Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32046652›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2020

Perspectives of general practitioners and nursing staff on acute hospital transfers of nursing home residents in Germany: results of two cross-sectional studies.

Alexander Maximilian Fassmer, Alexandra Pulst, Ove Spreckelsen, Falk Hoffmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Paramedics' Perspectives on the Hospital Transfers of Nursing Home Residents-A Qualitative Focus Group Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander Maximilian FassmerDivision of Outpatient Care and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Health Services Research, School VI - Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany. alexander.fassmer@uni-oldenburg.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9456-2546
Alexandra PulstDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Ove SpreckelsenDivision of General Practice, Department of Health Services Research, School VI - Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Falk HoffmannDivision of Outpatient Care and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Health Services Research, School VI - Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg · DEUniversity of Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisits in emergency departments and hospital admissions are common among nursing home (NH) residents and they are associated with significant complications. Many of these transfers are considered inappropriate. This study aimed to compare the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) and NH staff on hospital transfers among residents and to illustrate measures for improvement.

methodsTwo cross-sectional studies were conducted as surveys among 1121 GPs in the German federal states Bremen and Lower Saxony and staff from 1069 NHs (preferably nursing staff managers) from all over Germany, each randomly selected. Questionnaires were sent in August 2018 and January 2019, respectively. The answers were compared between GPs and NH staff using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests and χ2-tests.

resultsWe received 375 GP questionnaires (response: 34%) and 486 NH questionnaires (response: 45%). GPs estimated the proportion of inappropriate transfers higher than NH staff (hospital admissions: 35.0% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.0001; emergency department visits: 39.9% vs. 20.9%, p < 0.0001). The majority of NH staff and nearly half of the GPs agreed that NH residents do often not benefit from hospital admissions (NHs: 61.4% vs. GPs: 48.8%; p = 0.0009). Both groups rated almost all potential measures for improvement differently (p < 0.0001), however, GPs and NH staff considered most areas to reduce hospital transfers importantly. The two most important measures for GPs were more nursing staff (91.6%) and better communication between nursing staff and GP (90.9%). NH staff considered better care / availability of GP (82.8%) and medical specialists (81.3%) as most important. Both groups rated similarly the importance of explicit advance directives (GPs: 77.2%, NHs: 72.4%; p = 0.1492).

conclusionsA substantial proportion of hospital transfers from NHs were considered inappropriate. Partly, the ratings of possible areas for improvement differed between GPs and NH staff indicating that both groups seem to pass the responsibility to each other. These findings, however, support the need for interprofessional collaboration.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEmergency Service, HospitalGeneral PractitionersHospitalizationNursesNursing HomesPatient TransferAdvance DirectivesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing StaffPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingEmergency departmentGeneral practitionerHospitalisationHospital transferNursing homeNursing home residentsNursing staffSurvey

Identifiers

PMID32046652
PMCPMC7014634
OpenAlexW3008861868

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.