Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Articles of interest in other scholarly journals
  1. Elaine G Boland
  1. Palliative Medicine, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Elaine G Boland, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK; Elaine.Boland{at}

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.

Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS): a systematic review

  • Leniz J, Weil A, Higginson IJ, et al. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2019. pii: bmjspcare-2018-001689.doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001689

This systematic review evaluated and reported on the state of the science of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) in the UK. It included 26 studies (14 expert opinion, 9 quantitative observational studies, 2 qualitative studies and 1 mixed-methods study) and 4 reports. There were no experimental design studies. The observational studies concentrated on the use of EPaCCS, hospital admissions and place of death. The qualitative studies evaluated the problems faced with the design and implementation of EPaCCS. The quantitative studies principally described aspects of patient management, such as place of death or admission to hospital and on the process of instigating EPaCCS. Studies reported that EPaCCS is acceptable for patients and healthcare professionals, and that inhours staff perceived EPaCCS will likely impact on their workload while out-of-hours staff felt this would be more useful to them. The authors concluded that research using experimental or quasi-experimental design is …

View Full Text


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.