Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36240254›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Mapping and characterising electronic palliative care coordination systems and their intended impact: A national survey of end-of-life care commissioners.

Jacqueline Birtwistle, Pablo Millares-Martin, Catherine J Evans, Robbie Foy, Samuel Relton, Suzanne Richards, Katherine E Sleeman, Maureen Twiddy, Michael I Bennett, Matthew J Allsop

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2023
    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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jacqueline BirtwistleDivision of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Pablo Millares-MartinWhitehall Surgery, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Catherine J EvansCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Robbie FoyDivision of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Samuel ReltonDivision of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Suzanne RichardsDivision of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Katherine E SleemanCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Maureen TwiddyHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
Michael I BennettDivision of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Matthew J AllsopDivision of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7399-0194
University of Leeds · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Hull · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR129171
6 · The paper itself

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

Hospice CareTerminal CareCross-Sectional StudiesElectronicsHumansPalliative Care

Identifiers

PMID36240254
PMCPMC9565729
OpenAlexW4306247975

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.