Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29472258›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Compassionate care intervention for hospital nursing teams caring for older people: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

Lisa Jane Gould, Peter Griffiths, Hannah Ruth Barker, Paula Libberton, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ruth M Pickering, Lisa Jane Shipway, Jackie Bridges

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Item development for a patient-reported measure of compassionate healthcare in action.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
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

8 authors.

Lisa Jane GouldFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4334-8061
Peter GriffithsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Hannah Ruth BarkerFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paula LibbertonFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ines Mesa-EguiagarayFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ruth M PickeringFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Lisa Jane ShipwayFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jackie BridgesFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6776-736X

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/07/48
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCompassionate care continues to be a focus for national and international attention, but the existing evidence base lacks the experimental methodology necessary to guide the selection of effective interventions for practice. This study aimed to evaluate the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) intervention in improving compassionate care.

settingWard nursing teams (clusters) in two English National Health Service hospitals randomised to intervention (n=4) or control (n=2). Intervention wards comprised two medicines for older people (MOPs) wards and two medical/surgical wards. Control wards were both MOPs.

participantsData collected from 627 patients and 178 staff. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: reverse barrier nursed, critically ill, palliative or non-English speaking. All other patients and all nursing staff and Health Care Assistant HCAs were invited to participant, agency and bank staff were excluded.

interventionCLECC, a workplace intervention focused on developing sustainable leadership and work-team practices to support the delivery of compassionate care. CONTROL: No educational activity. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary-Quality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) for observed staff-patient interactions. Secondary-patient-reported evaluations of emotional care in hospital (PEECH); nurse-reported empathy (Jefferson Scale of Empathy).

resultsTrial proceeded as per protocol, randomisation was acceptable. Some but not all blinding strategies were successful. QuIS observations achieved 93% recruitment rate with 25% of patient sample cognitively impaired. At follow-up there were more total positive (78% vs 74%) and less total negative (8% vs 11%) QuIS ratings for intervention wards versus control wards. Sixty-three per cent of intervention ward patients scored lowest (ie, more negative) scores on PEECH connection subscale, versus 79% of control. This was not a statistically significant difference. No statistically significant differences in nursing empathy were observed.

conclusionsUse of experimental methods is feasible. The use of structured observation of staff-patient interaction quality is a promising outcome measure inclusive of hard to reach groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16789770.

Indexed as

EmpathyAdolescentAdultAgedCluster AnalysisCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHealth Care SurveysHospital UnitsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNursing CareOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Satisfactioncluster randomised trialcompassionhospitalnursingolder peoplepilot

Identifiers

PMID29472258
PMCPMC5879452

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.