Prediction and management of pain in patients with advanced cancer. A randomized clinical trial of home nursing care for lung cancer patients. Characteristics and quality of life of patients who choose home care at the end of life. A psycho-educational intervention for family caregivers of patients receiving palliative care: a randomized controlled trial. An alternative in terminal care: results of the National Hospice Study. Outcome evaluation of a randomized trial of the PhoenixCare intervention: program of case management and coordinated care for the seriously chronically ill. An economic evaluation of home-care assistance for AIDS patients: a pilot study in a town in northern Italy. A guide to evaluation research in terminal care programs. Is short-term palliative care cost-effective in multiple sclerosis? A randomized phase II trial. A palliative-care intervention and death at home: a cluster randomised trial. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. The comprehensive care team: a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation. Evaluation of a short-term group intervention for informal carers of patients attending a home palliative care service. Evaluation of a hospital-based palliative support service with particular regard to financial outcome measures. Using the COPE intervention for family caregivers to improve symptoms of hospice homecare patients: a clinical trial. Home care services--an alternative to hospices? A randomized controlled study of a home health care team. Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care. Reducing emotional distress in people caring for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Randomised trial. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. A randomized trial of the cost effectiveness of VA hospital-based home care for the terminally ill. Effectiveness of palliative care services in symptom control of patients with advanced terminal cancer: a spanish, multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental, pre-post study. Does hospital at home for palliative care facilitate death at home? Randomised controlled trial.
In a prospective controlled study, patients with incurable cancer and an estimated prognosis of three months to one year were allocated to two patient groups for evaluation of supportive interventions. One group, called "intensive," received home visits by a nurse practitioner acting as an extension of a multidisciplinary team; the other, termed "nonintensive," did not receive such visits. Both patient groups were periodically evaluated in their homes by an observer and by self-ratings, to measure changes in quality of life as their disease progressed. Several methodologic problems were identified, which have implications for future research. Pain problems later in the course of cancer seem to be predictable in those patients with higher scores on the Cornell Medical Index M-R scales (greater emotional disturbance) and on the Rotter Locus of Control (I-E) scale (expectation of more external control of self). The study also found that the home visiting nurse practitioners, specially trained in pain treatment, improved pain control in the "intensive" group of patients over the last 90 days of life, when pain was an increasingly major problem. Such nurses can significantly improve the quality of life for patients dying outside of institutions. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess the effects of home nursing care for patients with progressive lung cancer. One hundred sixty-six patients were assigned to either an oncology home care group (OHC) that received care from oncology home care nurses, a standard home care group (SHC) that received care from regular home care nurses, or an office care group (OC) that received whatever care they needed except for home care. Patients were entered into the study 2 months after diagnosis and followed for 6 months. Patients were interviewed at 6-week intervals across five occasions. At the end of the study, there were no differences in pain, mood disturbance, and concerns among the three groups. There were significant differences in symptom distress, enforced social dependency, and health perceptions. The two home nursing care groups had less distress and greater independence 6 weeks longer than the office care group. In addition, the two home nursing care groups steadily reported worse health perceptions over time. Thus, it was remarkable that the office care group, which indicated more symptom distress and social dependency with time, also indicated perceptions of improved health with time. These results suggest that home nursing care assists patients with forestalling distress from symptoms and maintaining their independence longer in comparison to no home nursing care. Home care may also include assisting patients in acknowledging the reality of their situation. 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. This study describes an evaluation of a psycho-educational intervention for family caregivers of patients dying of cancer at home. In a randomized controlled trial, participants (n = 106) received standard home-based palliative care services (n = 52) or these services plus the new intervention (n = 54). Data were collected at three time points: upon commencement of home-based palliative care (Time 1), five weeks later (Time 2), and then eight weeks following patient death (Time 3). No intervention effects were identified with respect to preparedness to care, self-efficacy, competence, and anxiety. However, participants who received the intervention reported a significantly more positive caregiver experience than those who received standard care at both Times 2 and 3. The findings indicate that it is possible to increase caregiver rewards despite being immersed in challenging circumstances that often yield considerable negative psychosocial sequelae. Furthermore, it is feasible for health professionals to discuss emotive topics, such as impending death, with caregivers without adverse effects. Hospice is a program of supportive services for terminally ill patients and their families, provided either at home or in designated inpatient settings, which is purported to improve patient and family quality of life at lower cost than conventional terminal care. The National Hospice Study was a multi-site, quasi-experimental study to compare the experiences of terminal cancer patients and their families in hospices with those of similar patients and families receiving conventional terminal care. The results indicate that, although care is different in hospices, e.g. lesser utilization of aggressive interventional therapy and diagnostic testing, patients' quality of life is similar in the hospice and conventional care systems with the exception of pain and symptom control, which may be better in the inpatient hospice setting. Hospice patients are more likely to die at home and their families are satisfied with that outcome. Otherwise, no consistent superiority of family outcome was associated with the hospice approach. The cost of hospice care is less than that of conventional terminal care for patients in hospices without inpatient facilities, but the cost of hospice appears to be equivalent to conventional care for patients in hospices having beds. To document outcomes of a randomized trial of the PhoenixCare demonstration program of palliative care and coordinated care/case management for seriously chronically ill individuals who simultaneously received active treatment from managed care organizations (MCOs).
                Patients, continuously enrolled between July 1999, and March 2001, were randomly assigned to the PhoenixCare program or a control group receiving usual MCO care.
                Hospice of the Valley, Phoenix, Arizona.
                Participants were 192 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or chronic heart failure (CHF), who had an estimated 2-year life expectancy.
                Intensive home-based case management provided by registered nurse casemanagers, in coordination with patients' existing source of medical care, comprised the intervention. Program foci included disease and symptom management, patient self-management of illness and knowledge of illness-related resources, preparation for end-of life, physical and mental functioning, and utilization of medical services.
                Outcomes, assessed every 3 months by telephone interview, included measures related to all program foci; the SF-36 was used to evaluate physical and mental functioning; emergency department visits exemplified medical service utilization.
                Compared to controls, PhoenixCare patients exhibited significantly better outcomes on self-management of illness, awareness of illness-related resources, and legal preparation for end of life. They reported lower symptom distress, greater vitality, better physical functioning and higher self-rated health than randomized controls. Emergency department utilization was equivalent across groups. Patients with COPD showed stronger responsiveness to the intervention.
                A novel model of patient care that combined greatly enhanced palliative carefocused case management with ongoing MCO-based treatment was associated with improved functioning of chronically severely ill patients in the last years of life. To evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of home-care assistance (HCA) as an alternative to hospital-based care only for patients with AIDS (PWA).
                A 6-month prospective study. Use of resources by a control group of PWA receiving ordinary hospital-based care (OC group) was compared with that by a random group of PWA who, in addition to hospital care, were also receiving home care (HC group).
                Home- and hospital-based care for PWA in Vicenza, Italy.
                HC group selection was based on eligibility criteria for severity of illness, home location and economic and family support. Ten of the PWA satisfying all eligibility criteria were randomly allocated to the HC group. The control group consisted of 32 PWA lacking one or more of the eligibility criteria.
                HCA involved the provision of palliative care for PWA by a multidisciplinary team of caregivers. Hospital-based services covered inpatient and outpatient services.
                The health benefits for HC and OC groups using a quantitative quality of life measure (the Quality of Well-Being Scale).
                Overall health-care cost savings of 6-7%, relative to the OC group, were predicted for the HC group. Costs per well week were estimated at US$482 for the HC group and US$791 for the OC group.
                Home-care assistance appears to be a cost-effective strategy for the treatment and care of PWA if strict eligibility criteria are adhered to. nan Palliative care is being advocated for noncancer patients but needs evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
                We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a new palliative care service for people with multiple sclerosis (MS).
                We used a randomized fast-track Phase II controlled trial. Patients in South East London who were severely affected by MS were referred by clinicians to the trial. After baseline interview, patients were randomly allocated to either a multiprofessional palliative care team (PCT) immediately (fast track) or the control care group who continued best usual care for three months and then were offered the PCT. Data were collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 26 weeks on use of services, patient symptoms, other outcomes, and caregiver burden.
                Fifty-two patients were randomized: 25 fast track and 21 control patients completed the trial. There was a high level of disability, and mean Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 7.7 (median 8, standard deviation 1.0). At 12 weeks, caregiver burden was 4.47 points lower (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-7.89) in the fast track compared to the control group. Mean service costs, including inpatient care and informal care, over the 0-12-week follow-up were pound1,789 lower for the fast-track group (bootstrapped 95% CI: - pound5,224 to pound1,902). There was a trend toward lower community costs in the fast-track group and no differences in costs to informal caregivers.
                The trial suggests that short-term palliative care for people severely affected by MS and their caregivers will be cost-effective and warrants further study. The fast-track trial design could be used to assess this. 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. There are few randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of palliative care interventions to improve the care of patients with advanced cancer.
                To determine the effect of a nursing-led intervention on quality of life, symptom intensity, mood, and resource use in patients with advanced cancer.
                Randomized controlled trial conducted from November 2003 through May 2008 of 322 patients with advanced cancer in a rural, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in New Hampshire and affiliated outreach clinics and a VA medical center in Vermont.
                A multicomponent, psychoeducational intervention (Project ENABLE [Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends]) conducted by advanced practice nurses consisting of 4 weekly educational sessions and monthly follow-up sessions until death or study completion (n = 161) vs usual care (n = 161).
                Quality of life was measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy for Palliative Care (score range, 0-184). Symptom intensity was measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (score range, 0-900). Mood was measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (range, 0-60). These measures were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and every 3 months until death or study completion. Intensity of service was measured as the number of days in the hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the number of emergency department visits recorded in the electronic medical record.
                A total of 322 participants with cancer of the gastrointestinal tract (41%; 67 in the usual care group vs 66 in the intervention group), lung (36%; 58 vs 59), genitourinary tract (12%; 20 vs 19), and breast (10%; 16 vs 17) were randomized. The estimated treatment effects (intervention minus usual care) for all participants were a mean (SE) of 4.6 (2) for quality of life (P = .02), -27.8 (15) for symptom intensity (P = .06), and -1.8 (0.81) for depressed mood (P = .02). The estimated treatment effects in participants who died during the study were a mean (SE) of 8.6 (3.6) for quality of life (P = .02), -24.2 (20.5) for symptom intensity (P = .24), and -2.7 (1.2) for depressed mood (P = .03). Intensity of service did not differ between the 2 groups.
                Compared with participants receiving usual oncology care, those receiving a nurse-led, palliative care-focused intervention addressing physical, psychosocial, and care coordination provided concurrently with oncology care had higher scores for quality of life and mood, but did not have improvements in symptom intensity scores or reduced days in the hospital or ICU or emergency department visits.
                clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00253383. Little is known about the use of palliative care for outpatients who continue to pursue treatment of their underlying disease or whether outpatient palliative medicine consultation teams improve clinical outcomes.
                We conducted a year-long controlled trial involving 50 intervention patients and 40 control patients in a general medicine outpatient clinic. Primary care physicians referred patients with advanced congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cancer who had a prognosis ranging from 1 to 5 years. In the intervention group, the primary care physicians received multiple palliative care team consultations, and patients received advance care planning, psychosocial support, and family caregiver training. Clinical and health care utilization outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months.
                Groups were similar at baseline. Similar numbers of patients died during the study year (P =.63). After the intervention, intervention group patients had less dyspnea (P =.01) and anxiety (P =.05) and improved sleep quality (P =.05) and spiritual well-being (P =.007), but no change in pain (P =.41), depression (P =.28), quality of life (P =.43), or satisfaction with care (P =.26). Few patients received recommended analgesic or antidepressant medications. Intervention patients had decreased primary care (P =.03) and urgent care visits (P =.04) without an increase in emergency department visits, specialty clinic visits, hospitalizations, or number of days in the hospital. There were no differences in charges (P =.80).
                Consultation by a palliative medicine team led to improved patient outcomes in dyspnea, anxiety, and spiritual well-being, but failed to improve pain or depression. Palliative care for seriously ill outpatients can be effective, but barriers to implementation must be explored. Despite evidence of high psychological distress and unmet needs, evaluated interventions for informal caregivers in palliative care are few. This study involved an observational outcome evaluation of attendees, and a comparison group, in specialist home palliative care. The measures included carer psychological status and patient physical status at baseline, 8 weeks, and 20 weeks. Qualitative data were collected regarding content, satisfaction with, and impact of intervention. Process data described the uptake, resources, and group activity. The intervention combined informal multiprofessional teaching with facilitated peer exchange and support, and was delivered over 6 sessions of 90 minutes per week. The uptake rate was 25%; carers were less likely to accept if they were in paid employment (OR=0.26, P=0.06), and more likely to accept if they utilized avoidance coping (OR=1.13, P=0.04) or their patient had worse physical status (OR=2.1, P=0.03). Attendees described significant support and knowledge gains from the multiprofessional input and peer group. Most relied on social comparison processes to appraise their situation. Potential detection of significant effects on global psychological scores (i.e. anxiety, depression, and burden) using multivariate analysis was disallowed due to attrition. This acceptable and accessible intervention provided information and support; further outcome studies are needed for a range of interventions. Short-term interventions are unlikely to affect global psychological scores, and future evaluations should include additional time points of data collection to demonstrate support during attendance. The object of this study was a financial assessment of a hospital-based palliative support service, to be made by comparing the study group with a matched historical control group and a group of contemporary reference patients. The staff consisted of one full-time nurse supported by a surgeon one half-day per week. The patients in the study group utilized fewer institutional days than the control group, according to such parameters as duration of terminal hospitalization (P < 0.05), ratio of days at home to total inclusion days (P < 0.001), and days at home during last two months of life (P < 0.01). These three outcome measures all focus on the most care-intensive last months of life and appeared to be sensitive enough to identify economic advantages of palliative care intervention. The palliative support service defrayed its own costs and in excess of that saved another SK17000 per patient (US$2500). To test an intervention for hospice caregivers designed to help them better manage symptoms experienced by patients with cancer.
                A three-group comparative design with repeated measures.
                A large nonprofit hospice that primarily provides home care.
                329 hospice homecare patients with cancer and their caregivers were randomized into three groups: a control group (n = 109) receiving standard care, a group (n = 109) receiving standard care plus friendly visits, and a group (n = 111) receiving standard care plus the COPE intervention.
                Caregivers received experimental training in the COPE intervention (creativity, optimism, planning, expert information) over nine days to assist with symptom management.
                Intensity of pain, dyspnea, and constipation, overall symptom distress, and quality of life (QOL). Data were collected on admission and days 16 and 30.
                Although symptom intensity for three target symptoms did not decrease, symptom distress was significantly improved (p = 0.009) in the COPE intervention group. QOL was not significantly different.
                Symptom distress, a measure that encompasses patient suffering along with intensity, was significantly decreased in the group in which caregivers were trained to better manage patient symptoms.
                The COPE intervention is effective and immediately translatable to the bedside for hospice homecare patients with advanced cancer. nan This report describes the findings of a randomized study of a new team approach to home care for homebound chronically or terminally ill elderly. The team includes a physician, nurse practitioner, and social worker delivering primary health care in the patient's home, including physician house calls. Weekly team conferences assure coordination of patient care. The team is available for emergency consultation through a 24-hour telephone service. The team physician attends to the patient during necessary hospitalizations. This approach was evaluated in a randomized experimental design study measuring its impact on health care utilization, functional changes in patients, and patient and caretaker satisfaction. The team patients had fewer hospitalizations, nursing home admissions, and outpatient visits than the controls. They were more often able to die at home, if this was their wish. As expected, they used more in-home services, measured in weighted cost figures; their overall cost was lower than their controls, but the difference was not statistically significant. Their functional abilities did not change differently from the controls, but they, and especially their informal caretakers in the home, expressed significantly higher satisfaction with the care received. 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. 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. All admissions to a 1,100-bed Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital were screened to identify 171 terminally ill patients with informal caregivers who were then randomly assigned to VA hospital-based team home care (HBHC, N = 85) or customary care (N = 86). Patient functioning, and patient and caregiver morale and satisfaction with care were measured at baseline, one month, and six months. Health services utilization was monitored over the six-month study period and converted to cost. Findings included no differences in patient survival, activities of daily living (ADL), cognitive functioning, or morale, but a significant increase in patient (p = .02) and caregiver (p = .005) satisfaction with care at one month. A substitution effect of HBHC was seen. Those in the experimental group used 5.9 fewer VA hospital days (p = .03), resulting in a $1,639 or 47 percent per capita saving in VA hospital costs (p = .02). As a result, total per capita health care costs, including HBHC, were $769 or 18 percent (n.s.) lower in the HBHC sample, indicating that expansion of VA HBHC to serve terminally ill veterans would increase satisfaction with care at no additional cost. In implementing the National Strategy of Palliative Care in Spain, there needs to be an evaluation of services, especially of their effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of patients and families.
                To assess the effectiveness of palliative care services (PCS) in improving symptom control in Spain.
                This multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention study evaluated symptoms, such as pain, breakthrough pain, anorexia, nausea/vomiting, constipation, insomnia, dyspnea at rest and with movement, anxiety, and depression, using patient-reported numeric rating scales on Days 0, 7, and 14 after referral to a PCS.
                Of the 318 PCSs included in the National Directory for 2004, 105 services in the 17 autonomous regions of Spain were able to report 265 eligible (treatment-naïve) patients. Nonparticipation by some centers was because of excessive workload or because their patients were not treatment-naïve. Median survival was 42 days. Pain severity and number of crises of breakthrough pain significantly improved, as did other indicators of patient satisfaction. Symptom improvement was independent of type of service (in acute bed hospitals, medium-term stay facilities, hospital support teams, home care support teams, and outpatient clinics).
                Our national plan appears to be successful in reducing symptoms irrespective of the type of organization providing the PCS. An area for improvement could be to lessen the workload of individual teams.
                Copyright © 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. To evaluate the impact on place of death of a hospital at home service for palliative care.
                Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting: Former Cambridge health district.
                229 patients referred to the hospital at home service; 43 randomised to control group (standard care), 186 randomised to hospital at home.
                Hospital at home versus standard care.
                Place of death.
                Twenty five (58%) control patients died at home compared with 124 (67%) patients allocated to hospital at home. This difference was not significant; intention to treat analysis did not show that hospital at home increased the number of deaths at home. Seventy three patients randomised to hospital at home were not admitted to the service. Patients admitted to hospital at home were significantly more likely to die at home (88/113; 78%) than control patients. It is not possible to determine whether this was due to hospital at home itself or other characteristics of the patients admitted to the service. The study attained less statistical power than initially planned.
                In a locality with good provision of standard community care we could not show that hospital at home allowed more patients to die at home, although neither does the study refute this. Problems relating to recruitment, attrition, and the vulnerability of the patient group make randomised controlled trials in palliative care difficult. While these difficulties have to be recognised they are not insurmountable with the appropriate resourcing and setting.
The results provide clear and reliable evidence that home palliative care increases the chance of dying at home and reduces symptom burden in particular for patients with cancer, without impacting on caregiver grief. This justifies providing home palliative care for patients who wish to die at home. More work is needed to study cost-effectiveness especially for people with non-malignant conditions, assessing place of death and appropriate outcomes that are sensitive to change and valid in these populations, and to compare different models of home palliative care, in powered studies.