Home › Research › End-of-life care
Development of a practice guideline for optimal symptom relief for patients with pneumonia and dementia in nursing homes using a Delphi study
van der Maaden T, van der Steen JT, de Vet HC, Achterberg WP, Boersma F, Schols JM, van Berkel JF, Mehr DR et al.. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2014-07-07
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective This study aimed to develop a practice guideline for a structured and consensus-based approach to relieve symptoms of pneumonia in patients with dementia in nursing homes. Methods A five-round Delphi study involving a panel consisting of 24 experts was conducted. An initial version of the practice guideline was developed with leading representatives of Dutch University Medical Centers with a department for elderly care medicine, based on existing guidelines for palliative care. The experts evaluated the initial version, after which we identified topics that reflected the main divergences. The experts rated their agreement with statements that addressed the main divergences on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was determined according to pre-defined criteria. The practice guideline was then revised according to the final decisions made by the project group and the representatives. Results The response rate for the expert panel was 67%. Main divergences included the applicability of guidelines for palliative care to patients with dementia and pneumonia in long-term care and the appropriateness of specific pharmacological treatment of dyspnea and coughing. Moderate consensus was reached for 80% of the statements. Major revisions included adding pharmacological treatment for coughing and recommending opioid rotation in the case of opioid-induced delirium. Two areas of divergent opinion remained: the usefulness of oxygen administration and treatment of rattling breath. The project group made the final decision in these areas. Conclusions We developed a mostly consensus-based practice guideline for patients with dementia and pneumonia and mapped controversial issues for future investigation.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van der Maaden, T., van der Steen, J. T., de Vet, H. C., Achterberg, W. P., Boersma, F., Schols, J. M., et al. (2015). Development of a practice guideline for optimal symptom relief for patients with pneumonia and dementia in nursing homes using a Delphi study. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4167
Vancouver
van der Maaden T, van der Steen JT, de Vet HC, Achterberg WP, Boersma F, Schols JM, et al. Development of a practice guideline for optimal symptom relief for patients with pneumonia and dementia in nursing homes using a Delphi study. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2015. doi:10.1002/gps.4167. PMID: 25043614.
BibTeX
@article{vandermaaden2015-25043614,
author = {van der Maaden, T. and van der Steen, J. T. and de Vet, H. C. and Achterberg, W. P. and Boersma, F. and Schols, J. M. and van Berkel, J. F. and Mehr, D. R. and others},
title = {{Development of a practice guideline for optimal symptom relief for patients with pneumonia and dementia in nursing homes using a Delphi study}},
journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1002/gps.4167},
pmid = {25043614},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4167}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The response rate for the expert panel was 67%.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry) |
| 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 | 2015 — 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 25043614) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “care”
996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.