Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23497301›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2013

Understanding hospital admissions close to the end of life (ACE) study.

Zoë Slote Morris, Miranda Fyfe, Natalie Momen, Sarah Hoare, Stephen Barclay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Incompatible: end-of-life care and health economics.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2021
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Home care and end-of-life hospital admissions: a retrospective interview study in English primary and secondary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Research challenges in palliative and end of life care.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2016
    Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zoë Slote MorrisInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK. zsm20@cam.ac.uk
Miranda Fyfe
Natalie Momen
Sarah Hoare
Stephen Barclay
University of Cambridge · GBCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust · GBMRC Biostatistics Unit · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPalliative care is a policy priority internationally. In England, policymakers are seeking to develop high quality care for all by focusing on reducing the number of patients who die in acute hospitals. It is argued that reducing 'inappropriate' hospital admissions will lead to an improvement in the quality of care and provide cost savings.Yet what is meant by an 'inappropriate' admission is unclear and is unlikely to be shared by all stakeholders. The decision process that leads to hospital admission is often challenging, particularly when patients are frail and elderly. The ACE study reopens the idea of 'inappropriate' hospital admissions close to the end of life. We will explore how decisions that result in inpatient admissions close to death are made and valued from the perspective of the decision-maker, and will consider the implications of these findings for current policy and practice. DESIGN/

methodsThe study focuses on the admission of patients with advanced dementia, chest disease or cancer who die within 72 hours of admission to acute hospitals. The study uses mixed methods with three data collection phases. Phase one involves patient case studies of admissions with interviews with clinicians involved in the admission and next-of-kin. Phase two uses vignette-based focus groups with clinical professionals and patients living with the conditions of interest. Phase three uses questionnaires distributed to clinical stakeholders. Qualitative data will be explored using framework analysis whilst the questionnaire data will be examined using descriptive statistical analysis. Findings will be used to evaluate current policy and literature. DISCUSSION: Significant ethical and validity issues arise due to the retrospective nature of phase one of the study. We are not able to gain consent from patients who have died, and the views of the deceased patients cannot be included directly, which risks privileging professional views. This phase also relies on the memories of the participants which may be unreliable. Later phases of the study attempt to compensate for the "absent voices" of the deceased patients by including next-of-kin and patient focus groups.

Indexed as

Health PolicyAcute Chest SyndromeAgedAged, 80 and overDementiaEnglandFocus GroupsHealth Services MisuseHospitalizationHumansNeoplasmsOrganizational Case StudiesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient AdmissionQualitative ResearchQuality Assurance, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID23497301
PMCPMC3655885
OpenAlexW1977931271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.