ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Designing a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Promote Timely Palliative Care in Heart Failure.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Palliative care improves quality of life and reduces healthcare utilization for people with heart failure, yet referrals remain inconsistent and delayed. Clinical decision support (CDS) offers a promising strategy to facilitate timely palliative care, but no CDS tool currently exists to specifically support palliative care decision-making in this population. Methods: Guided by the User-Centered Framework for Implementation of Technology (UFIT), we conducted a qualitative descriptive study of focus groups and interviews with referring (i.e., hospitalists, cardiologists) and palliative care clinicians across two hospitals in an academic health system. Using rapid qualitative and content analysis, we identified needs, contextual factors, and design requirements to inform CDS tool development for timely palliative care. Results: Clinicians (n=25) identified pain points in the current workflow, clinicians' goals and expectations for earlier referral, and barriers to timely palliative care, such as timing uncertainty. Informational needs included prognostic and clinical data. Context reflected clinicians' prior experiences with CDS tools, where they reported few options specific to palliative care and disliked interruptive "pop-up" alerts not tailored to clinical contexts or workflow. CDS requirements included incorporation of objective markers of clinical deterioration, tailored recommendations and workflow integration based on clinical acuity and palliative needs, and a clear, visually appealing design. Conclusions: Clinicians identified critical information for a CDS tool to promote timely palliative care for patients with heart failure. These findings directly inform the design, workflow, implementation strategies, and future pilot testing of our palliative care CDS tool and subsequent clinical trial.
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.