ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Evaluation of palliative care needs rounds in residential aged care homes in South Australia: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPalliative care needs rounds have been introduced to improve palliative and end-of-life care in residential aged care homes. As part of the Australian Government initiative 'Comprehensive Palliative Care in Aged Care Measure', needs rounds have been trialled in seven metropolitan and fifteen regional/rural aged care homes in South Australia. This qualitative study examined stakeholders' perspectives about potential values and factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation and sustainability of needs rounds.
methodsA qualitative approach was employed by using individual interviews and focus groups. Semi-structured interviews (n = 13) were conducted with executives, project team members and staff from both sites. Additionally, four focus groups were facilitated in regional/rural sites (n = 10) to further unpack specific elements of needs rounds' model that were tailored based on their needs. The interview and focus group data were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were transferred into the qualitative data management software NVivo (version 14) for coding and analysis. Guided by a coding framework, thematic analysis was undertaken.
resultsParticipants found palliative care needs rounds valuable in providing a structured approach to improving palliative care planning and enhancing workforce knowledge and confidence in identifying and managing care towards the end of life. Access to telehealth facilitated needs rounds participation, especially in regional/rural areas. Comparing the nurse practitioner with the medical consultant led needs rounds revealed that there is no 'one size fits all' approach with advantages and disadvantages for each model. Successful implementation of such a model depends on the context within which needs rounds are implemented such as organisational needs, capacity and infrastructure, geography, and resources. Organisational commitment to palliative care, preparedness for change, strong leadership and financial support, and access to online platforms were noted as key factors enabling successful implementation of needs rounds.
conclusionsPalliative care needs rounds can contribute to improving organisational culture and workforce knowledge in palliative and end-of-life care. Policy commitment and financial support to adopt and tailor palliative care needs rounds that meet local needs are highly recommended.
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.