↓ Skip to main content

Improving palliative care provision in primary care: a pre- and post-survey evaluation among PaTz groups

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Improving palliative care provision in primary care: a pre- and post-survey evaluation among PaTz groups
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, March 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x695753
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annicka Gm van der Plas, H Roeline W Pasman, Bart Schweitzer, Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen

Abstract

In PaTz (PAlliatieve Thuis Zorg, palliative care at home), modelled after the Gold Standards Framework, GPs and community nurses meet on a regular basis to identify patients with palliative care needs (the PaTz register), and to discuss care for these patients. To study the effects of the implementation of PaTz, and provide additional analyses on two important elements: the PaTz register and patient discussions. A pre- and post-evaluation among Dutch GPs (n= 195 before the start of PaTz;n= 166, 1 year after the start of PaTz). The GPs also provided data on recently deceased patients (n= 460 before the start of PaTz;n= 305 14 months after the start of PaTz). GPs from all 37 PaTz groups filled in questionnaires. Pre- and post-test differences were analysed using multilevel analyses to adjust for PaTz group. Identification of patients with palliative care needs was done systematically for more patients after implementation of PaTz compared with before (54.3% versus 17.6%). After implementation, 64.8% of deceased patients had been included on the PaTz register. For these patients, when compared with patients not included on the PaTz register, preferred place of death was more likely to be known (88.1% of patients not on the register and 97.3% of deceased patients included on the register), GPs were more likely to have considered a possible death sooner (>1 month before death: 53.0% and 80.2%), and conversations on life expectancy, physical complaints, existential issues, and possibilities of care occurred more often (60.8% and 81.3%; 68.6% and 86.1%; 22.5% and 34.2%; 60.8% and 84.0%, respectively). Implementation of PaTz improved systematic identification of palliative care patients within the GP practice. Use of the PaTz register has added value.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 22%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,800,952
of 24,074,860 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#3,432
of 4,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,532
of 334,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#78
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,074,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 334,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.