Trial reportBMC palliative care2021
Context and mechanisms that enable implementation of specialist palliative care Needs Rounds in care homes: results from a qualitative interview study.
Trial report in BMC palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes of anesthesiologists towards implementation of PENG block in non-operative treatment of hip fractures in the Netherlands: a national survey study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Family perceptions of palliative care consultations for nursing home residents.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- How and in what circumstances does facilitation work for residential aged care staff in the implementation of palliative care interventions? A realist review.Palliative medicine · 2026Review
- Registered Nurse-Led Assessments in Australian Residential Aged Care Homes: A Scoping Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Infection-Control Protocol Acceptability in Skilled Nursing Facilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2025Article
- Improving Palliative Care in Residential Aged Care Using Telehealth: Protocol for a Realist Process Evaluation Embedded in a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of palliative care services at five tertiary hospitals in nigeria: a qualitative formative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of palliative care needs rounds in residential aged care homes in South Australia: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing the implementation and effectiveness of early integrated palliative care in long-term care facilities in France: an interventional mixed-methods study protocol.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Australian residential aged care home staff experiences of implementing an intervention to improve palliative and end-of-life care for residents: A qualitative study.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
- Strategies for knowledge translation of a palliative approach outside specialized palliative care services: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
- Supporting care home residents in the last year of life through 'Needs Rounds': Development of a pre-implementation programme theory through a rapid collaborative online approach.Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving quality of palliative and end of life care in older people's care homes is essential. Increasing numbers of people die in these settings, yet access to high quality palliative care is not routinely provided. While evidence for models of care are growing, there remains little insight regarding how to translate evidence-based models into practice. Palliative Care Needs Rounds (hereafter Needs Rounds) have a robust evidence base, for providing palliative care in care homes, reducing resident hospitalisations, improving residents' quality of death, and increasing staff confidence in caring for dying residents. This study aimed to identify and describe the context and mechanisms of change that facilitate implementation of Needs Rounds in care homes, and enable other services to reap the benefits of the Needs Rounds approach to care provision.
methodsQualitative interviews, embedded within a large randomised control trial, were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 staff from 11 care homes using Needs Rounds. The sample included managers, nurses, and care assistants. Staff participated in individual or dyadic semi-structured interviews. Implementation science frameworks and thematic analysis were used to interpret and analyse the data.
resultsContextual factors affecting implementation included facility preparedness for change, leadership, staff knowledge and skills, and organisational policies. Mechanisms of change that facilitated implementation included staff as facilitators, identifying and triaging residents, strategizing knowledge exchange, and changing clinical approaches to care. Care home staff also identified planning and documentation, and shifts in communication. The outcomes reported by staff suggest reductions in hospitalisations and problematic symptoms for residents, improved staff skills and confidence in caring for residents in their last months, weeks and days of life.
conclusionsThe significance of this paper is in offering care homes detailed insights into service contexts and mechanisms of change that will enable them to reap the benefits of Needs Rounds in their own services. The paper thus will support the implementation of an approach to care that has a robust evidence base, for a population under-served by specialist palliative care.
trial registrationACTRN12617000080325 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.