Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30104331›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018

Stakeholders' views on identifying patients in primary care at risk of dying: a qualitative descriptive study using focus groups and interviews.

Robin Urquhart, Jyoti Kotecha, Cynthia Kendell, Mary Martin, Han Han, Beverley Lawson, Cheryl Tschupruk, Emily Gard Marshall, Carol Bennett, Fred Burge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Robin UrquhartDepartment of Surgery, Dalhousie University; Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Jyoti KotechaResearch and Business Development, Beaty Water Research Centre.
Cynthia KendellDepartment of Surgery.
Mary MartinCentre for Studies in Primary Care (CSPC), Department of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Han HanCentre for Studies in Primary Care (CSPC), Department of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Beverley LawsonDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Cheryl TschuprukPalliative Care Integration, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Emily Gard MarshallNova Scotia Health Authority; Department of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Carol BennettOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fred BurgeNova Scotia Health Authority; Department of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrategies have been developed for use in primary care to identify patients at risk of declining health and dying, yet little is known about the perceptions of doing so or the broader implications and impacts.

aimTo explore the acceptability and implications of using a primary care-based electronic medical record algorithm to help providers identify patients in their practice at risk of declining health and dying. DESIGN AND

settingQualitative descriptive study in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada.

methodSix focus groups were conducted, supplemented by one-on-one interviews, with 29 healthcare providers, managers, and policymakers in primary care, palliative care, and geriatric care. Participants were purposively sampled to achieve maximal variation. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach.

resultsSix themes were prevalent across the dataset: early identification is aligned with the values, aims, and positioning of primary care; providers have concerns about what to do after identification; how we communicate about the end of life requires change; early identification and subsequent conversations require an integrated team approach; for patients, early identification will have implications beyond medical care; and a public health approach is needed to optimise early identification and its impact.

conclusionStakeholders were much more concerned with how primary care providers would navigate the post-identification period than with early identification itself. Implications of early identification include the need for a team-based approach to identification and to engage broader communities to ensure people live and die well post-identification.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFocus GroupsFrailtyHealth PersonnelHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMalePalliative CarePolicy MakingQualitative ResearchStakeholder Participationearly identificationelectronic medical recordend of lifelife-limiting illnessprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID30104331
PMCPMC6104853

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.