Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34391419›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2021

Adaptation of the Australian Palliative Care Phase concept to the German palliative care context: a mixed-methods approach using cognitive interviews and cross-sectional data.

Eva Lehmann, Farina Hodiamont, Mirjam Landmesser, Carina S Knobloch, Friedemann Nauck, Christoph Ostgathe, Bettina Grüne, Claudia Bausewein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 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. 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

8 authors.

Eva LehmannDepartment, of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. eva.lehmann@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Farina HodiamontDepartment, of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Mirjam LandmesserDepartment of Palliative Medicine, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Carina S KnoblochDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Friedemann NauckDepartment of Palliative Medicine, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Christoph OstgatheDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Bettina Grüne *Department, of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Claudia Bausewein *Department, of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPalliative care phases (stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal and bereavement) are routinely used in Australia and the UK to describe the clinical situation of patients and their families and to evaluate the associated care plan. In addition, it serves as a benchmark developed by the Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) and is used nationwide for comparisons between services. In Germany, the concept is not used consistently due to various translations. Furthermore, there is no nationwide systematic approach to routinely assess clinical outcomes in palliative care. The study aims to develop a German version of the palliative care phase definitions by adapting them culturally, and to examine the inter-rater reliability of the adjusted definitions with healthcare professionals.

methodsMixed-methods approach: Cognitive interview study using 'think aloud' and verbal probing techniques and a consecutive multi-center cross-sectional study with two clinicians independently assigning the phase definitions. Interviewees/participants were selected through convenience and purposive sampling in specialist palliative care inpatient units, advisory and community services and in three specialist palliative care units with doctors, nursing staff and allied health professionals.

resultsFifteen interviews were conducted. Identified difficulties were: Some translated terms were 1) not self-explanatory (e.g. 'family/carer' or 'care plan') and (2) too limited to the medical dimension neglecting the holistic approach of palliative care. (3) Problems of comprehension regarding the concept in general occurred, e.g. in differentiating between the 'unstable' and 'deteriorating' phase. Inter-rater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.39-0.52). The assignment of the phase 'deteriorating' has caused the most difficulties.

conclusionOverall, the adapted palliative care phases are suitable to use in the German specialist palliative care setting. However, the concept of the phases is not self-explanatory. To implement it nationwide for outcome measurement/benchmarking, it requires further education, on-the-job training and experience as well as the involvement of healthcare professionals in implementation process. For the use of international concepts in different healthcare systems, a deeper discussion and cultural adaptation is necessary besides the formal translation.

Indexed as

CognitionPalliative CareAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsCognitive interviewingInter-rater reliabilityOutcome measurementPalliative carePalliative care phasesQuality of healthcareReproducibility of results

Identifiers

PMID34391419
PMCPMC8364299

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.