ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Specialist palliative care in different intensive care unit populations: a retrospective longitudinal study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegration of specialist palliative care (PC) in intensive care units (ICUs) is recommended but remains underutilized. Understanding differences among ICU populations (i.e., medical vs. surgical) is crucial to overcome barriers and guide optimized care.
methodsRetrospective longitudinal analysis of surgical, medical-neurological and COVID-19 ICU patients receiving specialist PC consultations at a tertiary care center between 2018 and 2022. Measures and outcomes included patient characteristics, timing of PC involvement, PC triggers according to ICU and PC teams, multi-dimensional symptom assessments and care trajectories.
results518 cases were included, 268 (51.7%) from surgical, 174 (33.6%) from medical-neurological and 76 (14.7%) from COVID-19 ICUs. 39.0% of patients (mean age 67 years, 38.6% female) had cancer, pronounced in the surgical population, while medical ICU patients were older and more often female. The first PC encounter was in median 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-14) days after ICU admission with an ICU length of stay of 11 (IQR 5-26) days. ICU mortality was 77.2%, hospital mortality 87.6% with 11.6% of all patients were admitted to PC unit. While ICU teams predominantly saw malignancy, lack of curative treatment options and the need to care for next-of-kin as PC triggers, the PC teams mainly the need to care for next-of-kin and symptom burden. In the surgical ICU, malignancy was more often present as a trigger (maximum standardized mean difference [mSMD]: 0.676), for the medical ICU no curative options (mSMD: 0.256) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (mSMD: 0.375). Symptom assessment regarding pain (mSMD: 0.676), depressive mood (mSMD: 0.552) and dyspnea (mSMD: 0.468) differed between ICU populations. 28.6% of patients had advance directives (p = 0.16 between ICUs), 48.1% a power of attorney (p = 0.22 between ICUs).
conclusionsIn this pandemic-era cohort, ICU patients receiving specialist PC showed high mortality and symptom burden but differed regarding PC triggers and symptom assessments between ICUs. Further, perceptions of PC triggers and symptoms vary between ICU and PC teams. Future studies in non-pandemic settings are needed to determine the broader applicability of these observations.
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.