Impacts of person-centred integrated chronic heart failure and palliative home care on pharmacological heart failure treatment: a substudy of a randomised trial

Exploring Health Care Providers' Experiences of Providing Collaborative Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure At Home: A Qualitative Study

Background The HeartFull Collaborative is a regionally organized model of care which involves specialist palliative care and cardiology health care providers (HCPs) in a collaborative, home-based palliative care approach for patients with advanced heart failure (AHF). We evaluated HCP perspectives of barriers and facilitators to providing coordinated palliative care for patients with AHF at home. Methods and Results We conducted a qualitative study with 17 HCPs (11 palliative care and 6 cardiology) who were involved in the HeartFull Collaborative from April 2013 to March 2020. Individual, semi-structured interviews were held with each practitioner from November 2019 to March 2020. We used an interpretivist and inductive thematic analysis approach. We identified facilitators at 2 levels: (1) individual HCP level (on-going professional education to expand competency) and (2) interpersonal level (shared care between specialties, effective communication within the care team). Ongoing barriers were identified at 2 levels: (1) individual HCP level (e.g. apprehension of cardiology practitioners to introduce palliative care) and (2) system level (e.g. lack of availability of personal support worker hours). Conclusions Our results suggest that a collaborative shared model of care delivery between palliative care and cardiology improves knowledge exchange, collaboration and communication between specialties, and leads to more comprehensive patient care. Addressing ongoing barriers will help improve care delivery. Findings emphasize the acceptability of the program from a provider perspective, which is encouraging for future implementation. Further research is needed to improve prognostication, assess patient and caregiver perspectives regarding this model of care, and assess the economic feasibility and impact of this model of care.

Commentary: how person-centred is pharmaceutical care?

Health systems in many countries are currently undergoing an evolution towards more person-centred care. However, an overview of the literature shows that there is little or no guidance available on how to apply person-centred care to pharmaceutical care and clinical pharmacy practices. In this paper we apply a model for person-centred care created by a national multidisciplinary research centre in Gothenburg, Sweden, to the clinical work tasks of outpatient and inpatient pharmacists and describe how pharmaceutical care can become more person-centred.

Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review

Background

Most deaths still take place in hospital; cost-effective commissioning of end-of-life resources is a priority. This review provides clarity on the effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Population

Adult patients with advanced illnesses and their unpaid caregivers.

Intervention

Hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Comparators

Inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry to the study, or community care or hospice care provided outside the hospital setting (usual care).

Primary outcomes

Patient health-related quality of life and symptom burden.

Data sources

Six databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and CareSearch), clinical trial registers, reference lists and systematic reviews were searched to August 2019.

Review methods

Two independent reviewers screened, data extracted and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark), with separate synthesis of qualitative data.

Results

Forty-two randomised controlled trials involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 unpaid caregivers) were included. Diagnoses of participants were as follows: cancer, 21 studies; non-cancer, 14 studies; and mixed cancer and non-cancer, seven studies. Hospital-based specialist palliative care was offered in the following models: ward based (one study), inpatient consult (10 studies), outpatient (six studies), hospital at home or hospital outreach (five studies) and multiple settings that included hospital (20 studies). Meta-analyses demonstrated significant improvement favouring hospital-based specialist palliative care over usual care in patient health-related quality of life (10 studies, standardised mean difference 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.37; I 2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I 2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I 2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I 2 = 0%), and a significant increase in the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by number of patients with home death) (seven studies, odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.16; I 2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I 2 = 76%). Hospital-based specialist palliative care showed no evidence of causing serious harm. The evidence on mortality/survival and cost-effectiveness was inconclusive. Qualitative studies (10 studies, 322 participants) suggested that hospital-based specialist palliative care was beneficial as it ensured personalised and holistic care for patients and their families, while also fostering open communication, shared decision-making and respectful and compassionate care.

Limitation

In almost half of the included randomised controlled trials, there was palliative care involvement in the control group.

Conclusions

Hospital-based specialist palliative care may offer benefits for person-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, symptom burden, patient depression and satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death) with little evidence of harm.

Future work

More studies are needed of populations with non-malignant diseases, different models of hospital-based specialist palliative care, and cost-effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017083205.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care

BACKGROUND

The policy several countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home; this is supported by surveys that indicate that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fifth update of the original review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs and caregivers compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials registries to 18 March 2020. We checked the reference lists of systematic reviews. For included studies, we checked the reference lists and performed a forward search using ISI Web of Science. We handsearched palliative care journals indexed by ISI Web of Science for online first references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. When appropriate, we combined published data for dichotomous outcomes using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised trials and found no new studies from the search in March 2020. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; 2 trials, 539 participants; I² = 25%; high-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital varied among the trials (range of RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, to RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.55). The effect on patient outcomes and control of symptoms was uncertain. Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up, with little or no difference at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The effect on caregivers (2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), staff (1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and health service costs was uncertain (2 trials, very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home. Research that assesses the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers and admissions to hospital would be a useful addition to the evidence base, and might inform the delivery of these services.

Integration of a palliative approach into heart failure care: a European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association position paper

The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology has published a previous position paper and various guidelines over the past decade recognizing the value of palliative care for those affected by this burdensome condition. Integrating palliative care into evidence-based heart failure management remains challenging for many professionals, as it includes the identification of palliative care needs, symptom control, adjustment of drug and device therapy, advance care planning, family and informal caregiver support, and trying to ensure a 'good death'. This new position paper aims to provide day-to-day practical clinical guidance on these topics, supporting the coordinated provision of palliation strategies as goals of care fluctuate along the heart failure disease trajectory. The specific components of palliative care for symptom alleviation, spiritual and psychosocial support, and the appropriate modification of guideline-directed treatment protocols, including drug deprescription and device deactivation, are described for the chronic, crisis and terminal phases of heart failure.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I² = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I² = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Effects of a person-centred telephone support on fatigue in people with chronic heart failure: Subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue is a prevalent symptom that is associated with various conditions. In patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), fatigue is one of the most commonly reported and distressing symptoms and it is associated with disease progression. Person-centred care (PCC) is a fruitful approach to increase the patient's ability to handle their illness.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PCC in the form of structured telephone support on self-reported fatigue in patients with CHF.

METHOD

This study reports a subgroup analysis of a secondary outcome measure from the Care4Ourselves randomised intervention. Patients (n=77) that were at least 50 years old who had been hospitalized due to worsening CHF received either usual care (n=38) or usual care and PCC in the form of structured telephone support (n=39). Participants in the intervention group created a health plan in partnership with a registered nurse. The plan was followed up and evaluated by telephone. Self-reported fatigue was assessed using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory 20 (MFI-20) at baseline and at 6 months. Linear regression was used to analyse the change in MFI-20 score between the groups.

RESULTS

The intervention group improved significantly from baseline to the 6-month follow-up compared with the control group regarding the 'reduced motivation' dimension of the MFI-20 (Δ -1.41 versus 0.38, p=0.046).

CONCLUSION

PCC in the form of structured telephone support shows promise in supporting patients with CHF in their rehabilitation, improve health-related quality of life and reduce adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN.com ISRCTN55562827.

Puerarin inhibits apoptosis and inflammation in myocardial cells via PPARα expression in rats with chronic heart failure

Chronic heart failure affects myocardial energy metabolism and cardiac function. Puerarin has been reported to improve cardiac function through regulation of energy metabolism in mice with myocardial infarction. The aim of the current study was to determine whether puerarin can improve body weight and reduce inflammation and apoptosis in rats with chronic heart failure. Rats were divided into three groups: Puerarin, PBS and sham group. Transverse aortic constriction was performed to induce chronic heart failure in the puerarin an PBS groups. Cardiac function, apoptosis and inflammation were evaluated following a 4-week treatment in rats with chronic heart failure. The results demonstrated that puerarin significantly increased the survival rate of rats and improved cardiac function compared with the PBS group. In addition, puerarin decreased lactate dehydrogenase and succinate dehydrogenase activity compared with the PBS group. Puerarin treatment increased the expression levels of glucose transporter type 4 and decreased the expression levels of CD36. Additionally, puerarin decreased the levels inflammatory factors, including tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-6 in serum and myocardial tissue compared with the PBS group. Puerarin upregulated peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) and its downstream target genes nuclear respiratory factor 1, FOS proto-oncogene, YY1 transcription factor, acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase a, Fas cell surface death receptor, L-type pyruvate kinase and acetyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase medium chain in myocardial cells from rats with chronic heart failure. These results demonstrated that puerarin inhibited apoptosis and inflammation in myocardial cells via the PPARα pathway. In conclusion, the present study indicated that puerarin may exhibit antiapoptotic and anti-inflammatory activity through the PPARα pathway in rats with chronic heart failure.

Effects of a person-centred telephone-support in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or chronic heart failure - A randomized controlled trial

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of person-centred support via telephone in two chronically ill patient groups, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and/or chronic heart failure (CHF).

Method

221 patients ≥ 50 years with COPD and/or CHF were randomized to usual care vs. usual care plus a person-centred telephone-support intervention and followed for six months. Patients in the intervention group were telephoned by a registered nurse initially to co-create a person-centred health plan with the patient and subsequently to discuss and evaluate the plan. The primary outcome measure was a composite score comprising General Self-Efficacy (GSE), re-hospitalization and death. Patients were classified as deteriorated if GSE had decreased by ≥ 5 points, or if they had been re-admitted to hospital for unscheduled reasons related to COPD and/or CHF or if they had died.

Results

At six-month follow-up no difference in the composite score was found between the two study groups (57.6%, n = 68 vs. 46.6%, n = 48; OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.9–2.7; P = 0.102) in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 221); however, significantly more patients in the control group showed a clinically important decrease in GSE (≥ 5 units) (22.9%, n = 27 vs. 9.7%, n = 10; OR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.3–6.0; P = 0.011). There were 49 clinical events (14 deaths, 35 re-admissions) in the control group and 41 in the intervention group (9 deaths, 32 re-admissions). Per-protocol analysis (n = 202) of the composite score showed that more patients deteriorated in the control group than in the intervention group (57.6%, n = 68 vs. 42.9%, n = 36; OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.0–3.2; P = 0.039).

Conclusion

Person-centred support via telephone mitigates worsening self-efficacy without increasing the risk of clinical events in chronically ill patients with CHF and/or COPD. This indicates that a patient-healthcare professional partnership may be established without the need for face-to-face consultations, even in vulnerable patient groups.

Trial registration

ISRCTN.comISRCTN55562827.

Patients' experiences of person-centred integrated heart failure care and palliative care at home: an interview study

OBJECTIVES

Patients with severe heart failure (HF) suffer from a high symptom burden and high mortality. European and Swedish guidelines for HF care recommend palliative care for these patients. Different models for integrated palliative care and HF care have been described in the literature. No studies were found that qualitatively evaluated these models. The purpose of this study is to describe patients' experiences of a new model of person-centred integrated HF and palliative care at home.

METHOD

Interviews were conducted with 12 patients with severe HF (New York Heart Association class IIIâ€"IV) and included in the research project of Palliative advanced home caRE and heart FailurE caRe (PREFER). Qualitative content analysis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Two themes and a total of five categories were identified. The first theme was feeling secure and safe through receiving care at home with the categories: having access to readily available care at home, being followed up continuously and having trust in the team members' ability to help. The second theme was being acknowledged as both a person and a patient, with the following two categories: being met as a person, participating in decisions about one's care and receiving help for symptoms of both HF and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Person-centred integrated HF and palliative care provides a secure environment and holistic care for patients with severe HF. This approach is a way to improve the care management in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01304381; Results.