Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21801517›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011

Recognising patients who will die in the near future: a nationwide study via the Dutch Sentinel Network of GPs.

Ebun A Abarshi, Michael A Echteld, Lieve Van den Block, Gé A Donker, Luc Deliens, Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04010136 (Identification of Elderly Patients in Need of Palliative Care by Family Physicians - the Role of Palliative Care Training and the Use of a Standardized Tool), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04010136 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Identification of Elderly Patients in Need of Palliative Care by Family Physicians - the Role of Palliative Care Training and the Use of a Standardized Tool (GerPal_ID). A Two-phase Protocol: Randomized Trial and Prevalence Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Beira InteriorRan2019 to 2021Enrolled0ConditionsPalliative Care, Primary Health Care, GeriatricsArmsPalliative care training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Stakeholders' views on identifying patients in primary care at risk of dying: a qualitative descriptive study using focus groups and interviews.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Reasons for hospitalisation at the end of life: differences between cancer and non-cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2014
    Article
  20. The Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying: what went wrong?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ebun A AbarshiThe EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ebun.abarshi@vumc.nl
Michael A Echteld
Lieve Van den Block
Gé A Donker
Luc Deliens
Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecognising patients who will die in the near future is important for adequate planning and provision of end-of-life care. GPs can play a key role in this.

aimTo explore the following questions: How long before death do GPs recognise patients likely to die in the near future? Which patient, illness, and care-related characteristics are related to such recognition? How does recognising death in the near future, before the last week of life, relate to care in during this period? DESIGN AND

settingOne-year follow-back study via a surveillance GP network in the Netherlands.

methodRegistration of demographic and care-related characteristics.

resultsOf 252 non-sudden deaths, 70% occurred in the home or care home and 30% in hospital. GP recognition of death in the near future was absent in 30%, and occurred prior to the last month in 15%, within the last month in 19%, and in the last week in 34%. Logistic regression analyses showed cancer and low functional status were positively associated with death in the near future; cancer and discussing palliative care options were positively associated with recognising death in the near future before the last week of life. Recognising death in the near future before patients' last week of life was associated with fewer hospital deaths, more GP-patient contacts in the last week, more deaths in a preferred place, and more-frequent GP-patient discussions about specific topics in the last 7 days of life.

conclusionRecognising death in the near future precedes several aspects of end-of-life care. The proportion in whom death in the near future is never recognised is large, suggesting GPs could be assisted in this process through training and implementation of care protocols that promote timely recognition of the dying phase.

Indexed as

Decision MakingTerminally IllAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolClinical CompetenceFamily PracticeFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID21801517
PMCPMC3103701
OpenAlexW2114100900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.