Benefits and resource implications of family meetings for hospitalized palliative care patients: research protocol.

BACKGROUND:
Palliative care focuses on supporting patients diagnosed with advanced, incurable disease; it is 'family centered', with the patient and their family (the unit of care) being core to all its endeavours. However, approximately 30-50% of carers experience psychological distress which is typically under recognised and consequently not addressed. Family meetings (FM) are recommended as a means whereby health professionals, together with family carers and patients discuss psychosocial issues and plan care; however there is minimal empirical research to determine the net effect of these meetings and the resources required to implement them systematically. The aims of this study were to evaluate: (1) if family carers of hospitalised patients with advanced disease (referred to a specialist palliative care in-patient setting or palliative care consultancy service) who receive a FM report significantly lower psychological distress (primary outcome), fewer unmet needs, increased quality of life and feel more prepared for the caregiving role; (2) if patients who receive the FM experience appropriate quality of end-of-life care, as demonstrated by fewer hospital admissions, fewer emergency department presentations, fewer intensive care unit hours, less chemotherapy treatment (in last 30 days of life), and higher likelihood of death in the place of their choice and access to supportive care services; (3) the optimal time point to deliver FM and; (4) to determine the cost-benefit and resource implications of implementing FM meetings into routine practice.
METHODS:
Cluster type trial design with two way randomization for aims 1-3 and health economic modeling and qualitative interviews with health for professionals for aim 4.
DISCUSSION:
The research will determine whether FMs have positive practical and psychological impacts on the family, impacts on health service usage, and financial benefits to the health care sector. This study will also provide clear guidance on appropriate timing in the disease/care trajectory to provide a family meeting.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives:Objectives To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods:We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field.Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.Main results:Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months’ follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months’ follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the serviceAuthors’ conclusions:There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.