↓ Skip to main content

Patterns of paediatric end-of-life care: a chart review across different care settings in Switzerland

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patterns of paediatric end-of-life care: a chart review across different care settings in Switzerland
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12887-018-1021-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin Zimmermann, Eva Cignacco, Sandra Engberg, Anne-Sylvie Ramelet, Nicolas von der Weid, Katri Eskola, Eva Bergstraesser, on behalf of the PELICAN Consortium, Marc Ansari, Christoph Aebi, Reta Baer, Maja Beck Popovic, Vera Bernet, Pierluigi Brazzola, Hans Ulrich Bucher, Regula Buder, Sandra Cagnazzo, Barbara Dinten, Anouk Dorsaz, Franz Elmer, Raquel Enriquez, Patricia Fahrni-Nater, Gabi Finkbeiner, Bernhard Frey, Urs Frey, Jeannette Greiner, Ralph-Ingo Hassink, Simone Keller, Oliver Kretschmar, Judith Kroell, Bernard Laubscher, Kurt Leibundgut, Reta Malaer, Andreas Meyer, Christoph Stuessi, Mathias Nelle, Thomas Neuhaus, Felix Niggli, Geneviève Perrenoud, Jean-Pierre Pfammatter, Barbara Plecko, Debora Rupf, Felix Sennhauser, Caroline Stade, Maja Steinlin, Lilian Stoffel, Karin Thomas, Christian Vonarburg, Rodo von Vigier, Bendicht Wagner, Judith Wieland, Birgit Wernz

Abstract

Paediatric end-of-life care is challenging and requires a high level of professional expertise. It is important that healthcare teams have a thorough understanding of paediatric subspecialties and related knowledge of disease-specific aspects of paediatric end-of-life care. The aim of this study was to comprehensively describe, explore and compare current practices in paediatric end-of-life care in four distinct diagnostic groups across healthcare settings including all relevant levels of healthcare providers in Switzerland. In this nationwide retrospective chart review study, data from paediatric patients who died in the years 2011 or 2012 due to a cardiac, neurological or oncological condition, or during the neonatal period were collected in 13 hospitals, two long-term institutions and 10 community-based healthcare service providers throughout Switzerland. Ninety-three (62%) of the 149 reviewed patients died in intensive care units, 78 (84%) of them following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Reliance on invasive medical interventions was prevalent, and the use of medication was high, with a median count of 12 different drugs during the last week of life. Patients experienced an average number of 6.42 symptoms. The prevalence of various types of symptoms differed significantly among the four diagnostic groups. Overall, our study patients stayed in the hospital for a median of six days during their last four weeks of life. Seventy-two patients (48%) stayed at home for at least one day and only half of those received community-based healthcare. The study provides a wide-ranging overview of current end-of-life care practices in a real-life setting of different healthcare providers. The inclusion of patients with all major diagnoses leading to disease- and prematurity-related childhood deaths, as well as comparisons across the diagnostic groups, provides additional insight and understanding for healthcare professionals. The provision of specialised palliative and end-of-life care services in Switzerland, including the capacity of community healthcare services, need to be expanded to meet the specific needs of seriously ill children and their families.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 57 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 21%
Computer Science 4 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 63 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,296,621
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#514
of 3,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,171
of 336,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#16
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.