Hospice assist at home service supports patients to die in their preferred place of death. Shared responsibility of proactive care in primary care collaboration enabled patients to express preferences. Hospice care should focus on local teamwork, to contribute to shared responsibilities in providing optimal palliative care.

MC is not always verifiable in patient records; however, it is experienced by hospice professionals. The level of MC varied between hospices. The use of assessment tools and a stepped skills approach for spiritual care are recommended and multidimensional assessment tools should be developed. Leadership and commitment of all members of the MT is needed to establish the integration of multidimensional symptom management and interdisciplinary collaboration as preconditions for integrated multidimensional HC.

Background The Utrecht Symptom Diary (USD) is a Dutch and adapted version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, a patient‐reported outcome measurement (PROM) tool to asses and monitor symptoms in cancer patients. This study analyses the validity and responsiveness of the USD and the cutoff points to determine the clinical significance of a symptom score. Methods Observational longitudinal cohort study including adult in‐ and outpatients treated in an academic hospital in the Netherlands who completed at least one USD as part of routine care (2012‐2019). The distress thermometer and problem checklist (DT&PC) was used as a reference PROM. Content, construct and criterion validity, responsiveness, and cutoff points are shown with prevalences, area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, Chi‐squared test, Wilcoxon signed‐rank test, and positive and negative predictive values, respectively. Results A total of 3913 patients completed 22 400 USDs. Content validity was confirmed for all added USD items with prevalences of ≥22%. All USD items also present on the DT&PC demonstrated a good criterion validity (ROC >0.8). Construct validity was confirmed for the USD as a whole and for the items dry mouth, dysphagia and well‐being (P < .0001). USD scores differed significantly for patients when improving or deteriorating on the DT&PC which confirmed responsiveness. Optimal cutoff points (3 or 4) differed per symptom. Conclusion The USD is a valid 12‐item PROM for the most prevalent symptoms in cancer patients, which has content, criterion, and construct validity, and detects clinically important changes over time, in both curative and palliative phase.