ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
The utility of the "consideRATE" patient-reported experience measure in hospital patients receiving specialist palliative care: a two-phase prospective pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are increasingly central to ensuring healthcare quality. Uncertainty about the utility of PREMs for hospital patients with palliative care needs has limited their use in this population. Aim: To determine the utility (feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness) of implementing the PREM "consideRATE" for patients receiving specialist palliative care and to explore its perceived value for quality improvement. Design: A two-phase prospective pilot study incorporating PREM administration, screening logs and field notes, and focus groups. Setting/participants: The study was conducted in a specialist palliative care unit and consultative service in a metropolitan Australian hospital. Participants were recruited by research staff and included adult inpatients receiving specialist palliative care or their carers (PREM completion and feedback) and multidisciplinary staff (clinicians, managers, and quality and governance personnel) (focus groups). Results: Across 219 eligible participation occasions, 188 PREMs were completed (86% participation rate). No patient or carer distress was reported during PREM administration, and occasional spontaneous comments recorded in field notes indicated appreciation for the opportunity to provide feedback. Staff participants viewed consideRATE as meaningful and actionable, and perceived that the data could support the identification of improvement priorities and advocacy for system change. They also stated that administration support was essential and that routine implementation of consideRATE was not feasible within existing clinical workloads. Conclusions: Supported administration of consideRATE in a specialist palliative care unit and consultative service resulted in high participation and completion rates with no reported distress among participating patients and carers. Staff considered the measure appropriate and perceived the data as useful for informing quality improvement, but concluded that sustainable routine implementation would require dedicated human resources and integration into the hospital's quality systems.
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.