenz, Karl A. / Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care : A Systematic Review. In: Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 19, No. 9. pp. 995-1008.
@article{05323feaab73481a8f3315ab968276ab,
title = "Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review",
abstract = "Importance: Evidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes. Objective: To inform how payers and providers should identify patients with {"}advanced illness{"} and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. Evidence Review: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015). Results: Randomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49{\%}, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62{\%}, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58{\%}, 11 of 19), and dementia (60{\%}, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73{\%}, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70{\%}, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39{\%}, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56{\%}, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64{\%}, 28 of 44; vs. 46{\%}, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70{\%}, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36{\%}, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41{\%}, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40{\%}, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63{\%}, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65{\%}, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20{\%}, 2 of 10). Conclusions: Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.",
author = "Singer, {Adam E.} and Goebel, {Joy R.} and Kim, {Yan S.} and Dy, {Sydney E} and Ahluwalia, {Sangeeta C.} and Megan Clifford and Elizabeth Dzeng and O'Hanlon, {Claire E.} and Aneesa Motala and Walling, {Anne M.} and Jaime Goldberg and Daniella Meeker and Claudia Ochotorena and Roberta Shanman and Mike Cui and Lorenz, {Karl A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/jpm.2015.0367",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "995--1008",
journal = "Journal of Palliative Medicine",
issn = "1096-6218",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Singer, Adam E.

AU - Goebel, Joy R.

AU - Kim, Yan S.

AU - Dy, Sydney E

AU - Ahluwalia, Sangeeta C.

AU - Clifford, Megan

AU - Dzeng, Elizabeth

AU - O'Hanlon, Claire E.

AU - Motala, Aneesa

AU - Walling, Anne M.

AU - Goldberg, Jaime

AU - Meeker, Daniella

AU - Ochotorena, Claudia

AU - Shanman, Roberta

AU - Cui, Mike

AU - Lorenz, Karl A.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Importance: Evidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes. Objective: To inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. Evidence Review: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015). Results: Randomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62%, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58%, 11 of 19), and dementia (60%, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73%, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70%, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39%, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56%, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64%, 28 of 44; vs. 46%, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70%, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36%, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41%, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40%, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63%, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65%, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20%, 2 of 10). Conclusions: Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.

AB - Importance: Evidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes. Objective: To inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. Evidence Review: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015). Results: Randomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62%, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58%, 11 of 19), and dementia (60%, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73%, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70%, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39%, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56%, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64%, 28 of 44; vs. 46%, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70%, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36%, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41%, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40%, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63%, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65%, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20%, 2 of 10). Conclusions: Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984706142&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84984706142&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/jpm.2015.0367

DO - 10.1089/jpm.2015.0367

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27533892

AN - SCOPUS:84984706142

VL - 19

SP - 995

EP - 1008

JO - Journal of Palliative Medicine

JF - Journal of Palliative Medicine

SN - 1096-6218

IS - 9

ER -