Home › Research › End-of-life care
A co-design process developing heuristics for practitioners providing end of life care for people with dementia
Davies N, Mathew R, Wilcock J, Manthorpe J, Sampson EL, Lamahewa K, Iliffe S.. BMC palliative care, 2016-08-02
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results Four broad areas were identified as requiring complex decisions at the end of life; 1) eating/swallowing difficulties, 2) agitation/restlessness, 3) ending life-sustaining treatment, and 4) providing "routine care" at the end of life. Eating/swallowing difficulties have three rules; ensuring eating/swallowing difficulties do not come as a surprise, considering if the situation is an emergency, and considering 'comfort feeding' only versus time-trialled artificial feeding. Ending life-sustaining treatment supports practitioners through a process of considering the benefits of treatment versus quality-of-life and comfort.
Key findings
- Results Four broad areas were identified as requiring complex decisions at the end of life; 1) eating/swallowing difficulties, 2) agitation/restlessness, 3) ending life-sustaining treatment, and 4) providing "routine care" at the end of life.
- Eating/swallowing difficulties have three rules; ensuring eating/swallowing difficulties do not come as a surprise, considering if the situation is an emergency, and considering 'comfort feeding' only versus time-trialled artificial feeding.
- Ending life-sustaining treatment supports practitioners through a process of considering the benefits of treatment versus quality-of-life and comfort.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC palliative care) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27484683) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Davies, N., Mathew, R., Wilcock, J., Manthorpe, J., Sampson, E. L., Lamahewa, K., et al. (2016). A co-design process developing heuristics for practitioners providing end of life care for people with dementia. BMC palliative care. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-016-0146-z
Vancouver
Davies N, Mathew R, Wilcock J, Manthorpe J, Sampson EL, Lamahewa K, et al. A co-design process developing heuristics for practitioners providing end of life care for people with dementia. BMC palliative care. 2016. doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0146-z. PMID: 27484683.
BibTeX
@article{davies2016-27484683,
author = {Davies, N. and Mathew, R. and Wilcock, J. and Manthorpe, J. and Sampson, E. L. and Lamahewa, K. and Iliffe, S.},
title = {{A co-design process developing heuristics for practitioners providing end of life care for people with dementia}},
journal = {BMC palliative care},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1186/s12904-016-0146-z},
pmid = {27484683},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-016-0146-z}
}