Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27348271›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2016

Rationale and Design of the Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) Trial.

Katherine R Courtright, Vanessa Madden, Nicole B Gabler, Elizabeth Cooney, Dylan S Small, Andrea Troxel, David Casarett, Mary Ersek, J Brian Cassel, Lauren Hersch Nicholas and 5 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

NCT02505035 nacompletednot on this map

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2016 to 2020Enrolled34,239ConditionsCOPD, ESRD, DementiaArmsDefault ordering of palliative consult
NCT03724695 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Advanced Heart Care at Home (AHCAH); a Pragmatic Randomized Trial for Clinicians Nudged to AHCAH, a Heart Failure Specific Home Palliative Care Services

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2018 to 2024Enrolled709ConditionsPalliative Care, Heart Failure, Health Care Utilization, Quality ImprovementArmsClinician nudge or opt out approach for AHCAH liaison visit
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Katherine R Courtright1 Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine Division, Department of Medicine.
Vanessa Madden2 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics.
Nicole B Gabler2 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics.
Elizabeth Cooney2 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics.
Dylan S Small4 Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics.
Andrea Troxel2 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics.
David Casarett6 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy.
Mary Ersek8 School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J Brian Cassel10 Division of Hematology/Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Lauren Hersch Nicholas11 Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Gabriel Escobar12 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California.
Sarah H Hill13 Ascension Health, St. Louis, Missouri; and.
Dan O'Brien13 Ascension Health, St. Louis, Missouri; and.
Mark Vogel13 Ascension Health, St. Louis, Missouri; and.
Scott D Halpern1 Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine Division, Department of Medicine.
Center for Clinical Research (United States) · USAscension · USPulmonary and Allergy Associates · USInstitute of Medical Ethics · GBJohns Hopkins University · USKaiser Permanente · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Robert H. Vonderheide · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
The Penn Roybal Center on Behavioral Economics and Health: Solving for Scale and Impact with Design Thinking, Digital Platforms, and Dynamic AdaptationP30AG034546 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Alison Meredith Buttenheim, KEVIN G VOLPP · 2009 to 2026
$10.6M
Determinants of Specialist Palliative Care Provision for Patients with ADRDUH3AG050311 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HALPERN, SCOTT D · 2015 to 2018
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520NIA NIH HHS P30 AG034546NIA NIH HHS UH3 AG050311
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The substantial nationwide investment in inpatient palliative care services stems from their great promise to improve patient-centered outcomes and reduce costs. However, robust experimental evidence of these benefits is lacking. The Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial designed to test the efficacy and costs of specialized palliative care consultative services for hospitalized patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or end-stage renal disease, as well as the overall effectiveness of ordering such services by default. Additional aims are to identify the types of services that are most beneficial and the types of patients most likely to benefit, including comparisons between ward and intensive care unit patients. We hypothesize that patient-centered outcomes can be improved without increasing costs by simply changing the default option for palliative care consultation from opt-in to opt-out for patients with life-limiting illnesses. Patients aged 65 years or older are enrolled at 11 hospitals using an integrated electronic health record. As a pragmatic trial designed to enroll between 12,000 and 15,000 patients, eligibility is determined using a validated, electronic health record-based algorithm, and all outcomes are captured via the electronic health record and billing systems data. The time at which each hospital transitions from control, opt-in palliative care consultation to intervention, opt-out consultation is randomly assigned. The primary outcome is a composite measure of in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include palliative care process measures and clinical and economic outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02505035).

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityLength of StayAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisCritical CareCross-Over StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePalliative CareQuality of LifeResearch Designbehavioral economicselectronic health recordspalliative carepragmatic clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID27348271
PMCPMC5059505
OpenAlexW2473479149

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.