Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26684210›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Health professional perspectives on systems failures in transitional care for patients with dementia and their carers: a qualitative descriptive study.

Ashley Kable, Lynnette Chenoweth, Dimity Pond, Carolyn Hullick

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley KableSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. Ashley.Kable@newcastle.edu.au.
Lynnette ChenowethFaculty of Health, University of Technology, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. Lynnette.Chenoweth@uts.edu.au.
Dimity PondSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. Dimity.Pond@newcastle.edu.au.
Carolyn HullickHunter New England Local Health District, Rankin Park, NSW, 2287, Australia. Carolyn.Hullick@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUHunter New England Local Health District · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare professionals engage in discharge planning of people with dementia during hospitalisation, however plans for transitioning the person into community services can be patchy and ineffective. The aim of this study was to report acute, community and residential care health professionals' (HP) perspectives on the discharge process and transitional care arrangements for people with dementia and their carers.

methodsA qualitative descriptive study design and purposive sampling was used to recruit HPs from four groups: Nurses and allied health practitioners involved in discharge planning in the acute setting, junior medical officers in acute care, general practitioners (GPs) and Residential Aged Care Facility (RACF) staff in a regional area in NSW, Australia. Focus group discussions were conducted using a semi-structured schedule. Content analysis was used to understand the discharge process and transitional care arrangements for people with dementia (PWD) and their carers.

resultsThere were 33 participants in four focus groups, who described discharge planning and transitional care as a complex process with multiple contributors and components. Two main themes with belonging sub-themes derived from the analysis were: Barriers to effective discharge planning for PWD and their carers - the acute care perspective: managing PWD in the acute care setting, demand for post discharge services exceeds availability of services, pressure to discharge patients and incomplete discharge documentation. Transitional care process failures and associated outcomes for PWD - the community HP perspective: failures in delivery of services to PWD; inadequate discharge notification and negative patient outcomes; discharge-related adverse events, readmission and carer stress; and issues with medication discharge orders and outcomes for PWD.

conclusionsAlthough acute care HPs do engage in required discharge planning for people with dementia, participants identified critical issues: pressure on acute care health professionals to discharge PWD early, the requirement for JMOs to complete discharge summaries, the demand for post discharge services for PWD exceeding supply, the need to modify post discharge medication prescriptions for PWD, the need for improved coordination with RACF, and the need for routine provision of medication dose decision aids and home medicine reviews post discharge for PWD and their carers.

Indexed as

AgedAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaCaregiversDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesDementiaEvaluation Studies as TopicFocus GroupsFollow-Up StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansMiddle AgedNursing HomesPatient Care PlanningPatient Discharge

Identifiers

PMID26684210
PMCPMC4683856
OpenAlexW2221794181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.