On 2017 Sep 15, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

We chose this paper for our monthly Journal Club on 6th September 2017 and some comments from our discussion are below.

This is a useful paper to explore the experiences of clinicians and relatives to determine why hospital deaths predominate in haematological cancers. This paper focused on an important and under-researched topic. We felt that this paper would be improved if the authors could

1) Use Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.

2) State what methodological orientation underpinned the study? E.g. grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology.

3) Explain the reasons for the imbalance of sample (45 clinicians vs. 10 relatives) and why patients’ perspectives were not included.

4) Elaborate the views of ‘co-dependency’ in more detail.

5) Provide more in-depth cross-comparison of perspectives between different groups of participants (healthcare practitioners across different settings and relatives of deceased patients)

The paper generated a lively discussion among clinicians, researchers and academics, and we thank the authors for drawing attention to this important area.

On 2017 Sep 08, Ping Guo commented:

None

On 2017 Sep 08, Ping Guo commented:

None

On 2017 Sep 15, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

We chose this paper for our monthly Journal Club on 6th September 2017 and some comments from our discussion are below.

This is a useful paper to explore the experiences of clinicians and relatives to determine why hospital deaths predominate in haematological cancers. This paper focused on an important and under-researched topic. We felt that this paper would be improved if the authors could

1) Use Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.

2) State what methodological orientation underpinned the study? E.g. grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology.

3) Explain the reasons for the imbalance of sample (45 clinicians vs. 10 relatives) and why patients’ perspectives were not included.

4) Elaborate the views of ‘co-dependency’ in more detail.

5) Provide more in-depth cross-comparison of perspectives between different groups of participants (healthcare practitioners across different settings and relatives of deceased patients)

The paper generated a lively discussion among clinicians, researchers and academics, and we thank the authors for drawing attention to this important area.