Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31488131›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Dementia and patient safety in the community: a qualitative study of family carers' protective practices and implications for services.

Kristin Häikiö, Mette Sagbakken, Jorun Rugkåsa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Catalyzing dementia care through the learning health system and consumer health information technology.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kristin HäikiöHØKH - Health Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Postbox 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway. krkl@ahus.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5573-711X
Mette SagbakkenOslo Metropolitan University, Pilestredet 32, 0166, Oslo, Norway.
Jorun RugkåsaHØKH - Health Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Postbox 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway.
OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOAkershus University Hospital · NO

Funding

The Research Council of Norway 256431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia is a cause of disability and dependency associated with high demands for health services and expected to have a significant impact on resources. Care policies worldwide increasingly rely on family caregivers to contribute to service delivery for older people, and the general direction of health care policy internationally is to provide care in the community, meaning most people will receive services there. Patient safety in primary care is therefore important for future care, but not yet investigated sufficiently when services are carried out in patients' homes. In particular, we know little about how family carers experience patient safety of older people with dementia in the community.

methodsThis was an explorative study, with qualitative in-depth interviews of 23 family carers of older people with suspected or diagnosed dementia. Family carers participated after receiving information primarily through health professionals working in dementia care. A semi-structured topic guide was used in a flexible way to capture participants' experiences. A four-step inductive analysis of the transcripts was informed by hermeneutic-phenomenological analysis.

resultsThe ways our participants sought to address risk and safety issues can be understood to constitute protective practices that aimed to prevent or reduce the risk of harm and/or alleviate damage from harm that occurs. The protective practices relate to four areas: physical harm, economic harm, emotional harm, and relational harm. The protective practices are interlinked, and family carers sometimes prioritize one over another, and as they form part of family practice, they are not always visible to service providers. As a result, the practices may complicate interactions with health professionals and even inadvertently conceal symptoms or care needs.

conclusionsWhen family caregivers prevent harm and meet needs, some needs may be concealed or invisible to health professionals. To recognize all needs and provide effective, safe and person-centered care, health professionals need to recognize these preventive practices and seek to build a solid partnership with family carers.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversCommunity Health ServicesDementiaFemaleHarm ReductionHealth PersonnelHealth ServicesHome NursingHumansMaleMiddle AgedProfessional-Family RelationsAlzheimer diseaseCommunity health servicesDementiaFamily caregiverFrail elderlyHealth care quality, access and evaluationPatient safetyPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID31488131
PMCPMC6728989
OpenAlexW2972152423

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.