Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38708127›Full record

SynthesisAMRC open research2022

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

Shalene van Langen-Datta, Helen Wesson, Joanna Fleming, Abi Eccles, Catherine Grimley, Jeremy Dale, Kathryn Almack, Catriona Mayland, Sarah Mitchell, Ruth Driscoll and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in AMRC open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Shalene van Langen-DattaMarie Curie, London, SE1 7TP, UK.
Helen WessonUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.
Joanna FlemingUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.
Abi EcclesUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9792-8299
Catherine GrimleyUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.
Jeremy DaleUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.
Kathryn AlmackUniversity of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4342-241X
Catriona MaylandDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.
Sarah MitchellDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1477-7860
Ruth DriscollMarie Curie, London, SE1 7TP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1211-6292
Lynn TatnellPatient or Public Involvement (PPI) Representative, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-9195
Lesley RobertsPatient or Public Involvement (PPI) Representative, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
John I MacArtneyUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 7AL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0879-4277

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Indexed as

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

Identifiers

PMID38708127
PMCPMC11064931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.