An evidence-base for the implementation of hospital-based palliative care programs in routine cancer practice: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention. AIM: To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration. DESIGN: Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092). DATA SOURCES: Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour. RESULTS: Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

Comparing health gains, costs and cost-effectiveness of 100s of interventions in Australia and New Zealand: an online interactive league table.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the health gains, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hundreds of Australian and New Zealand (NZ) health interventions conducted with comparable methods in an online interactive league table designed to inform policy. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed evaluations (2010 to 2018) arising from the Australia Cost-Effectiveness research and NZ Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programmes, or using similar methodology, with: health gains quantified as health-adjusted life years (HALYs); net health system costs and/or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; time horizon of at least 10 years; and 3% to 5% discount rates. RESULTS: We identified 384 evaluations that met the inclusion criteria, covering 14 intervention domains: alcohol; cancer; cannabis; communicable disease; cardiovascular disease; diabetes; diet; injury; mental illness; other non-communicable diseases; overweight and obesity; physical inactivity; salt; and tobacco. There were large variations in health gain across evaluations: 33.9% gained less than 0.1 HALYs per 1000 people in the total population over the remainder of their lifespan, through to 13.0% gaining > 10 HALYs per 1000 people. Over a third (38.8%) of evaluations were cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: League tables of comparably conducted evaluations illustrate the large health gain (and cost) variations per capita between interventions, in addition to cost-effectiveness. Further work can test the utility of this league table with policy-makers and researchers.

Care plus study: a multi-site implementation of early palliative care in routine practice to improve health outcomes and reduce hospital admissions for people with advanced cancer: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Current international consensus is that 'early' referral to palliative care services improves cancer patient and family carer outcomes. In practice, however, these referrals are not routine. An approach which directly addresses identified barriers to early integration of palliative care is required. This protocol details a trial of a standardized model of early palliative care (Care Plus) introduced at key defined, disease-specific times or transition points in the illness for people with cancer. Introduced as a 'whole of system' practice change for identified advanced cancers, the key outcomes of interest are population health service use change. The aims of the study are to examine the effect of Care Plus implementation on (1) acute hospitalisation days in the last 3 months of life; (2) timeliness of access to palliative care; (3) quality and (4) costs of end of life care; and (5) the acceptability of services for people with advanced cancer. METHODS: Multi-site stepped wedge implementation trial testing usual care (control) versus Care Plus (practice change). The design stipulates 'control' periods when usual care is observed, and the process of implementing Care Plus which includes phases of planning, engagement, practice change and evaluation. During the practice change phase, all patients with targeted advanced cancers reaching the transition point will, by default, receive Care Plus. Health service utilization and unit costs before and after implementation will be collated from hospital records, and state and national health service administrative datasets. Qualitative data from patients, consumers and clinicians before and after practice change will be gathered through interviews and focus groups. DISCUSSION: The study outcomes will detail the impact and acceptability of the standardized integration of palliative care as a practice change, including recommendations for ongoing sustainability and broader implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12619001703190 . Registered 04 December 2019.