Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34518258›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Mixed-methods study protocol: do national reporting and learning system medication incidents in palliative care reflect patient and carer concerns about medication management and safety?

Sarah Yardley, Sally-Anne Francis, Antony Chuter, Stuart Hellard, Julia Abernethy, A Carson-Stevens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Revealing the hidden harms in end-of-life care: a mixed-methods characterisation of reported safety incidents involving injectable symptom control medication.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Learning from end-of-life injectable medication patient safety incidents in the community: a mixed-methods analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah YardleyMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1645-642X
Sally-Anne FrancisMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2384-1518
Antony ChuterPatient and Public Involvement Collaborator, Hayward Heaths, UK.
Stuart HellardDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Julia AbernethyPatient Safety Team, NHS England and NHS Improvement, London, UK.
A Carson-StevensDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK carson-stevensap@cardiff.ac.uk.
Cardiff University · GBCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust · GBHaywards Heath Hospital · GBNHS EnglandUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApproximately 20% of serious safety incidents involving palliative patients relate to medication. These are disproportionately reported when patients are in their usual residence when compared with hospital or hospice. While patient safety incident reporting systems can support professional learning, it is unclear whether these reports encompass patient and carer concerns with palliative medications or interpersonal safety.

aimTo explore and compare perceptions of (un)safe palliative medication management from patient, carer and professional perspectives in community, hospital and hospice settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use an innovative mixed-methods study design combining systematic review searching techniques with cross-sectional quantitative descriptive analysis and interpretative qualitative metasynthesis to integrate three elements: (1) Scoping review: multiple database searches for empirical studies and first-hand experiences in English (no other restrictions) to establish how patients and informal carers conceptualise safety in palliative medication management. (2)Medication incidents from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: identifying and characterising reports to understand professional perspectives on suboptimal palliative medication management. (3) Comparison of 1 and 2: contextualising with stakeholder perspectives. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Our team includes a funded patient and public involvement (PPI) collaborator, with experience of promoting patient-centred approaches in patient safety research. Funded discussion and dissemination events with PPI and healthcare (clinical and policy) professionals are planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Prospective ethical approval granted: Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Ref 19/28). Our study will synthesise multivoiced constructions of patient safety in palliative care to identify implications for professional learning and actions that are relevant across health and social care. It will also identify changing or escalating patterns in palliative medication incidents due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peer-reviewed publications, academic presentations, plain English summaries, press releases and social media will be used to disseminate to the public, researchers, clinicians and policy-makers.

Indexed as

CaregiversCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesHumansMedication Therapy ManagementPalliative CarePandemicsPatient SafetyProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2palliative carequalitative researchquality in health carerisk managementtherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID34518258
PMCPMC8438946
OpenAlexW3200787167

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.