Background: There is extensive need for palliative care worldwide, but access to care remains inadequate, especially for non-cancer patients. Video consultations are a promising tool in the provision of home-based palliative care, but an overview of evidence solely on video consultations in palliative care is lacking. Aim: To review and synthesize current evidence regarding the use of video consultations in general and specialized palliative care to various patient groups. Design: A systematic integrative review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA (2009) guidelines. PROSPERO #: CRD42018095383 Data sources: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for primary research articles published between 2005 and 2018. In addition, reference lists of included articles were hand searched. Results: The search resulted in 813 articles; 39 articles were included in the review, consisting of mixed methods ( n = 14), qualitative ( n = 10), quantitative ( n = 10), and case studies ( n = 5). The studies mainly focused on specialized palliative care to adult patients with cancer in high income countries. Through data analysis, six themes addressing advantages/disadvantages and facilitators/barriers were identified: (1) Redesign of care, (2) Communication, (3) User perceptions, (4) Technology, (5) Privacy issues, and (6) Economic implications. Conclusion: Using video technology in palliative care has both advantages and disadvantages. However, evidence beyond the focus on specialized palliative care and patients with cancer is limited. Future research should focus on how and when video consultations might replace in-person specialized palliative care and video consultations in general palliative care, in low and middle income countries; and involve patients with a non-cancer diagnosis.

Background The work of specialized palliative care (SPC) teams is often challenged by substantial amounts of time spent driving to and from patients’ homes and long distances between the patients and the hospitals. Objective Video consultations may be a solution for real-time SPC at home. The aim of this study was to explore the use of video consultations, experienced by patients and their relatives, as part of SPC at home. Methods This explorative and qualitative study included palliative care patients in different stages and relatives to use video consultations as a part of their SPC between October 2016 and March 2017. Data collection took place in the patients’ homes and consisted of participant observations followed by semistructured interviews. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients with the need for SPC, aged more than 18 years, who agreed to participate, and relatives wanting to participate in the video consultations. Data were analyzed with Giorgi’s descriptive phenomenological methodology. Results A number of patients (n=11) and relatives (n=3) were included and, in total, 86 video consultations were conducted. Patients participating varied in time from 1 month to 6 months, and the number of video consultations per patient varied from 3 to 18. The use of video consultations led to a situation where patients, despite life-threatening illnesses and technical difficulties, took an active role. In addition, relatives were able to join on equal terms, which increased active involvement. The patients had different opinions on when to initiate the use of video consultations in SPC; it was experienced as optional at the initiating stage as well as the final stage of illness. If the video consultations included multiple participants from the SPC team, the use of video consultations could be difficult to complete without interruptions. Conclusions Video consultations in SPC for home-based patients are feasible and facilitate a strengthened involvement and communication between patients, relatives, and SPC team members.

Aims and objectives To explore the advantages and disadvantages of using video consultations, as experienced by specialised palliative care healthcare professionals, who are involved in palliative care at home. Background One challenge in the work of specialised palliative care teams is the substantial resources used in terms of time and transport to and from the patient's home. Video consultations may be a solution for real‐time specialised palliative home care. Designs Hermeneutic, postphenomenology. Methods An explorative qualitative study utilising data from field notes of an autobiographical diary, participant observations and semi‐structured interviews with healthcare professionals. The COREQ guideline was used for reporting the study. See Appendix S1. The data collection took place in patients' homes and at the Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. Results Eight participants (n = 8); five community nurses; and three specialised palliative care team members—a head physician, a physiotherapist and a nurse—participated in the study. The healthcare professionals' knowledge was based on n = 82 video consultations with 11 patients. The range of video consultations was 3–18 per patient. The use of tablets in video consultations facilitated direct palliative care and led the community nurses and the specialised palliative care team nurse to co‐operate. Potential barriers against using video consultations are the discussions about personal, and private issues regarding the illness, while family members are present. Conclusions Video consultations in specialised palliative home care are feasible, and the technology can facilitate multidisciplinary participation and co‐operation among healthcare professionals. The continuous use of video consultations over time may increase the quality of specialised palliative home care. Relevance to clinical practice The use of video consultations can provide direct specialised palliative care over distance involving healthcare professionals, patients and their relatives.

Background The benefits of electronic patient reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires have been demonstrated in many settings, including in hospitals and patient homes. However, it remains to be investigated how melanoma patients and their treating clinicians experience the electronic self-reporting of side effects and the derived communication. Objective The primary objective of this study was to examine patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with an eHealth intervention for weekly monitoring of side effects during treatment with immunotherapy. Methods An eHealth intervention based on questions from the PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) library was used and tested in a randomized clinical trial with patients receiving immunotherapy for malignant melanoma and clinicians at a university hospital in Denmark. On a weekly basis, patients reported their symptoms from home during the treatment via a provided tablet. The electronic patient reports were available to clinicians in the outpatient clinic. A mixed methods approach was applied to investigate the patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with the intervention. Data from patient experiences were collected in a short survey, the Patient Feedback Form. Moreover, a subset of the patients participating in the survey was interviewed about their experience. Furthermore, one focus group interview with clinicians was carried out to elucidate their views. Results A total of 57 patients completed the Patient Feedback Form, and 14 patients were interviewed. The focus group interview included 5 clinicians. Overall, patients and clinicians were satisfied with the tool. They believed it enhanced patients’ awareness of side effects and increased their feeling of involvement. The patients reported that it was easy to fill out the questionnaire and that it made sense to do so. However, a minority of the patients expressed in the interviews that they did not believe that the health care professionals had seen their reports when they came to the clinic, and that the reporting did not lead to increased contact with the department. Conclusions Overall, satisfaction with the eHealth intervention was high among patients and their treating clinicians. The tool was easy to use and contributed to greater symptom awareness and patient involvement. Thus, in terms of patient and clinician satisfaction with the tool, it makes sense to continue using the tool beyond the project period. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03073031; https://tinyurl.com/tjx3gtu