ArticleBMC palliative care2018
Impact of the Macmillan specialist Care at Home service: a mixed methods evaluation across six sites.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reasons for patients in high income countries accessing hospital care while receiving specialist community palliative care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography.Palliative medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Family Caregiver Needs, Interventions, and Outcomes in Home-Based Cancer Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Defining "early palliative care" for adults diagnosed with a life-limiting illness: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of a neonatal COVID-19 response project: A mixed-methods evaluation using the Donabedian model.Journal of neonatal nursing : JNN · 2023Article
- Supported: Supporting, enabling, and sustaining homecare workers to deliver end-of-life care: A qualitative study protocol.PloS one · 2023Article
- Quality of care in the last year of life: adaptation and validation of the German "Views of Informal Carers' Evaluation of Services - Last Year of Life - Cologne".BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The quality of end-of-life care for Danish cancer patients who have received non-specialized palliative care: a national survey using the Danish version of VOICES-SF.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Longitudinal patterns and predictors of healthcare utilization among cancer patients on home-based palliative care in Singapore: a group-based multi-trajectory analysis.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Discordance and concordance on perception of quality care at end of life between older patients, caregivers and clinicians: a scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 2022Article
- Family caregivers' support needs during allo-HSCT-a longitudinal study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- 'My wife is my doctor at home': A qualitative study exploring the challenges of home-based palliative care in a resource-poor setting.Palliative medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Midhurst Macmillan Specialist Palliative Care at Home Service was founded in 2006 to improve community-based palliative care provision. Principal components include; early referral; home-based clinical interventions; close partnership working; and flexible teamwork. Following a successful introduction, the model was implemented in six further sites across England. This article reports a mixed methods evaluation of the implementation across these 'Innovation Centres'. The evaluation aimed to assess the process and impact on staff, patients and carers of providing Macmillan Specialist Care at Home services across the six sites.
methodsThe study was set within a Realist Evaluation framework and used a longitudinal, mixed methods research design. Data collection over 15 months (2014-2016) included: Quantitative outcome measures - Palliative Performance Scale [PPS] and Palliative Prognostic Index [PPI] (n = 2711); Integrated Palliative Outcome Scales [IPOS] (n = 1157); Carers Support Needs Assessment Tool [CSNAT] (n = 241); Views of Informal Carers -Evaluation of Services [VOICES-SF] (n = 102); a custom-designed Service Data Tool [SDT] that gathered prospective data from each site (n = 88). Qualitative data methods included: focus groups with project team and staff (n = 32 groups with n = 190 participants), and, volunteers (n = 6 groups with n = 32 participants). Quantitative data were analysed using SPPS Vs. 21 and qualitative data was examined via thematic analysis.
resultsComparison of findings across the six sites revealed the impact of their unique configurations on outcomes, compounded by variations in stage and mode of implementation. PPS, PPI and IPOS data revealed disparity in early referral criteria, complicated by contrasting interpretations of palliative care. The qualitative analysis, CSNAT and VOICES-SF data confirmed the value of the Macmillan model of care but uptake of specialist home-based clinical interventions was limited. The Macmillan brand engendered patient and carer confidence, bringing added value to existing services. Significant findings included better co-ordination of palliative care through project management and a single referral point and multi-disciplinary teamwork including leadership from consultants in palliative medicine, the role of health care assistants in rapid referral, and volunteer support.
conclusionsMacmillan Specialist Care at Home increases patient choice about place of death and enhances the quality of end of life experience. Clarification of key components is advocated to aid consistency of implementation across different sites and support future evaluative work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.