ArticlePloS one2022
Mapping and characterising electronic palliative care coordination systems and their intended impact: A national survey of end-of-life care commissioners.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Developments in public health paramedicine: exploring the professional practice of ambulance clinicians in palliative and end-of-life care in a remote and rural setting.British paramedic journal · 2025Article
- Systemic Strategies to Prevent Nonbeneficial Treatments Near the End of Life.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Optimising digital advance care planning implementation in palliative and end-of-life care: a multi-phase mixed-methods national research programme and recommendations.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring the contextual assumptions, interventions and outcomes of digital advance care planning systems: A theory of change approach to understand implementation and evaluation.Palliative medicine · 2024Article
- Factors Influencing the Implementation of Digital Advance Care Planning: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Views of patients with progressive illness and carers about the role of digital advance care planning systems to record and share information: A qualitative study.Palliative medicine · 2024Article
- "Let's put it this way: you can't really live without it" - digital technologies in routine palliative care delivery: an explorative qualitative study with patients and their family caregivers in Germany.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Systems for electronic documentation and sharing of advance care planning preferences: a scoping review.Progress in palliative care · 2024Article
- Development and refinement of a novel end-of-life planning website for patients with advanced cancer: a mixed methods approach.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn England, Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) were introduced in 2008 to support care coordination and delivery in accordance with patient preferences. Despite policy supporting their implementation, there has been a lack of rigorous evaluation of EPaCCS and it is not clear how they have been translated into practice. This study sought to examine the current national implementation of EPaCCS, including their intended impact on patient and service outcomes, and barriers and facilitators for implementation.
methodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional online survey of end-of-life care commissioning leads for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England. We enquired about the current implementation status of EPaCCS, their role in information sharing and intended impact, and requested routine patient-level data relating to EPaCCS.
resultsOut of 135 CCGs, 85 (63.0%) responded, with 57 (67.1%) having operational EPaCCS. Use of EPaCCS were confined to healthcare providers with most systems (67%) not supporting information sharing with care homes and social care providers. Most systems (68%) sought to facilitate goal concordant care, although there was inconsonance between intended impacts and monitoring measures used. Common challenges to implementation included healthcare professionals' limited engagement. Only one-third of patients had an EPaCCS record at death with limited recording of patient preferences.
conclusionsCritical gaps exist in engagement with EPaCCS and their ability to facilitate information sharing across care providers. The limited alignment between stated goals of EPaCCS and their monitoring impedes efforts to understand which characteristics of systems can best support care delivery.
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.