Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Building a taxonomy of integrated palliative care initiatives: results from a focus group
  1. Benjamin Ewert1,
  2. Farina Hodiamont1,
  3. Jeroen van Wijngaarden2,
  4. Sheila Payne3,
  5. Marieke Groot4,
  6. Jeroen Hasselaar4,
  7. Johann Menten5 and
  8. Lukas Radbruch1
  1. 1Klinik für Palliativmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  2. 2Department of Health Service and Management of Organizations, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3International Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  4. 4Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  5. 5Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to Dr Benjamin Ewert, Klinik für Palliativmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, Bonn 53127, Germany; benjamin.ewert{at}


Background Empirical evidence suggests that integrated palliative care (IPC) increases the quality of care for palliative patients and supports professional caregivers. Existing IPC initiatives in Europe vary in their design and are hardly comparable. InSuP-C, a European Union research project, aimed to build a taxonomy of IPC initiatives applicable across diseases, healthcare sectors and systems.

Methods The taxonomy of IPC initiatives was developed in cooperation with an international and multidisciplinary focus group of 18 experts. Subsequently, a consensus meeting of 10 experts revised a preliminary taxonomy and adopted the final classification system.

Results Consisting of eight categories, with two to four items each, the taxonomy covers the process and structure of IPC initiatives. If two items in at least one category apply to an initiative, a minimum level of integration is assumed to have been reached. Categories range from the type of initiative (items: pathway, model or guideline) to patients’ key contact (items: non-pc specialist, pc specialist, general practitioner). Experts recommended the inclusion of two new categories: level of care (items: primary, secondary or tertiary) indicating at which stage palliative care is integrated and primary focus of intervention describing IPC givers’ different roles (items: treating function, advising/consulting or training) in the care process.

Conclusions Empirical studies are required to investigate how the taxonomy is used in practice and whether it covers the reality of patients in need of palliative care. The InSuP-C project will test this taxonomy empirically in selected initiatives using IPC.

  • integrated palliative care
  • taxonomy
  • expert focus group
  • Communication
  • Education and training

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.