Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27515997›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2016

Patients' perception of types of errors in palliative care - results from a qualitative interview study.

Isabel Kiesewetter, Christian Schulz, Claudia Bausewein, Rita Fountain, Andrea Schmitz

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Identifying hazards for psychological harm in cancer care using incident reports: searching for the invisible.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Isabel KiesewetterLudwig-Maximilians-University, Department of Anaesthesiology, Munich University Hospital, Munich, Germany. Isabel.Kiesewetter@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4729-6684
Christian SchulzMaudsley Training Programme, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK.
Claudia BauseweinLudwig-Maximilians-University, Department of Palliative Medicine, Munich University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Rita FountainDepartment of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA.
Andrea SchmitzInterdisciplinary Center for Palliative Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical errors have been recognized as a relevant public health concern and research efforts to improve patient safety have increased. In palliative care, however, studies on errors are rare and mainly focus on quantitative measures. We aimed to explore how palliative care patients perceive and think about errors in palliative care and to generate an understanding of patients' perception of errors in that specialty.

methodsA semistructured qualitative interview study was conducted with patients who had received at least 1 week of palliative care in an inpatient or outpatient setting. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed according to qualitative content analysis.

resultsTwelve patients from two centers were interviewed (7 women, median age 63.5 years, range 22-90 years). Eleven patients suffered from a malignancy. Days in palliative care ranged from 10 to 180 days (median 28 days). 96 categories emerged which were summed up under 11 umbrella terms definition, difference, type, cause, consequence, meaning, recognition, handling, prevention, person causing and affected person. A deductive model was developed assigning umbrella terms to error-theory-based factor levels (definition, type and process-related factors). 23 categories for type of error were identified, including 12 categories that can be considered as palliative care specific. On the level of process-related factors 3 palliative care specific categories emerged (recognition, meaning and consequence of errors).

conclusionFrom the patients' perspective, there are some aspects of errors that could be considered as specific to palliative care. As the results of our study suggest, these palliative care-specific aspects seem to be very important from the patients' point of view and should receive further investigation. Moreover, the findings of this study can serve as a guide to further assess single aspects or categories of errors in palliative care in future research.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude to HealthFemaleGermanyHumansLength of StayMaleMedical ErrorsMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPalliative CarePerceptionPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQualitative ResearchErrorMedical errorPalliative carePatient’s perspective

Identifiers

PMID27515997
PMCPMC4981966
OpenAlexW2513400229

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.