Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32888183›Full record

ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2021

Quality improvement in long-term care settings: a scoping review of effective strategies used in care homes.

Neil H Chadborn, Reena Devi, Kathryn Hinsliff-Smith, Jay Banerjee, Adam L Gordon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in European geriatric medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Neil H ChadbornDivision of Medical Science and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Neil.Chadborn@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1368-7983
Reena DeviSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2834-8597
Kathryn Hinsliff-SmithFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4259-3118
Jay BanerjeeSchool of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9275-4755
Adam L GordonDivision of Medical Science and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1676-9853

Funding

Department of Health NIHR127257The Dunhill Medical Trust FOP1/0115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe conducted a scoping review of quality improvement in care homes. We aimed to identify participating occupational groups and methods for evaluation. Secondly, we aimed to describe resident-level interventions and which outcomes were measured.

methodsFollowing extended PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews, we conducted systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and ASSIA (2000-2019). Furthermore, we searched systematic reviews databases including Cochrane Library and JBI, and the grey literature database, Greylit. Four co-authors contributed to selection and data extraction.

resultsSixty five studies were included, 6 of which had multiple publications (75 articles overall). A range of quality improvement strategies were implemented, including audit feedback and quality improvement collaboratives. Methods consisted of controlled trials, quantitative time series and qualitative interview and observational studies. Process evaluations, involving staff of various occupational groups, described experiences and implementation measures. Many studies measured resident-level outputs and health outcomes. 14 studies reported improvements to a clinical measure; however, four of these articles were of low quality. Larger randomised controlled studies did not show statistically significant benefits to resident health outcomes.

conclusionIn care homes, quality improvement has been applied with several different strategies, being evaluated by a variety of measures. In terms of measuring benefits to residents, process outputs and health outcomes have been reported. There was no pattern of which quality improvement strategy was used for which clinical problem. Further development of reporting of quality improvement projects and outcomes could facilitate implementation.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareQuality ImprovementHumansCare homeNursing homeOlder peopleQuality improvementScoping review

Identifiers

PMID32888183
PMCPMC7472942

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.