scholarly journals Understanding and improving experiences of care in hospital for people living with dementia, their carers and staff: three systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (43) ◽  
pp. 1-248
Author(s):  
Ruth Gwernan-Jones ◽  
Ilianna Lourida ◽  
Rebecca A Abbott ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Colin Green ◽  
...  

Background Being in hospital can be particularly confusing and challenging not only for people living with dementia, but also for their carers and the staff who care for them. Improving the experience of care for people living with dementia in hospital has been recognised as a priority. Objectives To understand the experience of care in hospital for people living with dementia, their carers and the staff who care for them and to assess what we know about improving the experience of care. Review methods We undertook three systematic reviews: (1) the experience of care in hospital, (2) the experience of interventions to improve care in hospital and (3) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the experience of care. Reviews 1 and 2 sought primary qualitative studies and were analysed using meta-ethnography. Review 3 sought comparative studies and economic evaluations of interventions to improve experience of care. An interweaving approach to overarching synthesis was used to integrate the findings across the reviews. Data sources Sixteen electronic databases were searched. Forwards and backwards citation chasing, author contact and grey literature searches were undertaken. Screening of title and abstracts and full texts was performed by two reviewers independently. A quality appraisal of all included studies was undertaken. Results Sixty-three studies (reported in 82 papers) were included in review 1, 14 studies (reported in 16 papers) were included in review 2, and 25 studies (reported in 26 papers) were included in review 3. A synthesis of review 1 studies found that when staff were delivering more person-centred care, people living with dementia, carers and staff all experienced this as better care. The line of argument, which represents the conceptual findings as a whole, was that ‘a change of hospital culture is needed before person-centred care can become routine’. From reviews 2 and 3, there was some evidence of improvements in experience of care from activities, staff training, added capacity and inclusion of carers. In consultation with internal and external stakeholders, the findings from the three reviews and overarching synthesis were developed into 12 DEMENTIA CARE pointers for service change: key institutional and environmental practices and processes that could help improve experience of care for people living with dementia in hospital. Limitations Few of the studies explored experience from the perspectives of people living with dementia. The measurement of experience of care across the studies was not consistent. Methodological variability and the small number of intervention studies limited the ability to draw conclusions on effectiveness. Conclusions The evidence suggests that, to improve the experience of care in hospital for people living with dementia, a transformation of organisational and ward cultures is needed that supports person-centred care and values the status of dementia care. Changes need to cut across hierarchies and training systems to facilitate working patterns and interactions that enable both physical and emotional care of people living with dementia in hospital. Future research needs to identify how such changes can be implemented, and how they can be maintained in the long term. To do this, well-designed controlled studies with improved reporting of methods and intervention details to elevate the quality of available evidence and facilitate comparisons across different interventions are required. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086013. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l4912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Cook ◽  
Tara Lamont ◽  
Rosie Martin

The studyFeatherstone K, Northcott A, Harden J, et al. Refusal and resistance to care by people living with dementia being cared for within acute hospital wards: an ethnographic study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2019;7.This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (project number 13/10/80).To read the full NIHR Signal, go to https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000779/understanding-dementia-care-in-hospitals


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e031187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Jose Santana ◽  
Sandra Zelinsky ◽  
Sadia Ahmed ◽  
Chelsea Doktorchik ◽  
Matthew James ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe overall goal of this study is to identify priorities for cardiovascular (CV) health research that are important to patients and clinician-researchers. We brought together a group of CV patients and clinician-researchers new to patient-oriented research (POR), to build a multidisciplinary POR team and form an advisory committee for the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta.DesignThis qualitative POR used a participatory health research paradigm to work with participants in eliciting their priorities. Therefore, participants were involved in priority setting, and analysis of findings. Participants also developed a plan for continued engagement to support POR in CV health research.SettingLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada.ParticipantsA total of 23 participants, including patients and family caregivers (n=12) and clinician-researchers (n=11).ResultsParticipants identified barriers and facilitators to POR in CV health (lack of awareness of POR and poor understanding on the role of patients) and 10 research priorities for improving CV health. The CV health research priorities include: (1) CV disease prediction and prevention, (2) access to CV care, (3) communication with providers, (4) use of eHealth technology, (5) patient experiences in healthcare, (6) patient engagement, (7) transitions and continuity of CV care, (8) integrated CV care, (9) development of structures for patient-to-patient support and (10) research on rare heart diseases.ConclusionsIn this study, research priorities were identified by patients and clinician-researchers working together to improve CV health. Future research programme and projects will be developed to address these priorities. A key output of this study is the creation of the patient advisory council that will provide support and will work with clinician-researchers to improve CV health.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Robinson ◽  
Cate Bailey ◽  
Heather Morris ◽  
Prue Burns ◽  
Angela Melder ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Large-scale partnerships between universities and health services are widely seen as vehicles for bridging the evidence–practice gap and for accelerating the adoption of new evidence in healthcare. Recently, different versions of these partnerships – often called academic health science centres – have been established across the globe. Although they differ in structure and processes, all aim to improve the integration of research and education with health services. Collectively, these entities are often referred to as Research Translation Centres (RTCs) and both England and Australia have developed relatively new and funded examples of these collaborative centres. Methods This paper presents findings from a rapid review of RTCs in Australia and England that aimed to identify their structures, leadership, workforce development and strategies for involving communities and service users. The review included published academic and grey literature with a customised search of the Google search engine and RTC websites. Results RTCs are complex system-level interventions that will need to disrupt the current paradigms and silos inherent in healthcare, education and research in order to meet their aims. This will require vision, leadership, collaborations and shared learnings, alongside structures, processes and strategies to deliver impact in the face of complexity. The impact of RTCs in overcoming the deeply entrenched silos across organisations, disciplines and sectors needs to be captured at the systems, organisation and individual levels. This includes workforce capacity and public and patient involvement that are vital to understanding the evolution of RTCs. In addition, new models of leadership are needed to support the brokering and mobilisation of knowledge in complex organisations. Conclusions The development and funding of RTCs represents one of the most significant shifts in the health research landscape and it is imperative that we continue to explore how we can progress the integration of research and healthcare and ensure research meets stakeholder needs and is translated via the collaborations supported by these organisations. Because RTCs are a recent addition to the healthcare landscape in Australia, it is instructive to review the processes and infrastructure needed to support their implementation and applied health research in England.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (33) ◽  
pp. 1-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie Bridges ◽  
Ruth M Pickering ◽  
Hannah Barker ◽  
Rosemary Chable ◽  
Alison Fuller ◽  
...  

BackgroundConcerns about the degree of compassion in health care have become a focus for national and international attention. However, existing research on compassionate care interventions provides scant evidence of effectiveness or the contexts in which effectiveness is achievable.ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of implementing the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) programme in acute hospital settings and to evaluate its impact on patient care.DesignPilot cluster randomised trial (CRT) and associated process and economic evaluations.SettingSix inpatient ward nursing teams (clusters) in two English NHS hospitals randomised to intervention (n = 4) or control (n = 2).ParticipantsPatients (n = 639), staff (n = 211) and visitors (n = 188).InterventionCLECC is a workplace educational intervention focused on developing sustainable leadership and work team practices (dialogue, reflective learning, mutual support) theorised to support the delivery of compassionate care. The control setting involved no planned staff team-based educational activity.Main outcome measuresQuality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) for staff–patient interactions, patient-reported evaluations of emotional care in hospital (PEECH) and nurse-reported empathy (as assessed via the Jefferson Scale of Empathy).Data sourcesStructured observations of staff–patient interactions; patient, visitor and staff questionnaires and qualitative interviews; and qualitative observations of CLECC activities.ResultsThe pilot CRT proceeded as planned and randomisation was acceptable to teams. There was evidence of potential contamination between wards in the same hospital. QuIS performed well, achieving a 93% recruitment rate, with 25% of the patient sample cognitively impaired. At follow-up there were more positive (78% vs. 74%) and fewer negative (8% vs. 11%) QuIS ratings for intervention wards than for control wards. In total, 63% of intervention ward patients achieved the lowest possible (i.e. more negative) scores on the PEECH connection subscale, compared with 79% of control group patients. These differences, although supported by the qualitative findings, are not statistically significant. No statistically significant differences in nursing empathy were observed, although response rates to staff questionnaire were low (36%). Process evaluation: the CLECC intervention is feasible to implement in practice with medical and surgical nursing teams in acute care hospitals. Strong evidence of good staff participation was found in some CLECC activities and staff reported benefits throughout its introductory period and beyond. Further impact and sustainability were limited by the focus on changing ward team behaviours rather than wider system restructuring. Economic evaluation: the costs associated with using CLECC were identified and it is recommend that an impact inventory be used in any future study.LimitationsFindings are not generalisable outside hospital nursing teams, and this feasibility work is not powered to detect differences attributable to the CLECC intervention.ConclusionsUse of the experimental methods is feasible. The use of structured observation of staff–patient interaction quality is a promising primary outcome that is inclusive of patient groups often excluded from research, but further validation is required. Further development of the CLECC intervention should focus on ensuring that it is adequately supported by resources, norms and relationships in the wider system by, for instance, improving the cognitive participation of senior nurse managers. Funding is being sought for a more definitive evaluation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN16789770.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The systematic review reported inChapter 2was funded by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Wessex, the University of Örebro and the Karolinska Institutet.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 547-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mick Arber ◽  
Julie Glanville ◽  
Jaana Isojarvi ◽  
Erin Baragula ◽  
Mary Edwards ◽  
...  

Objectives:This study investigated which databases and which combinations of databases should be used to identify economic evaluations (EEs) to inform systematic reviews. It also investigated the characteristics of studies not identified in database searches and evaluated the success of MEDLINE search strategies used within typical reviews in retrieving EEs in MEDLINE.Methods:A quasi-gold standard (QGS) set of EEs was collected from reviews of EEs. The number of QGS records found in nine databases was calculated and the most efficient combination of databases was determined. The number and characteristics of QGS records not retrieved from the databases were collected. Reproducible MEDLINE strategies from the reviews were rerun to calculate the sensitivity and precision for each strategy in finding QGS records.Results:The QGS comprised 351 records. Across all databases, 337/351 (96 percent) QGS records were identified. Embase yielded the most records (314; 89 percent). Four databases were needed to retrieve all 337 references: Embase + Health Technology Assessment database + (MEDLINE or PubMed) + Scopus. Four percent (14/351) of records could not be found in any database. Twenty-nine of forty-one (71 percent) reviews reported a reproducible MEDLINE strategy. Ten of twenty-nine (34.5 percent) of the strategies missed at least one QGS record in MEDLINE. Across all twenty-nine MEDLINE searches, 25/143 records were missed (17.5 percent). Mean sensitivity was 89 percent and mean precision was 1.6 percent.Conclusions:Searching beyond key databases for published EEs may be inefficient, providing the search strategies in those key databases are adequately sensitive. Additional search approaches should be used to identify unpublished evidence (grey literature).


2022 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e0000005
Author(s):  
Eleanor Reid ◽  
Arunangshu Ghoshal ◽  
Aisha Khalil ◽  
Jingjing Jiang ◽  
Charles Normand ◽  
...  

Background Globally, there is a rise in chronic disease, including cancer, major organ failure and dementias. Patients and their families in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) pay a high proportion of medical costs out of pocket (OOP), and a diagnosis of serious illness often has catastrophic financial consequences. We therefore conducted a review of the literature to establish what is known about OOP costs near end of life in LMICs. Aims To identify, organise and report the evidence on out-of-pocket costs in adult end-of-life populations in LMIC. Methods A systematic search of 8 databases and a hand search of relevant systematic reviews and grey literature was performed. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and extracted data. The review was registered with PROSPERO and adhered to the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess quality. The Wagstaff taxonomy was used to describe OOP. Results After deduplication, 9,343 studies were screened, of which 51 were read and rejected as full texts, and 12 were included in the final review. OOP costs increased with advanced illness and disease severity. The main drivers of OOP were medications and hospitalizations, with high but variable percentages of the affected populations reporting financial catastrophe, lost income, foregone education and other pressures. Conclusion Despite a small number of included studies and heterogeneity in methodology and reporting, it is clear that OOP costs for care near end of life in LMIC represent an important source of catastrophic health expenditures and impoverishment. This suggests a role for widespread, targeted efforts to avoid poverty traps. Financial protection policies for those suffering from incurable disease and future research on the macro- and micro- economics of palliative care delivery in LMIC are greatly needed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 157-157
Author(s):  
Thomas Vreugdenburg ◽  
Alun Cameron ◽  
Claudia Wild

Introduction:Systematic reviews are useful for identifying gaps in research, setting priorities for future research, and informing clinical practice and public policy decisions. However, appropriate methods are needed to ensure that systematic reviews are of suitable quality in order to maximize their potential to achieve impact. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and transparency of systematic reviews conducted on prostate artery embolization (PAE), a topic of considerable interest in urology.Methods:We conducted a cross-case analysis. Existing reviews were identified through a systematic search of four biomedical databases (Cochrane Library, York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Embase, Medline) from inception up to 8 December 2016. Systematic reviews that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of PAE to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia were included. Included reviews were critically appraised using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool, and were scored against the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria.Results:From 536 search results, nine relevant systematic reviews were identified, of which eight were published in 2016. None of the included reviews were prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database. The median AMSTAR score was four of 11 (range 0–7). The most common methodological concerns were related to comprehensive searches (33 percent), inclusion of grey literature (0 percent), and evaluation of publication bias (0 percent). Reviews adequately reported a median of 17 of 21 items (range 6–19) against the PRISMA checklist.Conclusions:Despite the availability of robust guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, methodological limitations in reviews of PAE are prolific, leading to considerable heterogeneity. There is also a significant duplication of effort, which can be prevented by prospectively registering systematic reviews on PROSPERO. Reducing duplication and increasing methodological quality are imperative to reducing waste in urological research.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Charlton ◽  
Shelley Doucet ◽  
Rima Azar ◽  
Daniel A Nagel ◽  
Leah Boulos ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe environmental scan has been described as an important tool to inform decision-making on policy, planning and programme development in the healthcare sector. Despite the wide adoption of environmental scans, there is no consensus on a working definition within the health services delivery context and methodological guidance on the design and implementation of this approach is lacking in the literature. The objectives of this study are to map the extent, range and nature of evidence that describe the definitions, characteristics, conceptualisations, theoretical underpinnings, study limitations and other features of the environmental scan in the health services delivery literature and to propose a working definition specific to this context.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes a scoping review based on the methodology outlined by Khalil and colleagues. A comprehensive search strategy was developed by experienced health science librarians in consultation with the research team. A Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) was completed. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria from seven electronic databases: Academic Search Premier, Canadian Business & Current Affairs (CBCA), CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. The grey literature and reference lists of included articles will also be searched. The data will be analysed and presented in tabular format, and will include a descriptive numerical summary as well as a qualitative thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol provides an audit trail for a scoping review that will advance understanding about the environmental scan and its application in the health services delivery context. The review will propose a working definition and will inform future research to explore the development of a conceptual framework in this context. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. The scoping review does not require ethics approval.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krizler C Tanalgo ◽  
Alice C Hughes

Empirical evidence is crucial to develop effective conservation policies. Documenting and assessing the status and threats towards a species and its habitat are essential steps towards developing appropriate policies to protect its population and mitigate existing threats to prevent future extinction. Here, we summarize recent bat research in the Philippines using a bibliographic approach to assess progress and gaps in different aspects of bat research species in a period of post-millennia to present. Overall, an average of 7.9 bat studies was reported per year including grey literature. Our analysis revealed that majority of bat studies conducted have been directed at community surveys (i.e., species inventories, rapid assessments). However, we found a disparity in terms of an average number of study per group; the “insectivorous bats” (6.15 study/yr) remain understudied compared to “fruit bats” (13.78 No study/year) for the past 18 years reflecting the lack of taxonomic studies in the country. While bat ecology research is still uncommon for most species. Interestingly, despite the lack of studies in many areas of bat research, there is a growing collaborative effort in bat conservation initiatives in the Philippines focused on the protection of many endemic and threatened species (e.g., flying foxes) and their habitats.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 500-513
Author(s):  
Pavlos Bobos ◽  
Goris Nazari ◽  
Emily A Lalone ◽  
Louis Ferreira ◽  
Ruby Grewal ◽  
...  

Background:Joint Protection (JP) can be enhanced by incorporating recent evidence and innovations in collaboration with people with hand arthritis to be salient, useful and effectively implemented.Objective:The purpose of this study is to map the current research on JP principles and guide future research on JP programs for the management of hand arthritis.Methods:A search was performed in 4 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Google SCHOLAR, CINHAL) from January 1990 to February 2017. A Grey literature was also conducted through the Google web search engine. A combination of search terms was used such as hand osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, joint protection and/or self-management strategies.Results:Our search found 8,788 citations in which 231 articles were deemed relevant and after duplication 111 articles were retrieved for a full-text review. In total, 40 articles were eligible for data extraction. The majority of the articles were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and overviews of reviews that investigated joint protection for hand arthritis. Joint protection was tested mostly in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) population and to a lesser extent on hand osteoarthritis and was provided mainly by an occupational therapist.Conclusion:This review synthesized and critically examined the scope of JP for the management of hand arthritis and found that RCTs, systematic reviews and overviews of reviews constituted two-thirds of the current body of literature. Furthermore, it identified a lack of clarity regarding the specific elements of joint protection programs used in clinical studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document