ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Improving patient reported experience in inpatients with palliative care needs: a pre-post quality improvement 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- At the threshold of care: Palliative ethics in severe mental illness.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
- Correction: Improving patient reported experience in inpatients with palliative care needs: a pre-post quality improvement study.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- A cost analysis of implementing facilitated improvements in hospital palliative care using patient reported experience measures: the LEAHP (Listen Empower Act - Hospital Palliative care) bundle.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- The utility of the "consideRATE" patient-reported experience measure in hospital patients receiving specialist palliative care: a two-phase prospective pilot study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimising hospital care to align with what matters most for people living with advanced serious illness is a global priority area for improvement. Collection and feedback of patient reported experience measures (PREMs) is one potential method to inform improvements. This study used the integrated Promoting Action on Research implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to inform the implementation of a complex intervention that included collection and feedback of PREM data and facilitation to empower ward-based quality improvements for inpatients with advanced serious illness.
methodsA single-site pre-post quality improvement study within a large Australian hospital. The intervention titled Listen, Empower and Act to improve Hospital Palliative care (‘LEAHP’ bundle) included three phases: ‘Listen’ – collecting and analysing patient (PREM) and clinician perspectives to understand current care experience and local context; ‘Empower’ – collating PREM feedback and facilitating local stakeholder engagement to identify and prioritise areas for improvement; and ‘Act’ – facilitating clinician led innovation development and implementation informed and monitored by continuing PREM collection and feedback. Intervention fidelity was summarised descriptively from field notes and meeting records. The primary effectiveness outcome was change in ‘very good’ experiences over time, reported from an eight-question validated PREM designed for inpatients with serious illness (consideRATE). Analysis used mixed binary logistic regression with time period as fixed effect and ward as random effect.
resultsThe three participating wards completed the intervention with some adaptations, and each implemented different innovations. The proportion of ‘very good’ responses showed a statistically significant increase for all consideRATE questions in intervention periods 1–4 compared to period 0 (baseline). All questions except ‘attention to feelings’ (Q2) were significantly improved by the first measurement period, and all except ‘attention to affairs’ (Q6) remained significantly higher than baseline during the final measurement period.
conclusionsImplementation of the LEAHP bundle led to improved palliative care experience within three wards in one large tertiary hospital setting. Listening to patients and empowering clinical teams to collectively reflect on data and lead change was crucial to study success and required skilled facilitation. Testing the sustainability, transferability and scalability of the intervention will be important next steps.
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.