Background: Telehealth seems feasible for use in home-based palliative care (HBPC). It may improve access to health care professionals (HCPs) at patients’ homes, reduce hospital admissions, enhance patients’ feelings of security and safety, and increase the time spent at home for patients in HBPC. HBPC requires the involvement of various HCPs such as nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, dietitians, psychologists, religious counselors, and social workers. Acceptance of the use of technology among HCPs is essential for the successful delivery of telehealth in practice. No scoping review has mapped the experiences and perspectives of HCPs regarding the use of telehealth in HBPC. Objective: The aim of this review was to systematically map published studies on HCPs’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the methodology of Arksey and O’Malley. The review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A systematic search was performed in AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022. The reference lists of the included papers were hand searched to identify additional studies. The inclusion criteria were (1) studies using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; (2) studies including HCPs using telehealth with patients in HBPC; (3) studies on HCPs’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC; (4) studies published between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022; and (5) studies published in English, Portuguese, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, or Spanish. Pairs of authors independently included studies and extracted data. The first 2 stages of thematic synthesis were used to thematically organize the data. Results: This scoping review included 29 papers from 28 studies. Four descriptive themes were identified: (1) easy to use but technological issues undermine confidence, (2) adds value but personal and organizational barriers challenge adoption, (3) potential to provide useful and meaningful patient-reported data, and (4) mutual trust as a prerequisite for interpersonal relationships. Conclusions: Telehealth in HBPC seems to be easy to use and may improve the coordination of care, time efficiency, clinical assessments, and help build and enhance personal and professional relationships. However, the introduction of technology in HBPC is complex, as it may not align well with the overall aim of palliative care from HCPs’ point of view. Further, changes in practice and requirements for HCPs may reduce motivation for the use of telehealth in HBPC. HCPs consider themselves to have central roles in implementing telehealth, and a lack of acceptance and motivation is a key barrier to telehealth adoption. Policy makers and telehealth developers should be aware of this potential barrier when developing or implementing new technology for use in HBPC. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/33305

Aims and objectives: To explore nurses’ experiences and perspectives on discharge collaboration when patients receiving palliative care for cancer are discharged home from hospitals.Background: Patients receiving palliative care for cancer experience multiple transitions between the hospital and their home. Poor discharge collaboration is a major cause of preventable hospital readmissions. Collaborative discharge planning could improve the care for these patients outside the hospital setting. Previous research has mostly been conducted in noncancer populations. Further research regarding both home care nurses’ and hospital nurses’ perspectives on care transitions is required.Design: A qualitative study with descriptive and explorative design.Methods: Data were collected through 10 individual, semi‐structured interviews of nurses working at two oncology wards at a university hospital and home care services in four municipalities within the hospital's catchment area. Data were analysed using systematic text condensation. COREQ guidelines were adhered to in the reporting of this study.Results: Three categories emerged from the data analysis: lack of familiarity and different perceptions lead to distrust; inefficient communication creates a need for informal collaboration; and delayed discharge planning challenges collaboration.Conclusions: The nurses lacked an understanding of each other's work situation, which created distrust, misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding each other's abilities to care for the patient. This led to inefficient communication, relying on individual knowledge, informal communication and personal networking. Delays in the discharge planning resulted in poorly prepared discharges often lacking necessary equipment and documentation.Relevance to clinical practice: To improve the care of patients receiving palliative care for cancer outside the hospital setting, better communication is a key factor to promote confidence and understanding between nurses working in different settings of health care.

Background: Telehealth seems feasible for use in home-based palliative care. However, acceptance among health care professionals (HCPs) is essential for the successful delivery of telehealth in practice. No scoping review has mapped the experiences and perspectives of HCPs on the use of telehealth for home-based palliative care. Objective: The aim of this review is to systematically map published studies on HCPs’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care. Methods: The proposed scoping review will employ the methodology of Arksey and O’Malley. This protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P). A systematic search will be performed in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and Web of Science for studies published between January 2000 and July 5, 2021. We will also hand search the reference lists of included papers to identify additional studies of relevance. The search will be updated in 2022. Pairs of authors will independently assess the eligibility of studies and extract data. The first 2 stages of thematic synthesis will be used to thematically organize the data. Because the scoping review methodology consists of reviewing and collecting data from publicly available materials, this study does not require ethics approval. Results: The database searches; testing of eligibility criteria; and screening of titles, abstracts, and full-text papers will be performed by fall 2021. The results from this scoping review will be presented as a descriptive summary of the results from all included papers, and will be inductively organized into descriptive themes. A frequency table illustrating which papers were included in which descriptive themes will be made. Results are anticipated by the fall of 2022. Conclusions: A mapping of studies could identify research gaps regarding HCPs’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care and may determine the value and feasibility of conducting a full systematic review. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/33305

Background: Systematic symptom management is a crucial component in patient-centered cancer care. Despite the development of numerous electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) tools, integrating these tools into clinical practice remains challenging. Engaging key stakeholders, including patients, in the development of ePROM tools is pivotal to fostering the adoption of such tools. As part of an innovation and implementation study aimed at enhancing efficiency and patient-centered care (PCC) through the development of digital PCC pathways, we explored the perspectives of patients with cancer on current clinical practice regarding symptom management and PCC, as well as their needs and preferences related to ePROMs. Objective: This study aims to explore the perspectives of patients with cancer on PCC and symptom management, including their experience with current clinical practice and their views on how ePROMs might enhance patient-centered follow-up. Methods: A 2-stage qualitative design was used. In stage 1, semistructured individual interviews were conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of patients’ experiences with current clinical practice, including perceived challenges and unmet needs. Stage 2 involved structured interviews to further explore patients’ perspectives on the potential role of ePROMs in enhancing patient-centered follow-up. Results: A total of 10 patients were included in the study, participating in either or both stages. Two main themes were developed through a reflexive thematic analysis process: (1) symptom management in the shadow of disease-centered care, and (2) ePROMs: bridging holistic care and disease management. Theme 1 highlighted how patients made sense of symptom management within a health care context primarily focused on disease treatment and progression. Their narratives revealed that biomedical concerns often dominated clinical encounters, while patients’ broader lived experiences and symptom-related needs were marginalized. Patients shared an understanding that it was their own responsibility to redirect the focus of clinical consultations toward symptoms. While they generally expressed satisfaction with the care received, they also described a sense of unmet needs that remained unaddressed. The second theme explored how patients made sense of the potential role of an ePROM tool in supporting more patient-centered cancer care. Their accounts revealed both perceived barriers and facilitators to its use, shaped by the expectations and needs that contrasted with current clinical practices. Central to this was a belief, emerging through engagement with the conceptual tool’s functionalities, that it could enable a more holistic approach to care, extending beyond physical symptom to encompass the lived experience of cancer. Conclusions: Patients often felt personally responsible for ensuring that their symptoms were addressed, indicating shortcomings in follow-up and communication. ePROMs were identified as a promising tool to strengthen PCC by amplifying patient voices and enabling more holistic and responsive follow-up. Integrating ePROMs into routine care may improve symptom visibility, foster shared understanding between patients and health care professionals, and support more equitable care delivery.

Purpose: Patient-centered care (PCC) improves quality of life, symptom management and healthcare outcomes in oncology. However, integration into routine cancer care remains limited. Digital solutions using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) offer a potential mechanism to operationalize PCC. This study explored healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) pre-implementation perspectives on using digital PROMs to support PCC in Norwegian oncology outpatient clinics, informing the design and implementation strategies of the European MyPath digital solution. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 29) and three focus groups (n = 16) were conducted with varied HCPs across four Norwegian hospitals. Interviews explored perceptions of PCC, experiences with PROMs, and requirements for digital implementation. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, combining inductive and deductive coding guided by the TPOM framework. Results: Four themes emerged: (1) balancing PCC with disease-centered practices, (2) integrating PCC into daily routines, (3) customization and patient acceptance of digital tools, and (4) combining patient-reported data with clinical autonomy. HCPs viewed digital PROMs as promising for facilitating PCC but emphasized that successful implementation requires workflow alignment, adaptable digital solutions, and strong stakeholder engagement. Concerns included patient digital literacy, workload implications, and overreliance on PROMs at the expense of direct patient interaction. Conclusion: Our findings highlight a tension between HCPs’ needs for technical functionality and workflow alignment, and the support required to adapt their practice to fully realize PCC through digital tools. Integrating PCC successfully requires organizational, cultural, and workflow adaptations, alongside active HCP engagement in design and implementation. These changes are essential to reposition PCC as an integral rather than competing component of high-quality cancer care.

BACKGROUND Telehealth seems feasible for use in home-based palliative care (HBPC). It may improve access to health care professionals (HCPs) at patients’ homes, reduce hospital admissions, enhance patients’ feelings of security and safety, and increase the time spent at home for patients in HBPC. HBPC requires the involvement of various HCPs such as nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, dietitians, psychologists, religious counselors, and social workers. Acceptance of the use of technology among HCPs is essential for the successful delivery of telehealth in practice. No scoping review has mapped the experiences and perspectives of HCPs regarding the use of telehealth in HBPC. OBJECTIVE The aim of this review was to systematically map published studies on HCPs’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC. METHODS A scoping review was conducted using the methodology of Arksey and O’Malley. The review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A systematic search was performed in AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022. The reference lists of the included papers were hand searched to identify additional studies. The inclusion criteria were (1) studies using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; (2) studies including HCPs using telehealth with patients in HBPC; (3) studies on HCPs’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC; (4) studies published between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022; and (5) studies published in English, Portuguese, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, or Spanish. Pairs of authors independently included studies and extracted data. The first 2 stages of thematic synthesis were used to thematically organize the data. RESULTS This scoping review included 29 papers from 28 studies. Four descriptive themes were identified: (1) easy to use but technological issues undermine confidence, (2) adds value but personal and organizational barriers challenge adoption, (3) potential to provide useful and meaningful patient-reported data, and (4) mutual trust as a prerequisite for interpersonal relationships. CONCLUSIONS Telehealth in HBPC seems to be easy to use and may improve the coordination of care, time efficiency, clinical assessments, and help build and enhance personal and professional relationships. However, the introduction of technology in HBPC is complex, as it may not align well with the overall aim of palliative care from HCPs’ point of view. Further, changes in practice and requirements for HCPs may reduce motivation for the use of telehealth in HBPC. HCPs consider themselves to have central roles in implementing telehealth, and a lack of acceptance and motivation is a key barrier to telehealth adoption. Policy makers and telehealth developers should be aware of this potential barrier when developing or implementing new technology for use in HBPC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/33305