↓ Skip to main content

Timely identification of palliative patients and anticipatory care planning by GPs: practical application of tools and a training programme

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Timely identification of palliative patients and anticipatory care planning by GPs: practical application of tools and a training programme
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0112-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bregje Thoonsen, Marieke Groot, Stans Verhagen, Chris van Weel, Kris Vissers, Yvonne Engels

Abstract

Palliative care is mainly restricted to terminal care. General practitioners (GPs) are not trained to early identify palliative patients with cancer, COPD or heart failure. With the help of the RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care needs (RADPAC), we trained GPs to identify patients' needs and to make a proactive care plan. They were also able to join two role-plays where they discussed the patient's future, and consulted a palliative care consultant to fine-tune the care plan. We evaluated the programme with the GPs and consultants and noted its impact on their daily practice. Two years after they had participated in the programme, we held semi-structured interviews with the GPs and a focus group interview with the consultants and performed a thematic content analysis. Six consultants and nine GPs participated in the programme. Most GPs and consultants mentioned positive changes in the thinking or acting of GPs regarding early palliative care. A number continued to use the tool to identify patients; most of the others noted they had internalised the indicators. Although half of them still considered discussing end-of-life aspects difficult, particularly in patients with organ failure, the others were more easily able to discuss the future with their palliative patients. Although most GPs and consultants were positive about the training programme and applying it in daily practice, we conclude that in future programmes, more attention needs to paid to timely identification of palliative patients with COPD or CHF and how to discuss the future with them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 19%
Other 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 37 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 25%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 40 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,366,818
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#1,095
of 1,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,706
of 300,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#26
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.