Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33706600›Full record

SynthesisPalliative medicine2021

A systematic review of classifications systems to determine complexity of patient care needs in palliative care.

Matthew Grant, Everlien de Graaf, Saskia Teunissen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Characteristics of timely integration of palliative care into oncology hospital care for patients with incurable cancer: results of a Delphi Study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Matthew GrantCentre of Expertise Palliative Care Utrecht, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6878-9197
Everlien de GraafCentre of Expertise Palliative Care Utrecht, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Saskia TeunissenCentre of Expertise Palliative Care Utrecht, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding the right care for each individual patient is a key element of quality palliative care. Complexity is a relatively new concept, defined as the nature of patients' situations and the extent of resulting needs. Classifying patients according to the complexity of their care needs can guide integration of services, anticipatory discussions, health service planning, resource management and determination of needs for specialist or general palliative care. However, there is no consistent approach to interpreting and classifying complexity of patient needs.

aimThe aim of this article is to identify and describe classification systems for complexity of patient care needs in palliative care.

designNarrative systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182102). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases were searched without time limitations. Articles were included that described classification systems for complexity of care requirements in populations with palliative care needs.

resultsIn total, 4301 records were screened, with nine articles identified reporting the use of patient classification systems in populations with palliative care needs. These articles included the use of six classification systems: HexCom, Perroca Scale, AN-SNAP, Hui Major Criteria, IDC-Pal and PALCOM. These systems were heterogenous in the manner they determined complexity of care needs. The HexCom and IDC-Pal systems contained items that covered all domains of complexity as described by Hodiamont; personal, social support, health care team and environment.

conclusionAlthough six classification systems have been developed, they access differing aspects of care needs and their application has been limited. The HexCOM and IDC-Pal systems offer the broadest determinations of complexity from an individual perspective. Further research is needed to apply these systems to populations external to those in which they were developed, and to appreciate how they may integrate with, and impact, clinical care.

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingPalliative CareDelivery of Health CareHumansPatient Care TeamQuality of Health Carecasemix classificationclassificationcomplexityPalliative carepatient needssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33706600
PMCPMC8022082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.