Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25921707›Full record

SynthesisPalliative medicine2015

Dying in the hospital setting: A systematic review of quantitative studies identifying the elements of end-of-life care that patients and their families rank as being most important.

Claudia Virdun, Tim Luckett, Patricia M Davidson, Jane Phillips

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Advance care planning for adults with heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. End-of-life care preferences for people with advanced cancer and their families in intensive care units: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Claudia VirdunFaculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia claudia.virdun@uts.edu.au.
Tim LuckettFaculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia Improving Palliative Care through Clinical Trials (ImPaCCT), Sydney, NSW, Australia South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Patricia M DavidsonFaculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia Improving Palliative Care through Clinical Trials (ImPaCCT), Sydney, NSW, Australia School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jane PhillipsFaculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia Improving Palliative Care through Clinical Trials (ImPaCCT), Sydney, NSW, Australia School of Nursing, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia School of Medicine, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of expected deaths occur in hospitals where optimal end-of-life care is not yet fully realised, as evidenced by recent reviews outlining experience of care. Better understanding what patients and their families consider to be the most important elements of inpatient end-of-life care is crucial to addressing this gap. AIM AND

designThis systematic review aimed to ascertain the five most important elements of inpatient end-of-life care as identified by patients with palliative care needs and their families. DATA SOURCES: Nine electronic databases from 1990 to 2014 were searched along with key internet search engines and handsearching of included article reference lists. Quality of included studies was appraised by two researchers.

resultsOf 1859 articles, 8 met the inclusion criteria generating data from 1141 patients and 3117 families. Synthesis of the top five elements identified four common end-of-life care domains considered important to both patients and their families, namely, (1) effective communication and shared decision making, (2) expert care, (3) respectful and compassionate care and (4) trust and confidence in clinicians. The final domains differed with financial affairs being important to families, while an adequate environment for care and minimising burden both being important to patients.

conclusionThis review adds to what has been known for over two decades in relation to patient and family priorities for end-of-life care within the hospital setting. The challenge for health care services is to act on this evidence, reconfigure care systems accordingly and ensure universal access to optimal end-of-life care within hospitals.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingEmpathyFamilyHumansPalliative CareProfessional-Family RelationsProfessional-Patient RelationsTerminal Careconsumer participationhospitalPalliative caresatisfactionterminal care

Identifiers

PMID25921707
PMCPMC4572388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.