The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hospices: A systematic integrated review and synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice.

Covid-19; hospice; specialist palliative care; policy; integrated review

Journal

AMRC open research
ISSN: 2517-6900
Titre abrégé: AMRC Open Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101755131

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
accepted: 17 10 2022
medline: 26 10 2022
pubmed: 26 10 2022
entrez: 6 5 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the development of numerous recommendations for practice and policy for specialist palliative care provided by hospices in United Kingdom (UK), as hospices were significantly affected by the pandemic and protections put in place.The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise recommendations or implications for policy and practice that have been generated for adult hospice specialist palliative care during the first 24 months of the Covid-19 pandemic. AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers, as well as hand searchers for grey literature. Literature relating to hospices and Covid-19 in the UK were included and a thematic synthesis of recommendations for hospice policy and practice was undertaken. 858 articles were identified with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight recommendations or implications were identified: 31 for policy, 27 for practice, and 10 covering both. Recommendations were organised under ten themes. There were several recommendations seeking to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short-term impact of the pandemic, as well as those focused on longer-term implications such as core funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services. The Covid-19 pandemic and protections exposed several ongoing policy and practice needs, especially around hospice resources, while generating novel issues for hospices to address. Significant policy gaps remain to be addressed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice specialist palliative care. Hospices in the UK faced many challenges during the first two-years of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this time several research studies and reviews took place that provided hospices with recommendations for how to adapt their policies and clinical practices. In this review we identified 12 documents that contained 58 recommendations for hospices’ policy and practice. We grouped these recommendations together under ten key themes. We found that there were several recommendations aiming to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short and longer-term impacts upon hospice funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the development of numerous recommendations for practice and policy for specialist palliative care provided by hospices in United Kingdom (UK), as hospices were significantly affected by the pandemic and protections put in place.The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise recommendations or implications for policy and practice that have been generated for adult hospice specialist palliative care during the first 24 months of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Methods UNASSIGNED
AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers, as well as hand searchers for grey literature. Literature relating to hospices and Covid-19 in the UK were included and a thematic synthesis of recommendations for hospice policy and practice was undertaken.
Results UNASSIGNED
858 articles were identified with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight recommendations or implications were identified: 31 for policy, 27 for practice, and 10 covering both. Recommendations were organised under ten themes. There were several recommendations seeking to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short-term impact of the pandemic, as well as those focused on longer-term implications such as core funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
The Covid-19 pandemic and protections exposed several ongoing policy and practice needs, especially around hospice resources, while generating novel issues for hospices to address. Significant policy gaps remain to be addressed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice specialist palliative care.
Hospices in the UK faced many challenges during the first two-years of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this time several research studies and reviews took place that provided hospices with recommendations for how to adapt their policies and clinical practices. In this review we identified 12 documents that contained 58 recommendations for hospices’ policy and practice. We grouped these recommendations together under ten key themes. We found that there were several recommendations aiming to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short and longer-term impacts upon hospice funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
Hospices in the UK faced many challenges during the first two-years of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this time several research studies and reviews took place that provided hospices with recommendations for how to adapt their policies and clinical practices. In this review we identified 12 documents that contained 58 recommendations for hospices’ policy and practice. We grouped these recommendations together under ten key themes. We found that there were several recommendations aiming to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short and longer-term impacts upon hospice funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38708127
doi: 10.12688/amrcopenres.13105.1
pmc: PMC11064931
doi:

Types de publication

Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

23

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2022 van Langen-Datta S et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

No competing interests were disclosed.

Auteurs

Shalene van Langen-Datta (S)

Marie Curie, London, SE1 7TP, UK.

Helen Wesson (H)

Unit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.

Joanna Fleming (J)

Unit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.

Abi Eccles (A)

Unit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.

Catherine Grimley (C)

Unit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.

Jeremy Dale (J)

Unit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.

Kathryn Almack (K)

University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK.

Catriona Mayland (C)

Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.

Sarah Mitchell (S)

Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.

Ruth Driscoll (R)

Marie Curie, London, SE1 7TP, UK.

Lynn Tatnell (L)

Patient or Public Involvement (PPI) Representative, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Lesley Roberts (L)

Patient or Public Involvement (PPI) Representative, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

John I MacArtney (JI)

Unit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.

Classifications MeSH