Trial reportBMJ open2018
Compassionate care intervention for hospital nursing teams caring for older people: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Developing Compassionate Leadership in the UK in Healthcare Contexts: A Narrative Review of Leadership Programmes and Outcomes.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Review
- Exploring Compassionate Care Patterns Among Nurses and Its Associations With Resilience: Multilevel Contextual Effects Modeling.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Differences in Staff-Resident Care Interactions by Nursing Home Racial Composition: a Preliminary Analysis.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Compassion in healthcare: an updated scoping review of the literature.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
- The Quality of Interactions Schedule (QuIS) and person-centred care: Concurrent validity in acute hospital settings.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2019Article
- Trust in older persons: A quantitative analysis of alignment in triads of older persons, informal carers and home care nurses.Health & social care in the community · 2019Article
- Hospital nurse staffing and staff-patient interactions: an observational study.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.