ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Clinical decision support for potentially sedating drugs in palliative care: a mixed-methods pilot 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWithin the framework of the project iSedPall, a Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) was developed and piloted to address uncertainties in the use of potentially sedating drugs commonly administered in palliative care. The so-called 'warning list' contains evidence- and expert consensus-based data. This study aimed to test its feasibility of implementation, appropriateness, and acceptability.
methodsMixed-methods pilot study including data from four pilot centres (two inpatient palliative care units, two palliative home care teams): a retrospective cohort study by chart review, an online survey, and focus groups (one focus group per pilot centre and two setting-specific focus groups). Quantitative data was analysed via descriptive statistics and content analysis was used for the focus groups.
resultsRetrospective cohort study (n = 1,189 patients): The frequency of the use of the warning list depended on the patient group. The list was used most frequently for patients in whom sedation occurred as an adverse drug reaction. Online survey: 13/33 respondents used the list. Eight planned to continue using the warning list after the end of the project. Focus groups (six focus groups with overall n = 22 professionals): Generally, the aim of the warning list was well understood. The benefits were seen primarily in terms of education and background information. Participants also suggested the availability in electronic form. A potential risk is that the warning list could be misinterpreted as dose recommendations for sedation.
conclusionsThe warning list seems to be appropriate, acceptable, and feasible to be implemented for professionals, according to pilot evidence from four centres. The mixed-methods approach proved valuable in carefully exploring the risks alongside the benefits. Future research should be conducted in more generalisable settings, take a closer look at different professional groups as well as settings, and further explore the various types of potential use of the CDST. Implementation in electronic form should be explored carefully, reflecting positive and negative consequences on daily routines.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00027241; Date of registration: 10/12/2021; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00027241 ).
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.