Responses

Download PDFPDF

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    EPaCCS and the need for research
    • Matthew J Allsop, Research Fellow in Applied Health
    • Other Contributors:
      • Michael I Bennett

    We agree with Sleeman and Higginson [1] who emphasised the need to gather evidence of effectiveness of EPaCCS before widespread and uncritical adoption by the NHS. An EPaCCS evaluation framework was recently developed by our team on behalf of end of life commissioners in Leeds [2]. There was, and remains, a scarcity of guidance on approaches to gathering evidence for EPaCCS but we identified factors that highlight the c...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Warning - EPaCCS may NOT facilitate home deaths

    As the lead of a Marie Curie funded study of EPaCCS, I welcome the attention that electronic palliative care systems are increasingly receiving. However unlike Petrova et al, I believe the "striking" EPaCCS results on facilitating home deaths mentioned by Petrova et al may largely be explained by selection bias.

    In our mixed methods study, we too found impressive results in that those with an electronic EPaCCS...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Evidence based policy in palliative care - time to learn from our mistakes
    • Katherine E. Sleeman, NIHR Clinician Scientist in Palliative Medicine
    • Other Contributors:
      • Irene J. Higginson

    The article by Petrova et al is timely and thought provoking.1 EPaCCS (Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems) have good face value: they appear so obviously a good idea. But scratch beneath the surface, as Petrova and colleagues have done, and important challenges in public perceptions, funding, information governance, context and health care IT become apparent.

    EPaCCS are electronic information system...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.