Background: 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.

BackgroundMany people with a terminal illness would prefer to die at home. A new palliative rapid response service (RRS) provided by a large hospice provider in South East England was evaluated (2010) to provide evidence of impact on achieving preferred place of death and costs. The RRS was delivered by a team of trained health care assistants and available 24/7. The purpose of this study was to (i) compare the characteristics of RRS users and non-users, (ii) explore differences in the proportions of users and non-users dying in the place of their choice, (iii) monitor the whole system service utilisation of users and non-users, and compare costs.MethodsAll hospice patients who died with a preferred place of death recorded during an 18 month period were included. Data (demographic, preferences for place of death) were obtained from hospice records. Dying in preferred place was modelled using stepwise logistic regression analysis. Service use data (period between referral to hospice and death) were obtained from general practitioners, community providers, hospitals, social services, hospice, and costs calculated using validated national tariffs.ResultsOf 688 patients referred to the hospice when the RRS was operational, 247 (35.9 %) used it. Higher proportions of RRS users than non-users lived in their own homes with a co-resident carer (40.3 % vs. 23.7 %); more non-users lived alone or in residential care (58.8 % vs. 76.3 %). Chances of dying in the preferred place were enhanced 2.1 times by being a RRS user, compared to a non-user, and 1.5 times by having a co-resident carer, compared to living at home alone or in a care home. Total service costs did not differ between users and non-users, except when referred to hospice very close to death (users had higher costs).ConclusionsUse of the RRS was associated with increased likelihood of dying in the preferred place. The RRS is cost neutral.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN32119670, 22 June 2012.

Primary brain tumours account for less than 2% of cancer diagnoses in the UK but more people under 40 die from a brain tumour than from any other cancer. Despite developments in some treatment options, survival remains poor and patients suffer with considerable functional and cognitive deficits. Rehabilitation for patients with primary brain tumours produces statistically and clinically significant improvements in function. When compared, similar functional gains are made following rehabilitation for brain tumour patients and for those following stroke and traumatic brain injury. There have been very few studies looking at access to rehabilitation for this group of patients as a primary objective. However, existing studies and clinical experience suggest that patients with brain tumours do not access rehabilitation services frequently or easily, either locally or nationally. Therefore, this qualitative study addressed the reasons for this through semi-structured interviews of healthcare professionals, investigating their experiences of rehabilitation for this patient group and describing commonly identified barriers under key themes. The interviews gauged the views of eight healthcare professionals representing three professions in different settings, including hospital and community based. The resultant barriers fell under the following themes: professional knowledge and behaviours; services and systems; and the disease and its effects. Suggested solutions were wide ranging and included education, multidisciplinary meetings and specialist clinicians to co-ordinate care. The barriers to accessing rehabilitation for this group of patients are complex, but some of the solutions could be reached through education and co-ordination of services. Further research into the benefits of, and access to, rehabilitation for this group of patients is essential to ensure that patients with brain tumours are given opportunity to gain from the benefits of rehabilitation in the same way as other diagnoses, both cancer and non-cancer.

Background Many people prefer to die at home when the time comes. Hospice at home services aim to support patients to achieve this. A range of hospice at home services exist; some services have been evaluated, but there has been limited evidence synthesis. Objectives The main objective was to find out what models of hospice at home services work best, for whom and in what circumstances. Other objectives supported this aim, including an analysis of the health economic costs of hospice at home models. Design The study was an overarching, non-interventional, realist evaluation comprising three phases. Phase 1 was a survey of hospice at home services. Phase 2 involved 12 case studies, grouped into four models on the basis of size and 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (24/7), operations, from which quantitative and health economics data were gathered. Qualitative interview data from bereaved carers, commissioners and providers were analysed to generate context–mechanism–outcome configurations. Phase 3 comprised stakeholder consensus meetings. Setting Hospice at home services across England. Participants A total of 70 hospice at home managers responded to the survey. A total of 339 patient and family/informal carer dyads were recruited; 85 hospice at home providers and commissioners were interviewed. A total of 88 stakeholders participated in consensus meetings. Main outcome measures The quality of dying and death of patients was assessed by bereaved carers (using the Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire). A patient’s use of services was collected using the Ambulatory and Home Care Record. Results Hospice at home services varied; two-thirds were mainly charitably funded, and not all operated 24/7. Most patients (77%) had cancer. Hospice at home services overall provided care that was likely to deliver ‘a good death’, and 73% of patients died in their preferred place. Six context–mechanism–outcome configurations captured factors relevant to providing optimum hospice at home services: (1) sustainability (of the hospice at home service); (2) volunteers (use of, in the hospice at home service); (3) integration and co-ordination (with the wider health and social care system); (4) marketing and referral (of the hospice at home service); (5) knowledge, skills and ethos (of hospice at home staff); and (6) support directed at the carer at home. Key markers of a good service included staff who had time to care, providing hands-on care; staff whose knowledge and behaviour promoted supportive relationships and confidence through the process of dying; and services attending to the needs of the informal carer. Areas of potential improvement for most hospice at home services were the use of volunteers in hospice at home, and bereavement care. Limitations The study had the following limitations – heterogeneity of hospice at home services, variations in numbers and patient clinical statuses at recruitment, a low Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire response rate, and missing data. Only patients with an informal carer involved on a daily basis were eligible for the study. Conclusions Hospice at home services delivered high-quality care and a ‘good death’, with the majority of patients dying in their stated preferred place. Hospice at home providers can improve their impact by focusing on the features identified that deliver the best patient outcomes. Commissioners can facilitate patient preference and reduce the number of hospital deaths by working with hospice at home services to secure their financial sustainability and increase the numbers and range of patients admitted to hospice at home services. Future research Future research should explore the use of volunteers in the hospice at home setting and evaluate approaches to bereavement support. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

IntroductionHospice at home (HAH) services aim to enable patients to be cared for and die in their place of choice, if that is at home, and to achieve a ‘good death’. There is a considerable range of HAH services operating in England. The published evidence focuses on evaluations of individual services which vary considerably, and there is a lack of consistency in terms of the outcome measures reported. The evidence, therefore, does not provide generalisable information, so the question ‘What are the features of hospice at home service models that work, for whom, and under what circumstances?’ remains unanswered. The study aims to answer this question.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed-methods study in three phases informed by realist evaluation methodology. All HAH services in England will be invited to participate in a telephone survey to enable the development of a typology of services. In the second phase, case study sites representing the different service types will collect patient data and recruit carers, service managers and commissioners to gather quantitative and qualitative data about service provision and outcomes. A third phase will synthesise and refine the results through consensus workshops.Ethics and disseminationThe first survey phase has university ethics approval and the second phase, Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and Health Research Authority (HRA) approval (IRAS ID:205986, REC:17/LO/0880); the third phase does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will be facilitated by project coapplicants with established connections to national policy-making forums, in addition to publications, conference presentations and reports targeted to service providers and commissioners.