Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31690304›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Enabling public, patient and practitioner involvement in co-designing frailty pathways in the acute care setting.

Deirdre O'Donnell, Éidín Ní Shé, Mary McCarthy, Shirley Thornton, Thelma Doran, Freda Smith, Barry O'Brien, Jim Milton, Bibiana Savin, Anne Donnellan and 10 more

Abstract 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 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Moving forward, leaving the patients behind? A multilevel assessment framework for evaluating patient-centred, integrated care quality.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Supporting safe and gradual reduction of long-term benzodiazepine receptor agonist use: Development of the SAFEGUARDING-BZRAs toolkit using a codesign approach.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Implementing and evaluating co-designed change in health.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

20 authors.

Deirdre O'DonnellSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. deirdre.odonnell@ucd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7562-5484
Éidín Ní ShéSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Mary McCarthyExpert by Experience Representing the Older People's Empowerment Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Shirley ThorntonExpert by Experience Representing Family Carer's Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Thelma DoranExpert by Experience Representing the Older People's Empowerment Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Freda SmithExpert by Experience Representing Sage Advocacy, Dublin, Ireland.
Barry O'BrienExpert by Experience Representing Sage Advocacy, Dublin, Ireland.
Jim MiltonExpert by Experience Representing Sage Advocacy, Dublin, Ireland.
Bibiana SavinSage Advocacy, Dublin, Ireland.
Anne DonnellanExpert by Experience Representing Glór and Age Action Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Eugene CallanExpert by Experience Representing the Disability Federation of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Eilish McAuliffeSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Simone GraySt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.
Therese CareySt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.
Nicola BoyleSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.
Michelle O'BrienSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.
Andrew PattonSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.
Jade BaileySchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Diarmuid O'SheaSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.
Therese Cooney MarieSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Health Research Board APA-2016-1857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough not an inevitable part of ageing, frailty is an increasingly common condition in older people. Frail older patients are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of hospitalisation, including deconditioning, immobility and loss of independence (Chong et al, J Am Med Dir Assoc 18:638.e7-638.e11, 2017). The 'Systematic Approach to improving care for Frail older patients' (SAFE) study co-designed, with public and patient representatives, quality improvement initiatives aimed at enhancing the delivery of care to frail older patients within an acute hospital setting. This paper describes quality improvement initiatives which resulted from a co-design process aiming to improve service delivery in the acute setting for frail older people. These improvement initiatives were aligned to five priority areas identified by patients and public representatives.

methodsThe co-design work was supported by four pillars of effective and meaningful public and patient representative (PPR) involvement in health research (Bombard et al, Implement Sci 13:98, 2018; Black et al, J Health Serv Res Policy 23:158-67, 2018). These pillars were: research environment and receptive contexts; expectations and role clarity; support for participation and inclusive representation and; commitment to the value of co-learning involving institutional leadership.

resultsFive priority areas were identified by the co-design team for targeted quality improvement initiatives: Collaboration along the integrated care continuum; continence care; improved mobility; access to food and hydration and improved patient information. These priority areas and the responding quality improvement initiatives are discussed in relation to patient-centred outcomes for enhanced care delivery for frail older people in an acute hospital setting.

conclusionsThe co-design approach to quality improvement places patient-centred outcomes such as dignity, identity, respectful communication as well as independence as key drivers for implementation. Enhanced inter-personal communication was consistently emphasised by the co-design team and much of the quality improvement initiatives target more effective, respectful and clear communication between healthcare personnel and patients. Measurement and evaluation of these patient-centred outcomes, while challenging, should be prioritised in the implementation of quality improvement initiatives. Adequate resourcing and administrative commitment pose the greatest challenges to the sustainability of the interventions developed along the SAFE pathways. The inclusion of organisational leadership in the co-design and implementation teams is a critical factor in the success of interventions targeting service delivery and quality improvement.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCommunity ParticipationCritical CareCritical PathwaysFrail ElderlyFrailtyHealth PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansPatient ParticipationQuality ImprovementCo-designFrailtyHealth systemOlder peoplePerson-centred carePublic and patient involvement

Identifiers

PMID31690304
PMCPMC6833297

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.