ReviewBMC palliative care2022
Structured implementation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool in general practice - A prospective interventional study with follow-up.
Review in BMC palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptation and Validation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT): A Quantitative Methodological Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Observational
- Assessment of Palliative Care Needs in Non-oncological Patients in Primary Health Care: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Nursing contribution to end-of-life care decision-making in patients with neurological diseases on an acute hospital ward: documentation of signs and symptoms.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Use of the supportive and palliative care indicators tool (SPICT™) for end-of-life discussions: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- End-of-life care in Germany between 2016 and 2020 - A repeated cross-sectional analysis of statutory health insurance data.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Implementation of the ID-PALL Assessment Tool for Palliative Care Needs: A Feasibility and Prevalence Study in a Tertiary Hospital.Palliative medicine reports · 2024Article
- Conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care: core components of integrated care for people with kidney failure.Kidney international · 2024Review
- Integrating palliative care into primary healthcare systems: Advocacy efforts, milestones and challenges in Asia.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2024Article
- Palliative Care in the Community: The Greek Version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™).Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the provision of primary palliative care (PC). The identification of patients who might benefit from PC and the timely initiation of patient-centred PC measures at the end of life are essential, yet challenging. Although different tools exist to support these key tasks, a structured approach is often missing.
objectiveThe study aimed at implementing the German version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-DE™) in general practices, following a structured and regional approach, in order to evaluate the effects of this tool on the identification of patients with potential PC needs and the initiation of patient-centred PC measures.
methodsThe intervention of this mixed-methods study comprised a standardised training of 52 GPs from 34 general practices in two counties in Lower Saxony, Germany, on the use of the SPICT-DE™. The SPICT-DE™ is a clinical tool which supports the identification of patients with potential PC needs. Subsequently, over a period of 12 months, GPs applied the SPICT-DE™ in daily practice with adult patients with chronic, progressive diseases, and completed a follow-up survey 6 months after the initial patient assessment. The outcome parameters were alterations in the patient's clinical situation, and the type and number of initiated patient-centred PC measures during the follow-up interval. Additionally, 12 months after the standardised training, GPs provided feedback on their application of the SPICT-DE™.
resultsA total of 43 GPs (n = 15 female, median age 53 years) out of an initial sample of 52 trained GPs assessed 580 patients (n = 345 female, median age 84 years) with mainly cardiovascular (47%) and cancer (33%) diseases. Follow-up of 412 patients revealed that 231 (56%) experienced at least one critical incident in their disease progression (e.g. acute crisis), 151 (37%) had at least one hospital admission, and 141 (34%) died. A review of current treatment/medication (76%) and a clarification of treatment goals (53%) were the most frequently initiated patient-centred PC measures. The majority of GPs deemed the SPICT-DE™ practical (85%) and stated an intention to continue applying the tool in daily practice (66%).
conclusionsThe SPICT-DE™ is a practical tool that supports the identification of patients at risk of deterioration or dying and promotes the initiation of patient-centred PC measures.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (N° DRKS00015108; 22/01/2019).
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.