Background: Providing the right care for each individual patient is a key element of quality palliative care. Complexity is a relatively new concept, defined as the nature of patients’ situations and the extent of resulting needs. Classifying patients according to the complexity of their care needs can guide integration of services, anticipatory discussions, health service planning, resource management and determination of needs for specialist or general palliative care. However, there is no consistent approach to interpreting and classifying complexity of patient needs. Aim: The aim of this article is to identify and describe classification systems for complexity of patient care needs in palliative care. Design: Narrative systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182102). Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases were searched without time limitations. Articles were included that described classification systems for complexity of care requirements in populations with palliative care needs. Results: In total, 4301 records were screened, with nine articles identified reporting the use of patient classification systems in populations with palliative care needs. These articles included the use of six classification systems: HexCom, Perroca Scale, AN-SNAP, Hui Major Criteria, IDC-Pal and PALCOM. These systems were heterogenous in the manner they determined complexity of care needs. The HexCom and IDC-Pal systems contained items that covered all domains of complexity as described by Hodiamont; personal, social support, health care team and environment. Conclusion: Although six classification systems have been developed, they access differing aspects of care needs and their application has been limited. The HexCOM and IDC-Pal systems offer the broadest determinations of complexity from an individual perspective. Further research is needed to apply these systems to populations external to those in which they were developed, and to appreciate how they may integrate with, and impact, clinical care.

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: Patients express a variety of needs, some of which are labeled social and spiritual. Without an in-depth exploration of patients’ expressions of these needs, it is difficult to differentiate between them and allocate appropriate healthcare interventions. Aim: To gain insight into the social and spiritual needs of patients with a life-limiting illness and the distinction between these needs, as found in the research literature. Design: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-aggregation were conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach to qualitative synthesis and the PALETTE framework and were reported according to the PRISMA statement. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019133571). Data sources: The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycInfo. Eligible studies reported social and spiritual needs from the patients’ perspective and were published between January 1st 2008 and October 2020. The quality of evidence was assessed using JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Results: Thirty-four studies (19 qualitative, 1 mixed-methods, and 14 quantitative) were included. The five synthesized findings encompassing social and spiritual needs were: being autonomous, being connected, finding and having meaning, having a positive outlook, and dealing with dying and death. Conclusion: What literature labels as social and spiritual needs shows great similarities and overlap. Instead of distinguishing social from spiritual needs based on patients’ linguistic expressions, needs should always be explored in-depth. We propose a socio-spiritual approach that honors and preserves the multidimensionality of patients’ needs and enables interdisciplinary teamwork to allocate patient-tailored care.