↓ Skip to main content

Crash course in EPaCCS (Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems): 8 years of successes and failures in patient data sharing to learn from

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care , September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
68 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Crash course in EPaCCS (Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems): 8 years of successes and failures in patient data sharing to learn from
Published in
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care , September 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjspcare-2015-001059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mila Petrova, Julia Riley, Julian Abel, Stephen Barclay

Abstract

Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) are England's pre-eminent initiative in enabling advance care planning and improved communication and coordination at the end of life. EPaCCS have been under development for 8 years after being proposed, as Locality Registers, in the 2008 End of Life Care Strategy for England. EPaCCS are electronic registers or tools and processes for sharing data which aim to enable access to information about dying patients. Striking outcomes have been reported around EPaCCS, such as 77.8% of 'Coordinate My Care' patients dying in their preferred place. EPaCCS have, however, been extremely challenging to develop and implement, with many projects remaining continuously 'under development' or folding. They also continue to be suboptimally integrated with other data sharing initiatives. Rigorous research is non-existent. We discuss the current EPaCCS landscape and way forward. We summarise key facts concerning the availability, uptake, outcomes and costs of EPaCCS. We outline 5 key challenges (scope of projects, unrealistic expectations set by existing guidance, the discrepancy between IT realities in healthcare and our broader lives, information governance and 'death register' associations) and 6 key drivers (robust concept, striking outcomes, national support and strong clinical leadership, clinician commitment, education and funding). The priorities for advancing EPaCCS we propose include linking to other work streams and reframing the concept, potentially making it less 'end of life', overview of current EPaCCS and lessons learnt, continuing work on information standards, rethinking of national funding and new levels of individual and community involvement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Social Sciences 13 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 20 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 01 November 2019.
All research outputs
#616,217
of 17,812,415 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
#61
of 1,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,333
of 276,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
#3
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,812,415 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 276,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.