ArticleBMJ open quality2022
Teams and continuity of end-of-life care in hospitals: managing differences of opinion.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of providing end-of-life care in adult intensive care units: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Predicting End-of-Life in a Hospital Setting.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- A qualitative study exploring challenges and solutions to negotiating goals of care at the end of life in hospital settings.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecognised as an essential element in end-of-life care by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, effective teamwork can enhance the quality and safety of end-of-life care for patients in hospitals. End-of-Life Essentials (EOLE) is a Commonwealth funded project that delivers peer-reviewed, evidence-based, online education and practice change resources for doctors, nurses and allied health professionals working in hospitals. 'Teams and Continuity for the Patient' features in the suite of EOLE modules and includes education around effective teamwork in end-of-life care. The aim of this study was to explore the views of module learners on managing differences of opinion among staff regarding patient care management.
methodsParticipants were learners (health professionals) who registered to the EOLE website and engaged with the Teams module. Learner responses to a question posed at the end of the module 'How do you manage differences of opinion among staff regarding patient care management?' were extracted for a 12-month period. Qualitative data were analysed thematically in NVivo V.12, with pragmatism as an overarching theoretical framework. Data were coded using an inductive, open approach, and axial coding was used to organise the codes into themes and subthemes.
findingsA total of 293 learner statements were analysed, with subthemes organised into three overarching themes:
conclusionIn complex, fast-paced, hospital environments, the potential for conflict among teams is high. Quality care relies on team members who work in unison, who can also recognise conflict emerging and respond in respectful and appropriate ways. In this study, the management actions reported by health professionals as proving helpful when differences of opinion among team members arise, are valuable to organisations who are considering how to prepare for quality and safety accreditation.
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.