Access to and adequacy of psychological services for adult patients in UK hospices: a national, cross-sectional survey
Open accessAbstract
Background: Providing psychological support to people living with terminal illness is a fundamental part of hospice care. Recent research on delivery of psychological services in hospices in the United Kingdom (UK) on a national level, including inequalities or variation in practice, is limited. A nationwide survey will highlight any differences in provision and in doing so help focus future research and inform best practice both within the UK, and internationally. The specific objectives of this survey are to (1) chart the types of psychological support available to adult patients in hospices in the UK in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence model; (2) explore how services are organised; and (3) gather service perspectives on adequacy of care, and facilitators and barriers to appropriate practice. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey emailed to adult hospices in the UK in November–December 2019. One staff member involved in the delivery and/or organisation of psychological support was invited to participate per hospice. Of 193 invited hospices, 116 took part. Results: Sixteen percent rated their hospice psychological service as wholly adequate. The majority reported that services can access specialist professionals, but many relied on external referrals. Barriers to best practice included funding and staff capacity; facilitators included clear referral structures, audit and appropriate needs and outcome assessments. Conclusions: Access to psychological professionals has improved since the last survey 15 years ago, but the majority of responders felt their overall service was not wholly adequate. Basic emotional support is largely felt to be sufficient, but our results indicate a need for improvements in access to more specialist care. Partnerships with external mental health services may be key. Our findings highlight core facilitators and barriers to providing good psychological care at the end of life that should be considered by services both within the UK and on an international level.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A recent UK national survey reported that 41% of hospice psychological support teams use ACT to support patients and families.
“Evidence regarding acceptability resonates with findings from a recent UK national survey which reported that 41% of hospice psychological support teams use Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to support patients and families. 41”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for people with advanced progressive illness, their caregivers and staff involved in their care: A scoping review. (2023) · cites this paper as [41]
Table 3 in Results lists Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as used by 40 hospices and prints the percentage as 41%, supporting what the claim says the survey reported. The accompanying Results section describes therapeutic approaches available to hospice patients, but does not establish that ACT was used to support families. The table’s printed percentage is also inconsistent with its stated denominator of 83 responses. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 28
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [12]National Institute for Clinical Excellence NICE End of life care for adults: service delivery 2019 31633897
- Authors
- McInnerney, D., Candy, B., Stone, P., Atkin, N., Johnson, J., Hiskey, S., & Kupeli, N.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU)
- Marie Curie (GB)
- Oaks Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McInnerney, Daisy
- Venue
- BMC Palliative Care
- Published
- 2021-02-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-31
- ISSN
- 1472-684X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7874563
- OpenAlex
- W3128726998
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Palliative Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Alzheimer's Society (399 AS‐JF‐ 17b‐016)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- Marie Curie (MCCCFPO-16-U, MCCC-FCO-11-U, MCCC‐FCH‐18‐U)
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/P000592/1, ES/P000592)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Keywords
- psychological services, hospice care, terminal illness, end-of-life care, psychological support, service adequacy, barriers and facilitators, palliative care workforce, Nice model
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, United Kingdom, Hospices, Humans, Palliative Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Hospice Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review