Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27586857›Full record

Observational studyAge and ageing2016

Developing a model of short-term integrated palliative and supportive care for frail older people in community settings: perspectives of older people, carers and other key stakeholders.

Anna E Bone, Myfanwy Morgan, Matthew Maddocks, Katherine E Sleeman, Juliet Wright, Shamim Taherzadeh, Clare Ellis-Smith, Irene J Higginson, Catherine J Evans

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Age and ageing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. The Overlap Between Geriatric Medicine and Palliative Care: A Scoping Literature Review.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Anna E BoneDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Myfanwy MorganInstitute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London,  London, UK.
Matthew MaddocksDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Katherine E SleemanDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Juliet WrightDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Shamim TaherzadehNorthbourne Medical Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, UK.
Clare Ellis-SmithDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Irene J HigginsonDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Catherine J EvansDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CAT/CL10/003Department of Health PB-PG-1111-26071Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundunderstanding how best to provide palliative care for frail older people with non-malignant conditions is an international priority. We aimed to develop a community-based episodic model of short-term integrated palliative and supportive care (SIPS) based on the views of service users and other key stakeholders in the United Kingdom.

methodtransparent expert consultations with health professionals, voluntary sector and carer representatives including a consensus survey; and focus groups with older people and carers were used to generate recommendations for the SIPS model. Discussions focused on three key components of the model: potential benefit of SIPS, timing of delivery and processes of integrated working between specialist palliative care and generalist practitioners. Content and descriptive analysis was employed and findings were integrated across the data sources.

findingswe conducted two expert consultations (n = 63), a consensus survey (n = 42) and three focus groups (n = 17). Potential benefits of SIPS included holistic assessment, opportunity for end of life discussion, symptom management and carer reassurance. Older people and carers advocated early access to SIPS, while other stakeholders proposed delivery based on complex symptom burden. A priority for integrated working was the assignment of a key worker to co-ordinate care, but the assignment criteria remain uncertain.

interpretationkey stakeholders agree that a model of SIPS for frail older people with non-malignant conditions has potential benefits within community settings, but differ in opinion on the optimal timing and indications for this service. Our findings highlight the importance of consulting all key stakeholders in model development prior to feasibility evaluation.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedAge FactorsAgingCaregiversCommunity Health ServicesConsensusDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEnglandFocus GroupsFrail ElderlyFrailtyHealth Services for the AgedHumansModels, Organizationalconsensusfrail older peoplepalliative careprimary health carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID27586857
PMCPMC5105822

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.