Abstract
Background People living at home with advanced illness require around-the-clock care. Telephone-based advice lines are critical for accessing help, yet evidence is limited.
Aim To explore ‘out-of-hours’ telephone-based advice lines available to adults living at home with advanced illness and their carers across the UK, and construct a practical framework to improve services.
Design Structured qualitative interviews with thematic analysis. A patient and public involvement workshop was conducted to refine the proposed framework.
Setting/participants Professionals with palliative/end-of-life care commissioning responsibilities, or knowledge of out-of-hours service provision, were purposively sampled to ensure UK-wide representation.
Results Seventy-one interviews were conducted, covering 60 geographical areas. Five themes were identified. Availability: Ten models of advice lines were described. Variation led to confusion about who to call and when. Accessibility, awareness and promotion: It was assumed that patients/carers know who to call out-of-hours, but often they did not. Practicalities: Call handlers skills/expertise varied, which influenced how calls were managed. Possible responses ranged from simply signposting to organising home visits. Integration/continuity of care: Integration between care providers was limited by electronic medical records access and information sharing. Service structure/commissioning: Sustained funding was often an issue for charitably funded organisations.
Conclusions Multiple advice lines lead to confusion and delays in obtaining care, as many default to general ‘out-of-hours’ advice lines. Dedicated advice lines are valuable for patients with advanced illness as long as they are implemented well. A practical framework (including a comprehensive overview of components) is provided for guiding how these are delivered.
Key statements What is already known about the topic?
People living at home with advanced illness and those that care for them need access to dedicated palliative and end-of-life care 24 hours a day, 7-days a week.
While understanding of telephone advice lines often exists at a single service level, there is limited knowledge in terms of national provision.
What does this paper add?
This qualitative study provides an understanding of multiple telephone-based advice line services available out-of-hours at a national-level, and identifies a lack of consistency and challenges with integration between available services.
Promotion of dedicated advice lines (or an area equivalent) needs to ensure that people with advanced illness are aware of how to access such support, but there is variation in how this is done.
Incorporating the views of patients with advanced illness and carers in the development of telephone-based advice is essential to ensure the care delivered is centred around their needs.
Implications for practice, theory or policy
The practical framework developed in this research (using key considerations from professionals based on structured interviews and a patient and public involvement workshop) can be used to guide commissioners and service providers.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was conducted as part of the Better End of Life Programme which is funded by Marie Curie (grant MCSON-20-102) and awarded to KES, IJH, FEMM and SB. The research was carried out by Kings College London in collaboration with Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, and University of Cambridge. The funder was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis, or interpretation of results. KES is the Laing Galazka Chair in palliative care at Kings College London, funded by an endowment from Cicely Saunders International and the Kirby Laing Foundation. IJH is an NIHR Senior Investigator Emeritus. FEMM is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. IJH and SB are supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London (SL) and NIHR ARC East of England, respectively. The views expressed in the report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Hull York Medical School Ethics Committee (Reference 21/22 7) gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available within the article or its supplementary materials.
