ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Consensus-building to improve implementation of NICE guidance on planning for end-of-life treatment and care: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Communicating prognostic uncertainties in advanced multimorbidity: a multimethod qualitative study to co-design practice recommendations.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
- Quality in qualitative evidence: new best practice principles from NICE's real-world evidence framework.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the availability of guidance for the provision of good end-of-life care, there are significant variations across the UK in its delivery. This study sought to identify the influences on end-of-life treatment and care planning across several areas where deficiencies in evidence-based practice have been identified, and to develop consensus among healthcare providers and users for recommendations on how to address these deficits.
methodsAn online survey (106 responses), qualitative interviews (55 participants) and a consensus-building exercise (475 participants in the initial round) were undertaken. Participants included people approaching the end of life, people important to them, and health and care practitioners who help people plan for the end of life or provide end-of-life care. Recruitment was via online methods, including social media and online newsletters of relevant charities and professional organisations. Thematic analysis using the framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data led to the development of statements regarding recommendations for advancing implementation of good practice. A two-stage consensus-building exercise asked respondents first to rate these statements and then to rate and rank further sub-recommendations in three areas.
resultsResults from the consensus building exercise confirmed that end-of-life care planning conversations are to be welcomed and encouraged, and that the priority should be to have the conversation (which could be initiated by a range of professionals, or people planning end-of-life care themselves), rather than to wait for an ideal time to have it. Further rounds identified specific components of a standardised record of end-of-life treatment and care preferences that should be prioritised, specific health and care staff that should be empowered through training in advanced communication, and aspects of communication most important to include in training for healthcare professionals.
conclusionsOur study has identified opportunities for action to improve end-of-life treatment and care by combining multiple stakeholder perspectives and building consensus among them: the resulting recommendations have sufficient granularity to be implemented and evaluated. They are of relevance to policy makers, those who train healthcare professionals, and those looking after patients approaching the end of life.
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.