Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28934622›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2017

Should I stay or should I go? How healthcare professionals close encounters with people with dementia in the acute hospital setting.

Rebecca Allwood, Alison Pilnick, Rebecca O'Brien, Sarah Goldberg, Rowan H Harwood, Suzanne Beeke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Conversation Analysis Based Simulation (CABS): A method for improving communication skills training for healthcare practitioners.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  9. Combining ethnography and conversation analysis to explore interaction in dementia care settings.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Rebecca AllwoodNottinghamshire Healthcare/ Clinical Researcher, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Alison PilnickSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Alison.Pilnick@nottingham.ac.uk.
Rebecca O'BrienAdult Speech and Language Therapy, Nottingham Citycare Partnership/ Senior Clinical Researcher, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Sarah GoldbergSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Rowan H HarwoodNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust/ Honorary Professor, University of Nottingham Medical School, United Kingdom.
Suzanne BeekeLanguage and Cognition Research Department, University College London, University College London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/114/93
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Around a quarter of hospital beds in the UK are occupied by patients living with dementia (PWD), and communication impairments are common across all types of dementia, often exacerbated by the hospital environment. Unsurprisingly, healthcare professionals (HCPs) report particular challenges in caring for this patient group, whilst trying to recognise and value their personhood as per the underpinning ethos of person-centred care. However, whilst there is a growing body of research that underlines the importance of communication in dementia care, there is far less that actually examines this communication in real time interaction. Suggestions and pointers for good communication do exist, but these do not tend to be empirically derived, and sometimes conflict with empirical findings. This paper focuses on a specific area of interaction which has previously received very little attention: the way in which healthcare encounters are ended or closed. There is potentially a conflict between a pressure to manage a patient as efficiently as possible, and endeavouring to ensure person-centred care and deal with communication difficulties arising from dementia. Using conversation analysis, we examined forty-one video recordings of HCP/PWD interactions collected from an acute inpatient ward. We identify three phenomena around which there were recurring troubles in our dataset: 'open-ended pre-closings', 'mixed messages' and 'non specifics and indeterminate terms'. We conclude that moves towards closing an encounter that appear intuitive to HCPs as competent interactants, and that may represent best practice in other healthcare settings, may in fact serve to confuse a PWD and create difficulties with closings. Our findings underline the importance of examining best practice guidance as it is actually talked into being, using approaches which can unpack the interactional detail involved. They also emphasise the importance of context in the analysis of healthcare delivery, to avoid a 'one size fits all' approach.

Indexed as

Professional-Patient RelationsCommunicationDementiaHealth PersonnelHumansPatient-Centered CareUnited KingdomClosingsConversation analysisDementiaHealthcare of older peoplePerson-centred careUK

Identifiers

PMID28934622
PMCPMC5630221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.