Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41224292›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

General practitioner care of residential aged care facility residents at end of life: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.

Susannah Browne, Michael P Kelly, Ben Bowers, Isla Kuhn, Robbie Duschinsky, Charles Daniels, Stephen Barclay

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Susannah BrownePublic Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK sb2435@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3203-6174
Michael P KellyPublic Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ben BowersPublic Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Isla KuhnMedical Library, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Robbie DuschinskyPublic Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-5328
Charles DanielsPalliative Care, Northwick Park Hospital, London, England, UK.
Stephen BarclayPublic Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4505-7743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn 2023, 21% of deaths occurred in residential aged care facilities (RACFs), a setting expected to play an increasing role in palliative and end-of-life care (PEoLC). General practitioners (GPs) oversee and deliver PEoLC in residential and nursing homes, yet little is known about their practice. We conducted a systematic review of the published evidence concerning how GPs provide this care: what they do and the quality, challenges and facilitators of that care.

designSystematic review and narrative synthesis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and NHS Evidence and grey literature via Google Scholar were searched through 9 October 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies presenting new empirical data from qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods, were published in the English language and conducted in the UK, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We excluded studies with no new empirical data, discussion papers, conference abstracts, opinion pieces, study participants under 18 years old and in care settings other than RACF. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: One independent reviewer used standardised methods to search and screen study titles for inclusion. This reviewer assessed all abstracts of the included papers, and a second independent reviewer screened 60% of the abstracts to validate inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using Gough's Weight of Evidence assessment. Thematic analysis was used to describe the contents of the included papers; a narrative synthesis approach was taken to report the findings at a more conceptual level.

resultsThe search identified 5936 titles: 35 papers were eligible and included in the synthesis. This is a nascent evidence base, lacking robust research designs and characterised by small sample sizes; the results describe the factors observed to be important in the delivery of care. Care provision is extremely variable; no models of optimal care have been put forward or tested. Challenges to care provision occur at every level of the care system. At macro level, service-level agreements and policies vary: at meso level, team-working, communication technology solutions and equipment availability vary: at micro level, GPs' interests in providing PEoLC vary as does their training. No study addresses residents' and relatives' experiences and expectations of GPs' involvement in PEoLC in RACFs.

conclusionsThe limited evidence base highlights that GP care at end of life for RACF residents varies greatly, with enablers and challenges at all levels in the existing care systems. Little research has examined GP PEoLC for RACF residents in its own right; insight is derived from studies that report on this issue as an adjunct to the main focus. With national policies focused on moving more PEoLC into community settings, these knowledge deficits require urgent attention.

Indexed as

General PractitionersHomes for the AgedNursing HomesPalliative CareTerminal CareAgedHumansAdult palliative careCOVID-19Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedFrail ElderlyPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID41224292
PMCPMC12612765

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.