Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective Various providers have piloted palliative virtual wards in the past 4 years. This survey provides the first aggregated data from across the UK.
Method A cross-sectional online survey distributed to UK palliative care providers using a multilevel, snowballing methodology.
Results 86 responses were received, with responses from 22 palliative virtual wards. All services who responded support patients with unstable palliative symptoms who would otherwise need hospital or hospice admission (100%). Many provide step-down support from hospital (72%) or the emergency department (69%).
Services rely on daily specialist nurse and consultant input. A few have regular input from therapists (23%) and pharmacists (17%), which is reported as valuable. Most recruited additional staff (65%). Providers use telephone contact (100%) and face-to-face contact (93%). Fewer use video consultations (69%) and remote-monitoring technology (15%).
75% of services rely on charitable funding and two virtual wards have closed due to lack of funds.
Palliative virtual ward professionals report that they reduce hospital admissions, facilitate patient choice and provide support for patients’ loved ones.
Conclusions Palliative virtual wards are increasing in number: 25% of survey respondents are considering launching one. This survey details varied models of care and reports positive outcomes for patients, carers and staff. These services resemble frailty virtual wards with an emphasis on face-to-face rather than technology-enabled care. Integrated services within a wider virtual ward show promise but are currently in the minority.
Further research is needed into the comparative benefits of a palliative virtual ward model over standard care.
- Palliative Care
- Home Care
- Home Care Services
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. De-identified participant survey data.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. De-identified participant survey data.
Footnotes
Contributors HLM-M: methodology, survey design, distribution, data analysis, literature review, writing—original draft, review and editing. DS: survey review, writing—review and editing, supervision. HLM-M is the guarantor.
Funding HLM-M undertook this research during a Darzi Fellowship sponsored by Croydon Health Services NHS Trust.
Map disclaimer The inclusion of any map (including the depiction of any boundaries therein), or of any geographical or locational reference, does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. Any such expression remains solely that of the relevant source and is not endorsed by BMJ. Maps are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.