Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42512727›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026

The Shared Document as a Tool for Shared Care Planning: A Retrospective Analysis of 160 Cases.

Salvatore Simone Masilla, Clara Todini, Barbara Corsano, Andrea Ponzio, Dario Sacchini, Pietro Refolo, Antonio Gioacchino Spagnolo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Salvatore Simone MasillaResearch Centre for Clinical Bioethics & Medical Humanities, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0004-1225-3109
Clara TodiniResearch Centre for Clinical Bioethics & Medical Humanities, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Barbara CorsanoFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0001-5997-1747
Andrea PonzioResearch Centre for Clinical Bioethics & Medical Humanities, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Dario SacchiniResearch Centre for Clinical Bioethics & Medical Humanities, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1581-3018
Pietro RefoloResearch Centre for Clinical Bioethics & Medical Humanities, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1055-160X
Antonio Gioacchino SpagnoloResearch Centre for Clinical Bioethics & Medical Humanities, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5762-2164

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesShared Care Planning (SCP) represents a collaborative decision-making process integrating advance care planning and shared decision-making to support ethically complex clinical pathways. Since 2016, the Clinical Ethics Consultation (CEC) service at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "Agostino Gemelli" IRCCS (FPUG) in Rome has implemented SCP through the use of the Shared Document (SD) for healthcare ethics planning. This study aimed to describe the SD as an operational tool supporting SCP, focusing on its procedural characteristics, multidisciplinary dimension, and the ethical and contextual issues emerging during its implementation.

methodsThis single-center, retrospective observational study analyzed digitized medical records of patients who underwent SCP through the drafting of one or more SDs between 2016 and 2024 at FPUG. Data were extracted from SDs and clinical records in accordance with the RECORD guidelines. Variables included processing time, number of meetings with the clinical ethics consultant (CEc), number of healthcare professionals and family members involved, ethical-clinical issues, contextual challenges, and care orientations proposed within the SDs. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort and operational aspects of the service.

resultsAmong 454 patients referred to the CEC service, 154 patients underwent SCP, resulting in 160 SDs. The most frequent ethical issues concerned the proportionality of treatments to initiate (70%) and ongoing treatments (31%). Contextual issues emerged in 74% of cases, particularly pregnancy-related situations (44%) and absence of a legal guardian (19%). Drafting of SD required multiple interdisciplinary meetings (mean: 2.4), with an average processing time of 7 days. The number of healthcare professionals involved increased over time, reflecting growing multidisciplinary participation. The most frequent care orientations included palliative care (58%), withholding invasive/intensive maneuvers (34%), and indications for surgical or diagnostic treatments.

conclusionsThe SD emerged as a structured clinical-ethical tool supporting complex shared care planning processes beyond issues of informed consent alone. Its use facilitated multidisciplinary deliberation, the integration of ethical and contextual factors, and continuity in care planning across different clinical trajectories.

Indexed as

advance care planningbioethicsclinical ethics consultationinformed consentmaternal–fetal medicinemultidisciplinary approachpalliative careperinatal ethicsshared care planningshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID42512727
PMCPMC13409768

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.