Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29325541›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Interprofessional collaboration in nursing homes (interprof): development and piloting of measures to improve interprofessional collaboration and communication: a qualitative multicentre study.

Christiane A Müller, Nina Fleischmann, Christoph Cavazzini, Susanne Heim, Svenja Seide, Christina Geister, Britta Tetzlaff, Andreas Hoell, Jochen Werle, Siegfried Weyerer and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cost-benefit analysis of the CoCare intervention to improve medical care in long-term care nursing homes: an analysis based on claims data.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christiane A MüllerDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. christiane.mueller@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Nina FleischmannDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Christoph CavazziniDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Susanne HeimDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Svenja SeideDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Christina GeisterFaculty V - Health, Religious Education and Social Affairs, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Blumhardtstraße 2, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Britta TetzlaffDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Andreas HoellPsychiatric Epidemiology and Demographic Change, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, J5, 68159, Mannheim, Germany.
Jochen WerlePsychiatric Epidemiology and Demographic Change, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, J5, 68159, Mannheim, Germany.
Siegfried WeyererPsychiatric Epidemiology and Demographic Change, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, J5, 68159, Mannheim, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Eva HummersDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DECentral Institute of Mental Health · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven both the increase of nursing home residents forecast and challenges of current interprofessional interactions, we developed and tested measures to improve collaboration and communication between nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in this setting. Our multicentre study has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FK 01GY1124).

methodsThe measures were developed iteratively in a continuous process, which is the focus of this article. In part 1 "exploration of the situation", interviews were conducted with GPs, nurses, nursing home residents and their relatives focusing on interprofessional interactions and medical care. They were analysed qualitatively. Based on these results, in part 2 "development of measures to improve collaboration", ideas for improvement were developed in nine focus groups with GPs and nurses. These ideas were revisited in a final expert workshop. We analysed the focus groups and expert workshop using mind mapping methods, and finally drew up the compilation of measures. In an exploratory pilot study "study part 3" four nursing homes chose the measures they wanted to adopt. These were tested for three months. Feasibility and acceptance of the measures were evaluated via guideline interviews with the stakeholders which were analysed by content analyses.

resultsSix measures were generated: meetings to establish common goals, main contact person, standardised pro re nata medication, introduction of name badges, improved availability of nurse/GP and standardised scheduling/ procedure for nursing home visits. In the pilot study, the measures were implemented in four nursing homes. GPs and nurses reviewed five measures as feasible and acceptable, only the designation of a "main contact person" was not considered as an improvement.

conclusionsSix measures to improve collaboration and communication could be compiled in a multistep qualitative process respecting the perspectives of involved stakeholders. Five of the six measures were positively assessed in an exploratory pilot study. They could easily be transferred into the daily routine of other nursing homes, as no special models have to exist in advance. Impact of the measures on patient oriented outcomes should be examined in further research.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsIntersectoral CollaborationNursing HomesOrganizational ObjectivesPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementAttitude of Health PersonnelGermanyHumansModels, OrganizationalPhysician-Nurse RelationsQualitative ResearchGeneral practitionersInterdisciplinary communicationNursing homesPhysician-nurse relationsPrimary health careQualitative researchResidential facilities

Identifiers

PMID29325541
PMCPMC5765653
OpenAlexW2783751852

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.