Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016
End-of-life planning with frail patients attending general practice: an exploratory prospective cross-sectional study.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of Patients and Their Families Regarding Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in the Intensive Care Unit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Interactions with the healthcare system influence advance care planning activities: results from a representative survey in 11 developed countries.Family practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnd-of-life planning means decision making with patients, formulating and recording decisions regarding their end-of-life care. Although clearly linked with benefits including improved quality of life, reduced hospital admissions, and less aggressive medical care, it is still infrequently undertaken and is regarded as challenging by healthcare professionals.
aimTo ascertain the feasibility of improving the identification of patients at high risk of dying in general practice and the acceptability of providing patients identified with an end-of-life planning tool. DESIGN AND
settingExploratory prospective cross-sectional study in four general practices.
methodPatients at high risk of dying were identified during routine consulting by their GP, using the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT). Patients identified were invited to participate, and provided with Think Ahead - an end-of-life planning tool, which has been used previously in general practice. Participants completed telephone surveys, assessing their response to Think Ahead, and the acceptability of the GP raising end-of-life issues during routine consulting.
resultsProvision of Think Ahead to a purposive sample of preterminal patients identified by GPs was feasible, acceptable to most patients, and somewhat effective in increasing discussion among families and in practice on end-of-life planning.
conclusionThe SPICT and Think Ahead tools were mostly acceptable, effective, and enabling of discussions on end-of-life care in general practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.