Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30413506›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Hospital postdischarge intervention trialled with family caregivers of older people in Western Australia: potential translation into practice.

Samar M Aoun, Roswitha Stegmann, Susan Slatyer, Keith D Hill, Richard Parsons, Rachael Moorin, Mary Bronson, Debbie Walsh, Christine Toye

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Engaging Carers in Co-Design: Development of the Carer Readiness Tool.International journal of integrated care · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Samar M AounSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4073-4805
Roswitha StegmannSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Susan SlatyerSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Keith D HillSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Richard ParsonsSchool of Pharmacy, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Rachael MoorinSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Mary BronsonMedical Division, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Debbie WalshDepartment of Social Work, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Christine ToyeSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is lack of a suitable assessment tool that can be used routinely and systematically by hospital staff to address family caregivers' (FCs') support needs. This paper describes a novel approach to identifying and addressing FCs' needs following hospital discharge of the older person receiving care. SETTING AND

participantsFC recruitment occurred on the patient's discharge from a tertiary hospital in Western Australia; 64 completed the study; 80% were female; mean age 63.2 years.

interventionThe Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH) programme was delivered over the telephone by a specially trained nurse and included: support to facilitate understanding of the patient's discharge letter; caregiver support needs assessment and prioritisation of urgent needs; and collaborative guidance, from the nurse, regarding accessing supports.

resultsSixty-four FCs completed the FECH programme. The top three support needs identified by the FCs were: knowing what to expect in the future (52%), knowing who to contact if they were concerned (52%) and practical help in the home (36%). The telephone-based outreach service worked well and was convenient for the nurse and the FCs, and saved on transport, time and money. Most of the FCs appreciated the systematic approach to identify and articulate their needs and were satisfied with the support they received, mainly navigation through the systems, problem solving, self-care strategies, explanation of illness, symptoms and medication and access to after-hours services.

conclusionsIn order to guide services which may consider adopting this systematic approach to supporting FCs and integrating it into their routine practice, this evaluation of the FECH programme has described the processes implemented and highlighted the factors that hindered or facilitated these processes to engage caregivers with appropriate services in a timely manner. Positive feedback indicated that the programme was a useful addition to hospital discharge planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614001174673; Results.

Indexed as

CaregiversFamilyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHome Care ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentProgram DevelopmentSocial SupportWestern Australiacommunity health carefamily caregivershospital dischargeolder peopleorganisation of health services

Identifiers

PMID30413506
PMCPMC6231564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.