Skip to main content

Dying in hospital in Germany – optimising care in the dying phase: study protocol for a multi-centre bottom-up intervention on ward level



Hospitals are globally an important place of care for dying people and the most frequent place of death in Germany (47%), but at the same time, the least preferred one – for both patients and their relatives. Important indicators and outcome variables indexing quality of care in the dying phase are available, and various proposals to achieve corresponding quality objectives exist. However, they are not yet sufficiently adapted to the heterogeneous needs of individual hospital wards.


This multi-centre single-arm pre-post study aims at the development and implementation of context-specific measures in everyday clinical practice, followed by evaluating this approach. Therefore, (1) already existing measures regarding optimal care in the dying phase are identified applying a systematic literature review as well as an online survey and a symposium with experts. Supported by the thereby generated collection of measures, (2) a stratified sample of ten teams of different wards from two university hospitals select suitable measures and implement them in their everyday clinical practice. Circumstances of patients’ deaths on the selected wards are recorded twice, at baseline before application of the self-chosen measures and afterwards in a follow-up survey. Retrospective file analysis of deceased persons, quantitative staff surveys as well as qualitative multi-professional focus groups and interviews with relatives form the data basis of the pre-post evaluation. (3) Results are reviewed regarding their transferability to other hospitals and disseminated (inter-)nationally.


Measures that are easy to implement and appropriate to the specific situation are supposed to significantly improve the quality of care during the dying phase in hospitals and contribute to the well-being of dying patients and their relatives. Successful implementation of those measures requires consideration of the individual conditions and needs of patients and their relatives—but also of the health professionals—on the different hospital wards. Therefore, a bottom-up approach, in which the ward-specific situation is first analysed in detail and then the staff itself selects and implements measures to improve care, appears most promising for optimising care in the dying phase in hospitals.

Trial registration

The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025405).

Peer Review reports


A significant proportion of the population in developed countries dies in hospitals, making them important places of care at the end of life [1]. Even though most patients wish to die at home [1, 2], the percentage of hospital deaths ranges widely, e. g., between 34% in the Netherlands [3], 42% in Sweden [4], 47% in England [5], and 61% in Spain [3]. Although hospital care in the dying phase is often evaluated positively, there is still room for improvement—such as unmet needs for information on what to expect when someone is dying [6]. Therefore, there are considerable efforts both internationally and nationally to optimise care in the dying phase. Most famous in this regard is the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP): Developed in the late 1990s [7], it was modified over the years and adapted in an international working group for application in other countries [8,9,10]. The LCP was designed as a ten-step palliative care approach that aims to provide consistent, high-quality, and dignified care for the dying in all settings and evolved into a complex intervention, combined with an extensive training program and audit cycles [7]. Ultimately, the proper application of the LCP failed due to this complexity [11, 12]. Nevertheless, the LCP contents are well designed and were further advanced into the international Best Care of the Dying (BCD) recommendations [13, 14]. The BCD recommendations include, e. g., recognising a patient as dying, ongoing communication with patients and their relatives, and symptom control [14]. As an alternative project to LCP/BCD, the AMBER Care Bundle (Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain) was developed to deal with clinical uncertainty for hospital inpatients near the end of life [15]. This systematic treatment approach intends to support health professionals in proactively discussing the further course of action when the patient's health condition is deteriorating. In analogy to the LCP, the AMBER Care Bundle was developed "top-down" making it rather inflexible in its application [16].

In Germany, too, the hospital is the most frequent place of death (47%) [17, 18], but at the same time the least preferred one for both, patients and their relatives [19]. Annually, around 420.000 patients die in hospitals [17]. Taking into account the relatives of the deceased, an additional four to five times as many people are affected [20]. According to patients and relatives, the main reasons for dissatisfaction with dying in a hospital setting are insufficient symptom control, lack of involvement in decision-making on the further course of treatment, lack of communication between health professionals and patients, inadequate hospital environment, and interpersonal relationships with health professionals [21]. This dissatisfaction persists, although there are broadly consented targets and recommendations in Germany for best possible care in the dying phase. Within the framework of the National Guideline on Palliative Care for Patients with Incurable Cancer, 50 professional societies have formulated evidence- and consensus-based recommendations that should apply to all patients in the dying phase [22]. In addition, a working group of the German Palliative Care Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin, DGP) elaborated actionable recommendations for the dying phase based on the BCD [13, 14]. However, their sustainable implementation and realisation has not yet taken place – particularly in non-palliative care wards, where most patients die in hospitals [23]. Outside specialised palliative care wards, health professionals often find it difficult to talk to terminally ill patients about their situation and underestimate patients’ information needs [24]. This may partly be due to the fact that death is not usually considered a possible, and in some cases acceptable outcome of treatment within the hospital setting [25]. Physicians may perceive the patients’ death as a personal failure or as a result of unsuccessful treatment. This leads to uncertainties regarding whether and how conversations about dying should be initiated – with patients and their relatives, but also within the health care team [26].

According to the German Palliative Care Guideline, the dying phase refers to the last three to seven days of life when, due to their health status/condition, the physical and psychological abilities of the dying patient are increasingly limited [22]. Care in the dying phase in hospitals is often intuitive and the quality depends on the motivation and competence of the responsible health professionals [27, 28]. Documentation in patient records rarely shows explicit references of actually provided end of life care [29]. Besides the primarily curative culture in acute care hospitals, increasing time and cost pressures combined with a lack of standards and routines leave little room for health professionals to reflect on care goals for patients in the dying phase [30]. However, treatment and care of those patients as well as the support of their relatives continues beyond curative options [31]. The White Paper on Standards and Norms for Hospice and Palliative Care in Europe [1] as well as the German Charter for the Care of the Severely Ill and Dying [32] emphasise the special importance of hospitals in providing individualized, best possible care for people at the end of their life and their relatives. They urge hospitals to develop and implement related recommendations and standards to this end.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of end of life care in hospitals gained significant additional attention and the care of dying patients under aggravated conditions has been regarded very critically. Numerous projects aim to establish good care for dying people during pandemic times [33, 34]. This emphasises the importance of profound knowledge regarding optimal care in the dying phase on acute care wards. This study aims to:

  • Develop and implement context-specific measures in everyday clinical practice on non-palliative care wards using a bottom up-approach, followed by evaluating this approach

  • Develop and consent a generic framework for optimising care in the dying phase in hospitals


The single-arm pre-post study to optimise care in the dying phase is located at two German university hospitals to run over a course of three years and includes three phases (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Project phases

Phase 1 – Collecting existing measures and experiences; recruiting participating wards (Fig. 2)

Fig. 2
figure 2

Phase 1 – Collecting existing measures and experiences; recruiting participating wards at two university hospitals

During the first phase, we gather an extensive insight on already existing measures and experiences in the care of dying patients, using a three-stage approach:

  1. a.

    We conduct a systematic literature review for all measures (evaluated or not) on optimisation of care in the dying phase comprising a scoping review, in which the research question is based on the SPIDER-scheme [35] with a specific search syntax and a manual search for “grey literature” using keyword search and a snowball system [35, 36]. Therewith we aim to find both established and evaluated measures as well as lean tools, relevant for the daily work in care facilities. Planned data sources are PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science for the scoping review and Google for the grey literature search.

  2. b.

    To gather further information on measures to optimise care in the dying phase within the German context, a kick-off symposium with about N = 50 national experts in the field is held. Clinicians, researchers as well as relevant stakeholders from politics and professional societies are invited to raise the status quo of the care situation in the dying phase and to collect suitable measures for its improvement as well as to exchange experiences regarding their application. Due to Covid-19-induced travel restrictions, the symposium takes place in a hybrid format (online and on site).

  3. c.

    Prior to the symposium, the invited national experts are asked to take part in an online survey. Therein, besides socio-demographic data of the participants, relevant aspects regarding hospital care in the dying phase are gathered using open questions, covering the most important aspects regarding optimal care, potential barriers and facilitating factors as well as possible next steps to improve care. In order to account for the current pandemic situation, specifics due to COVID-19 are also inquired. Qualitative data from the online survey is analysed thematically [37] in order to provide a solid data basis for the symposium.

Results from the systematic literature review, the online survey and the symposium provide a broad variety of measures to optimise care in the dying phase in hospitals. N = 10 non-palliative wards are recruited to implement a selection of the reviewed measures or other ideas of their own in phase 2 (Fig. 2). Implementing self-chosen measures is intended to emphasize individuality and creativity and therewith to increase motivation for participation and implementation. In contrast to complex and often rigid top-down approaches [7, 15] we expect broader approval and cooperation of the hospital ward teams with this bottom-up strategy.

Both participating university hospitals have an active academic palliative medicine department and are in the catchment area of the same health insurance fund. At each of them, n = 5 wards are selected via purposeful sampling [38]. To capture a comprehensive picture of the conditions at the hospital wards, we aim for the greatest possible heterogeneity concerning qualification of staff, ward setting / specialty, ward size and number of deaths. Ultimately, the decisive factor for inclusion in the study is the willingness of the requested wards to participate.

Phase 2 – Implementation of measures and evaluation of intervention

During phase 2, the ten different ward teams implement self-chosen measures (Fig. 3)– if desired, the measures collected in phase 1 can be presented to stimulate discussion on appropriate measures. The research team evaluates this individual bottom up-approach. The single-arm pre-post evaluation consists of a qualitative and a quantitative part to capture effects on patient care, relative support and staff experiences. We conduct data collection at all ten wards before the implementation of measures and after completion of the implementation phase. The duration of the individual implementation phases is at least six month but may vary depending on the number of deaths. The aim is to conduct the follow-up survey after 40 patients have died on each ward following the implementation.

Additionally, the research team and staff from the palliative care wards at the two university hospitals provide ongoing needs-oriented support with palliative care expertise as well as with organisational and implementation tasks in every work step at the ten wards (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Phase 2—Implementation of self-chosen measures and pre-post-evaluation on 10 wards at two university hospitals

Baseline survey: Quantitative part

The quantitative part includes a retrospective file analysis of 40 deceased patients on each ward respectively before and after implementation. This yields n = 200 files for each hospital and N = 400 files in total for the baseline survey. Furthermore, a quantitative online survey is planned with N = 500 employees (on average n = 50 for each of the ten hospital wards). Included are staff members who were designated as belonging to the ward by the ward-specific contact person.

Retrospective patient file analysis

An existing instrument developed in a previous project can be used for analysing the care situation of patients in the dying phase and their relatives [39]. This questionnaire is adapted to the conditions of the hospital wards participating in the present project (e.g., different documentation systems). It enables a structured retrospective analysis of routine documentation in patient files and the extent to which this reflects the contents of the key recommendations and quality indicators for care in the dying phase from the German Palliative Care Guideline [22]. Therewith, patient files are examined regarding available information on medication and measures, medical and nursing documentation, principles of dying phase, continuity of care, assessments and therapy, nutrient supply and sociodemographic data of the descendant patient. Most items refer to the last 72 h of the patient's life; a few items take into account the last seven or 14 days, e.g. when recording information about chemotherapy or radiation (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Topics of the patient file analysis [39]

In order to allow a differentiation of the situation before and after the outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic within the baseline survey, 20 files of patients who died before March, 11th 2020 (pandemic proclamation in Germany) and 20 files of patients who have died since then are analysed for each ward. The period for retrospective analysis before March, 11th 2020 is determined by the ward with the lowest number of deaths and covers the time in which 20 patients died in this ward. For this period, either a full survey is conducted or, for wards with higher numbers of deaths, a random sample is analysed.

Staff survey

In an anonymous quantitative survey with an estimated N = 500 staff members of the participating wards, self-efficacy and feelings in dealing with dying patients and their relatives, the fear of death and dying and factors related to cooperation in the team are surveyed using validated questionnaires (see Table 1). Additionally, self-care strategies, socio-demographic data, professional background and previous experiences including satisfaction with end-of-life care in their ward are examined by a self-developed questionnaire and related stress factors [40] are also surveyed.

Table 1 Questionnaires used in the staff survey

The staff of the ten participating wards receive a short information about the survey and the link to the online questionnaires via e-mail. Furthermore, postings are displayed on the wards to inform about the study and invite staff to participate in the survey. Based on experience from the earlier project [39], we assume a response rate of ≥ 50%. Reminders via e-mail are sent to all employees at regular intervals [45].

Baseline survey: Qualitative part

Qualitative data collection intends to ascertain subjective views on the care for dying patients and their relatives in the participating wards. We plan to conduct N = 20 interviews (n = 2 per ward) with relatives of deceased patients, each aiming for a length of about 60 min. The goal is to examine personal experiences of care and support of the interviewees to identify what is going well and potential for improvement on the respective wards. In addition, N = 10 multi-professional focus groups (n = 1 per ward; length about 90 min) with n = 5–10 employees each are conducted. The aim is to capture health professionals' perceptions of care and support for dying patients and their relatives. The focus groups also aim to stimulate the narrative process on the wards and are therefore themselves a kind of minimal intervention. They can show which measures are perceived as suitable among staff members.

To recruit interviewees, health professionals ask relatives who they think are suitable and, if they agree, arrange contact with the research team. The multi-professional focus groups are announced by postings on the participating wards with information about the study and asking for participation. Furthermore, ward team leaders hand out study information to their staff. Interested health professionals are invited to contact the research team.

All qualitative (group) interviews are based on semi-structured guidelines based on established models for capturing determinants of implementation (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)) [46] to identify individual barriers and derive appropriate strategies to address them during tailoring [47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Data collection is conducted at the place of choice of the interviewees. All (group) interviews are audio taped and analysed by means of qualitative content analysis using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA 2020 [54]. Content analysis is guided by the model of Miles and Huberman [55]. Findings from the qualitative surveys are pooled and conceptualized based on the CFIR, processed and made usable for tailoring ward-specific measures [48,49,50, 52, 53, 56].


After completion of the baseline survey, the research team presents the results from the data collected on ward level to the respective staff. Additionally, the quality criteria on the dying phase as well as guideline recommendations and possible measures for their implementation including "stimulus material" on the measures compiled in phase 1 may be presented to spurring on the discussion on measures to be implemented if asked for by the ward members.

Possible measures include, e. g., the implementation of the surprise question [57] or ethical case discussions [58], but also the adaption of elements of the BCD or the AMBER Care Bundle. The presentation of the stimulus material by the research team intends to enable ward-specific working groups to independently choose and implement measures in a needs-oriented manner – individually tailored for each ward. In consultation with the ward team leaders, 3–5 staff members form a ward-specific multi-professional working group responsible for the implementation of the self-chosen measures. The ward-specific tailored measures are implemented patient-centred. The working groups are direct contacts for the research team and other ward staff and thus contribute to the smoothest possible implementation of the project. Content and results of working group meetings are documented as is information on the implementation of measures on the wards.

Over the period of the selection and implementation of measures, staff from the palliative care wards at the two university hospitals and the research team support this process continuously with medical and nursing palliative care expertise as well as in organisational and implementation tasks as much as possible.


Analogous to the baseline survey before the implementation of measures, quantitative and qualitative assessments will be repeated afterwards. This contains a retrospective patient file analysis (N = 400), a quantitative staff survey (N = 500) and focus groups with staff (N = 10) as well as personal interviews with relatives (N = 20).

For participation, the staff must have worked on the ward since implementation. Participants do not have to be identical to those who took part in the baseline survey.

On each ward, 40 cases of patient deaths taking place after implementation are aimed to be included in the post-analysis. Procedures and instruments used as well as the evaluation of the results will be identical. After intervention, the survey additionally includes the assessment of impeding and facilitating factors of implementation and its outcomes.

Statistical / qualitative data analysis

The pre-post comparison on the wards allows statements about the effectiveness of the implemented measures and the implementation process. The case number of (approximately) N = 400 patient files per phase allows detection of standardized effects of ≥ 0.2 (Cohen's d) with a power of ≥ 80% with two-sided type-I-error of 5% (unpaired t test). Statistical analysis of the data is first performed descriptively using mean ± standard deviation and percentiles (0, 25, 50, 75, 100%) for quantitative variables and absolute and relative frequencies for qualitative variables. In addition, (mixed) regression models are used for various endpoint types, stratified by wards. Missing values are described by pattern and possibly multiple imputed.

The focus of process evaluations is on implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, costs, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability) [59], associated barriers and facilitators of the implementation of the tailored ward-specific measures and the compatibility of its elements in the specific context. Information will be collected in focus groups with staff and personal interviews with relatives as part of the post survey. By means of qualitative approaches, proximal effects of interventions, procedures, practices and organizational characteristics are therefore considered and not distal outcomes of the intervention.

Phase 3 – Generalisation and dissemination

After finalising the analysis and interpretation of the pre-post survey, results are summarised and contextualised for dissemination. Analogous to phase 1, a second and final symposium will be held inviting the same experts to discuss the findings obtained in the project with regard to their transferability to other hospitals or settings. The results are debated with an advisory board consisting of the nursing directors of the two university hospitals as well as representatives of the health insurance funds and (inter)national working groups on the topic. After processing the findings, materials for optimising care in the dying phase in hospitals are published on the website of the German Palliative Care Society (DGP) and continuously updated by their Working Group on the Dying Phase. Furthermore, the results are made available through (inter-)national publications and congress contributions. This will ensure both dissemination towards a scientific audience as well as easy access for clinicians who aim to use the measures in their own practice. In the long term, the indicators for optimal care in the dying phase identified as relevant in the project are also supposed to be incorporated into hospital reporting and taken into account in a seal of quality planned by the DGP for hospitals that also cultivate a palliative attitude (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Phase 3 – Generalization and dissemination of results


Measures that are appropriate to the specific care situation are supposed to significantly improve the quality of care during the dying phase in hospitals. We assume that even small changes on the wards have significant effects [60]. A bottom-up approach aims to increase the willingness of staff to implement respective measures [12]; the ward-specific situation is first analysed in detail and then the staff implements self-chosen measures to improve care. The early involvement of different professions and the freedom to decide which measures are to be applied specifically [61] is supposed to promote the acceptance of the project on different levels (individual, team, organization) and thus the sustainable implementation [62].

Specific issues of care during the dying phase in hospitals that have been shown since the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic are taken into account to gain sound knowledge regarding optimal care in the dying phase even under particularly challenging circumstances.

To ensure a high quality methodological approach, an external institution will conduct the qualitative evaluation of used methods.

Possible limitations and obstacles

Recruitment of hospital staff for surveys and to implement interventions that might cause a lasting change in care processes is known to be difficult due to lack of time, staff shortage and an already high burden on health professionals [63]. We aim to increase motivation by providing ongoing palliative care expertise of clinicians for the project as well as close contact with and organisational support of the research team. Additionally, there will be small monetary incentives for the wards [64].

In collecting data for the patient file analysis, challenges might arise due to the variations in ward documentation and associated data protection. To counter this, we train every staff member responsible for extracting data in patient files individually and in accordance with the respective documentation system. To ensure data protection and ethics regulations in each case, ward-specific solutions have to be found in order to provide anonymous information on patient data to the research team. Data analysis is conducted by the research team to ensure a high level of reliability and validity.

Recruitment of relatives of deceased patients must proceed sensitively and with caution. However, studies show that relatives of deceased patients are willing and motivated to participate in research and experience it as helpful [65].

During implementation, all wards follow specifically tailored plans with self-chosen interventions. However, due to staff working spatially close to others or on more than one ward, conversation among them is usual and promotes an unavoidable risk of information spreading. This might cause a crossover effect, which we attempt to minimize by successively starting implementation on the different wards.

Within the study, the research team has already recruited different wards in both university hospitals. The data collection for the retrospective patient file analysis and the staff survey is prepared and ready to conduct.

In summary, the project aims at implementing and evaluating specifically tailored measures to optimise hospital care in the dying phase, using a bottom-up approach. These measures might result in a generalisable, but adaptable concept that is useful in other hospital settings as well.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain


Best Care of the Dying


Deutsche Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin / German Palliative Care Society


General Self-efficacy Scale


Internal Participation Scale


Liverpool Care Pathway


  1. Radbruch L, Payne S. White Paper on standards and norms for hospice and palliative care in Europe: part 2. Eur J Palliat Care. 2010;17(1):22–33.

    Google Scholar 

  2. van der Steen JT, Radbruch L, Hertogh CM, de Boer ME, Hughes JC, Larkin P, et al. White paper defining optimal palliative care in older people with dementia: a Delphi study and recommendations from the European association for palliative care. Palliat Med. 2014;28(3):197–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Broad JB, Gott M, Kim H, Boyd M, Chen H, Connolly MJ. Where do people die? An international comparison of the percentage of deaths occurring in hospital and residential aged care settings in 45 populations, using published and available statistics. Int J Public Health. 2013;58:257–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Håkanson C, Öhlén J, Morin L, Cohen J. A population-level study of place of death and associated factors in Sweden. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43(7):744–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Public Health England. Statistical commentary: End of Life Care Profiles, February 2018 update. 2018. Accessed 28 Jun 2021.

  6. Mayland CR, Mulholland H, Gambles M, Ellershaw J, Stewart K. How well do we currently care for our dying patients in acute hospitals: the views of the bereaved relatives? BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2017;7(3):316–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellershaw J, Wilkinson S. What is the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP)? Care of the Dying: A Pathway to Excellence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Raijmakers N, Galushko M, Domeisen F, Beccaro M, Lundh Hagelin C, Lindqvist O, et al. Quality indicators for care of cancer patients in their last days of life: literature update and experts’ evaluation. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(3):308–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mason S, Dowson J, Gambles M. OPCARE9 - Optimising research for cancer patient care in the last days of life. 2012. p. 17–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. iLIVE Project Consortium. The iLive Project: Making a global impact on the experience of dying, with people continuing to have a meanigful life until the end. 2019. Accessed 28 Jun 2021.

  11. Husebø BS, Flo E, Engedal K. The Liverpool Care Pathway: discarded in cancer patients but good enough for dying nursing home patients? A systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Neuberger J, Guthrie C, Aaronovitch D. More care less pathway: a review of the Liverpool Care Pathway. 2013. Accessed 6 Oct 2021.

  13. Montag T, Eychmüller S, Grossenbacher B, Voltz R. Vom „Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP)“ zur „Bestmöglichen Betreuung von Patienten in der Sterbephase (Best Care for the Dying Patient)“. Palliativmedizin. 2014;15(03):V41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellershaw JE, Lakhani M. Best care for the dying patient. BMJ. 2013;347:f4428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carey I, Shouls S, Bristowe K, Morris M, Briant L, Robinson C, et al. Improving care for patients whose recovery is uncertain. The AMBER care bundle: design and implementation. BMJ Supportive Palliat Care. 2015;5(1):12–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Koffman J, Yorganci E, Murtagh F, Yi D, Gao W, Barclay S, et al. The AMBER care bundle for hospital inpatients with uncertain recovery nearing the end of life: the ImproveCare feasibility cluster RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2019;23(55):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Statistisches Bundesamt. Diagnosedaten der Patienten und Patientinnen in Krankenhäusern (einschl. Sterbe- und Stundenfälle) aus 2016. 2017 [updated 20.11.2017]. Accessed 06 Oct 2021.

  18. Zich K, Sydow H. Sterbeort Krankenhaus – Regionale Unterschiede und Einflussfaktoren. Bertelsmann-Stiftung; 2015.

  19. Voltz R, Dust G, Schippel N, Hamacher S, Payne S, Scholten N, et al. Improving regional care in the last year of life by setting up a pragmatic evidence-based Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle: results from a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11):e035988.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. van der Heide A, Deliens L, Faisst K, Nilstun T, Norup M, Paci E, et al. End-of-life decision-making in six European countries: descriptive study. Lancet. 2003;362(9381):345–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Robinson J, Gott M, Ingleton C. Patient and family experiences of palliative care in hospital: What do we know? An integrative review. Palliat Med. 2014;28(1):18–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. German Guideline Programme in Oncology. Palliative care for patients with incurable cancer 2.2. AWMF-registration number 128/001OL; 2020. Accessed 19 Feb 2020.

  23. Prütz F, Saß A-C. Daten zur Palliativversorgung in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. 2017;60(1):26–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Collins A, McLachlan S-A, Philip J. How should we talk about palliative care, death and dying? A qualitative study exploring perspectives from caregivers of people with advanced cancer. Palliat Med. 2018;32(4):861–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Middlewood S, Gardner G, Gardner A. Dying in hospital: medical failure or natural outcome? J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;22(6):1035–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bailey S-J, Cogle K. Talking about dying: How to begin honest conversations about what lies ahead. London: Royal College of Phyisicians; 2018.

  27. Franco LM, Bennett S, Kanfer R. Health sector reform and public sector health worker motivation: a conceptual framework. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(8):1255–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grumbach K, Bodenheimer T. Can health care teams improve primary care practice? JAMA. 2004;291(10):1246–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dangendorf A. Abschlussbericht Begleitung und Behandlung Sterbender an der UKK - IST-Analyse: Universitätsklinikum Köln. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gott M, Ingleton C, Bennett MI, Gardiner C. Transitions to palliative care in acute hospitals in England: qualitative study. BMJ. 2011;342: d1773.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. DeForest A. Better Words for Better Deaths. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(3):211–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin, Deutscher Hospiz- und PalliativVerband e. V. Handlungsempfehlungen im Rahmen einer Nationalen Strategie: Charta zur Betreuung schwerstkranker und sterbender Menschen in Deutschland. 2010. Accessed 07.01.2019.

  33. Bausewein C. Palliativversorgung in Pandemiezeiten. NETZWERK UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN (NUM); 2020. Accessed 28 Jun 2021.

  34. Tavabie S, Bass S, Stewart E, Redmore E, Minton O. Care of the dying person before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A quality improvement project. Future Healthcare J. 2020;7(3): e50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wohlin C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering; London, England, United Kingdom: Association for Computing Machinery; 2014. p. Article 38.

  37. Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press; 2011.

  38. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2015;42(5):533–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dangendorf A, Strohbücker B, Lux V, Montag T, Voltz R. Entwicklung eines Instrumentes für die retrospektive Analyse von Sterbebegleitungen auf der Grundlage der S3-Leitlinie Palliativmedizin. Z Palliativmedizin. 2016;17(05):84.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Müller M, Pfister D, Markett S, Jaspers B. Wie viel Tod verträgt das Team? Der Schmerz. 2009;23(6):600–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin; 1999.

  42. Begemann V. Nachhaltige Qualifizierung des Ehrenamtes in der ambulanten Hospizarbeit und Palliativversorgung in Niedersachsen. Ludwigsburg: Hospizverlag; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Merrill J, Lorimor R, Thornby J, Woods A. Caring for Terminally ILL Persons: Comparative Analysis of Attitudes (Thanatophobia) of Practicing Physicians, Student Nurses, and Medical Students. Psychol Rep. 1998;83(1):123–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Körner M, Wirtz MA. Development and psychometric properties of a scale for measuring internal participation from a patient and health care professional perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:374.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009;4(50):1–15.

  47. Straßner C, Szecsenyi J, Freund T, Reichel J, Kuhlmey C, Wensing M, et al. Entwicklung einer maßgeschneiderten Intervention (Tailoring) am Beispiel der Implementierung von Empfehlungen zur Polypharmakotherapie bei multimorbiden Patienten (PomP). Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 2013;108.

  48. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3–4):327–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jansen YJ, de Bont A, Foets M, Bruijnzeels M, Bal R. Tailoring intervention procedures to routine primary health care practice; an ethnographic process evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(125):1–8.

  51. Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3:Cd005470.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:Cd005470.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kirsh SR, Lawrence RH, Aron DC. Tailoring an intervention to the context and system redesign related to the intervention: a case study of implementing shared medical appointments for diabetes. Implement Sci. 2008;3:34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. VERBI Software. MAXQDA 2020. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. Methods to Improve the Selection and Tailoring of Implementation Strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Downar J, Goldman R, Pinto R, Englesakis M, Adhikari NKJ. The “surprise question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 2017;189(13):E484–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Richter G, Burchert A. Ethik-Konsil in der Onkologie: Struktur, Rahmenbedingungen und Grenzen. Der Onkologe. 2016. p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2011;38(2):65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Grol R, Wensing M. Implementation of change in healthcare: A complex problem. Improving patient care: The implementation of change in health care. 2020. p. 1–20.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Bahr SJ, Siclovan DM, Opper K, Beiler J, Bobay KL, Weiss ME. Interprofessional Health Team Communication About Hospital Discharge: An Implementation Science Evaluation Study. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017;32(4):285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, Mistiaen P. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: A systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8(1):38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Hysong S, Smitham K, Knox M, Johnson K-E, Sorelle R, Haidet P. Recruiting clinical personnel as research participants: A framework for assessing feasibility. Implement Sci. 2013;8:125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Giguère A, Labrecque M, Borduas F, Rouleau M. Effectiveness of monetary incentives to recruit family physicians as study subjects: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Germain A, Mayland C, Jack B. The potential therapeutic value for bereaved relatives participating in research: An exploratory study. Palliat Support Care. 2016;14(5):479–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank all team members on the wards taking part in this study as well as following institutions for their support: Working group Palliative Medicine of the German Cancer Society, German Hospital Federation, working group Dying Phase of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP), association Endlich e.V., the representatives of the AMBER Care bundle, the Liverpool Care Pathway and Spes Viva concept, the AOK Rheinland/Hamburg as representative of the health insurances, working group Palliative Medicine of the German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) funded by the German Cancer Aid, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf (CIO ABCD), Department for Oncology, Medical Clinic and Polyclinic (University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf), patient and care management (University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf), Department II of Internal Medicine (University Hospital Cologne), and the nursing directorate (University Hospital Cologne).


Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The project was funded by the German Innovation fund, Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The funding body plays no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



KK is Principal Investigator, responsible for the study design, project management, recruitment, data collection, data analysis and dissemination. KO, AU and HO are responsible for the study design, recruitment, data collection, data analysis and dissemination. CR, KB, and KH are responsible for the study design. SK, NO, CPI, and CL are responsible for recruitment, data collection, data analysis and dissemination. MH is responsible for the study design and data analysis. RV is Principal Investigator and responsible for the study design and dissemination. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Kremeike.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne on 19.04.2021 (20-1727) and by the ethics committee of the General Medical Chamber, Hamburg on 03.08.2021(2021-200061-BO-bet).

Qualitative Interviews: Participants, both staff and relatives of deceased patients, give written informed consent before participating in the interviews.

Staff Survey: Participants give their consent to participate by clicking on the “continue” button before starting the online survey and thereby agree to have their data collected and analysed anonymously. The staff councils of the two university hospitals agreed to the collection of data from patient files of deceased patients.

Retrospective Patient File Analysis: Pseudonymised data is collected, therefore no written or verbal informed consent is needed.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kremeike, K., Ullrich, A., Schulz, H. et al. Dying in hospital in Germany – optimising care in the dying phase: study protocol for a multi-centre bottom-up intervention on ward level. BMC Palliat Care 21, 67 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: