ArticleBMC palliative care2025
"We are running on the fumes of goodwill" Professionals' experiences of delivering 24/7 end-of-life care to children and their families: 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundDespite recent improvements, there is still stark inequity in the funding and provision of 24/7 end-of-life care for children, resulting in many families not receiving the support they need. To inform, plan and implement service changes it is important to take account of what works in current contexts and existing models of care, and to learn how professionals 'on the ground' are currently experiencing 24/7 care delivery.
methodsThe study aimed to explore professionals' perspectives of delivering 24/7 paediatric palliative care and their expectations and needs of a new service. This qualitative study used focus groups, and a thematic framework approach to analyse the data. Participants were healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the delivery of care to children (0-18 years) with palliative care needs and their families.
resultsFifty-three healthcare professionals, (25 doctors, 19 nurses, 6 managerial/administration and 3 allied professionals), took part in 11 focus groups. Three themes with sub-themes were developed: (1) Working within a fragmented landscape (Responding to the need for 24/7 end-of-life care, Coordination across teams without infrastructure, Building 24/7 continuity through integration); (2) Constraints on choice: default not preferred choice? (Limits to family choice, Critical yet inconsistent provision of community nursing, Inequality of access to specialist support); and (3) The personal cost of making it work (Gaps in confidence and experience, The price of goodwill). Professionals navigated a disjointed system to deliver 24/7 care to families. They strived to offer care in families' preferred place; however, choice was constrained by the availability of local services. Professionals stretched themselves to provide around the clock care, often sacrificing their personal wellbeing and in doing so, inadvertently sustaining a broken system.
conclusionStepping up to support families with 24/7 end-of-life care for their child, has resulted in an unsustainable physical and emotional toll on professionals. The impact of delivering care in an inequitable system is causing significant moral distress, and there is a growing realisation that their goodwill is masking current systemic shortcomings. Integrated Care Boards must work jointly to find economies of scale to establish equitable and sustainable models of delivery that meet national standards and to ensure all children have access to high quality 24/7 end-of-life care.
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.