CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Palliative and Oncologic CarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout

Wie viel Tod verträgt das Team?: Eine bundesweite Befragung der Palliativstationen in Deutschland

Open access
Müller, M., Pfister, D., Markett, S., Jaspers, B.·2009·Der Schmerz
DOI 10.1007/s00482-009-0845-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background How many patient deaths the teams at palliative care units can cope with, the supporting factors in coping and the future prospects of the teams have not yet been subject to research in Germany. The aim of the study was to assess burden factors, burden symptoms and protective factors, the critical number and distribution of patient deaths as well as the prospects of the teams.Sample and methods A total of 873 members of palliative care teams from 95 (60% of n=158) German palliative care units took part in this explorative evaluation. Basic factors could be identified using factor analysis. Differences between professional groups were checked with analysis of variance.Results Results showed that not having reached the objectives of palliative care was the central burden factor. In the majority of cases a team reacted by being loquacious. The team itself was ranked as the most important protective factor. The mean critical number of deaths was 4.4 per week. Consecutive patient deaths were rated as being significantly more stressful than evenly spread deaths. Ratings for the future prospects of the team were significantly lower in teams where not meeting the objectives of palliative care was considered a high burden factor.Conclusion A clearer definition of the objectives of palliative care and support of team communication are desirable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00482-009-0845-y

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Müller, M., Pfister, D., Markett, S., & Jaspers, B.
Affiliations
University of Bonn (DE)
Corresponding author
Jaspers, B.
ORCID
Venue
Der Schmerz
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-09-12
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
600-608
ISSN
  • 0932-433X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2129
DOI
10.1007/s00482-009-0845-y
OpenAlex
W1536437367
Cited by
50
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 13
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Der Schmerz (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Keywords
palliative care team, patient death, occupational stress, protective factors, team communication, professional groups
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Attitude to Death, Burnout, Professional, Communication, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Germany, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Surveys, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Palliative Care, Patient Care Team, Surveys and Questionnaires

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review