Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31864331›Full record

ReviewBMC palliative care2019

A conceptual model of barriers and facilitators to primary clinical teams requesting pediatric palliative care consultation based upon a narrative review.

Jennifer K Walter, Douglas L Hill, Concetta DiDomenico, Shefali Parikh, Chris Feudtner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC palliative care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Jennifer K WalterThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA. walterj1@email.chop.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0723-2464
Douglas L HillThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Concetta DiDomenicoThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Shefali ParikhThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Chris FeudtnerThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.

Funding

Supplement to Improving Family Meetings in the Pediatric CICUK23HL141700 · NHLBI · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI WALTER, JENNIFER K · 2019 to 2023
$981k
Pediatric Cancer Interdisciplinary Team Training for Regoaling CARE DiscussionsR21CA198049 · NCI · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI FEUDTNER, JOHN CHRIS · 2015 to 2016
$402k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA198049NCI NIH HHS R21CA198049-02NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL141700NHLBI NIH HHS K23HL141700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite evidence that referral to pediatric palliative care reduces suffering and improves quality of life for patients and families, many clinicians delay referral until the end of life. The purpose of this article is to provide a conceptual model for why clinical teams delay discussing palliative care with parents. DISCUSSION: Building on a prior model of parent regoaling and relevant research literature, we argue for a conceptual model of the challenges and facilitators a clinical team might face in shifting from a restorative-focused treatment plan to a plan that includes palliative aspects, resulting in a subspecialty palliative care referral. Like patients and families, clinicians and clinical teams may recognize that a seriously ill patient would benefit from palliative care and shift from a restorative mindset to a palliative approach. We call this transition "clinician regoaling". Clinicians may experience inhibitors and facilitators to this transition at both the individual and team level which influence the clinicians' willingness to consult subspecialty palliative care. The 8 inhibitors to team level regoaling include: 1) team challenges due to hierarchy, 2) avoidance of criticizing colleagues, 3) structural communication challenges, 4) group norms in favor of restorative goals, 5) diffusion of responsibility, 6) inhibited expression of sorrow, 7) lack of social support, 8) reinforcement of labeling and conflict. The 6 facilitators of team regoaling include: 1) processes to build a shared mental model, 2) mutual trust to encourage dissent, 3) anticipating conflict and team problem solving, 4) processes for reevaluation of goals, 5) sharing serious news as a team, 6) team flexibility.

conclusionsRecognizing potential team level inhibitors to transitioning to palliative care can help clinicians develop strategies for making the transition more effectively when appropriate.

Indexed as

GoalsHumansPalliative CarePediatricsPrimary Health CareQuality of LifeReferral and ConsultationSocial SupportCommunication inhibitorsGroup processesPatient care teamPediatric palliative care

Identifiers

PMID31864331
PMCPMC6925857

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.