ArticleBMC health services research2025
Is digitalization still an uncharted territory for palliative care? Use of electronic patient records and assessment instruments in German specialist palliative care: results of an online survey.
Article in BMC health services research, 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.
- New Advances in Palliative Care-State of the Field, Its Challenges and Advances at the End of the Year 2025.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of routinely collected clinical data from electronic patient records (EPR) offers substantial potential for quality management and health services research, particularly in specialised palliative care (SPC). This study investigates the degree of standardization, outcome assessment practices, and EPR implementation in palliative care units (PCU), palliative care advisory teams (PCA) and specialised palliative home care (SPHC) in Germany.
methodsCross-sectional online survey among community and inpatient SPC services in Germany using setting-specific questionnaires with closed and open-ended questions. Descriptive analyses were performed.
results209 teams participated (PCU: 71; PCA: 31; SPHC: 107). Of the PCUs, 29.6% document exclusively digitally (PCA: 38.7%; SPHC: 57.9%), 15.5% exclusively paper-based (PCA: 6.5%; SPHC: 0.9%) and 52.1% both digital and paper-based (PCA: 48.4%; SPHC: 24.3%) (missing: PCU: 2.8%; PCA: 6.5%; SPHC: 16.8%). In PCU and PCA various EPR systems are used (PCU at least 10, PCA at least 7); in SPHC, two systems are employed by 96% of the teams. More than one EPR is used in 13.0% (PCU) and 27.0% (PCA). The majority of teams employ at least one standardised assessment to record functional status (PCU: 95.7%, PCA: 90.3%, SPHC: 66.4%) and symptom burden (PCU: 85.9%, PCA: 87.1%, SPHC: 64.5%). Assessments during care processes were limited: 25.4% of PCUs, 16.1% of PCAs, and 30.8% of SPHC teams documented symptom burden, and 8.5% of PCUs; 0% of PCA; and 17.8% of SPHC documented functional status daily or during visits.
conclusionThe use of routine health care data in SPC is limited by fragmented documentation practices, lack of standardization, poor interoperability, and the insufficient relevance of many health information systems for capturing patient-centred outcomes. To improve both care quality and research, there is a need for consensus on assessment instruments, as well as the development of interoperable digital infrastructures.
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.