Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33191266›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes in England: a realist review protocol.

Massirfufulay Kpehe Musa, Gizdem Akdur, Barbara Hanratty, Sarah Kelly, Adam Gordon, Guy Peryer, Karen Spilsbury, Anne Killett, Jennifer Burton, Julienne Meyer and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors.

Massirfufulay Kpehe MusaFaculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5506-4720
Gizdem AkdurCentre for Research in Public health and Community Care (CRIPACC), School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7326-4750
Barbara HanrattyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3122-7190
Sarah KellyInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1114-2456
Adam GordonDivision of Rehabilitation, Ageing and Wellbeing, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1676-9853
Guy PeryerFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0425-6911
Karen SpilsburySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6908-0032
Anne KillettFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Jennifer BurtonInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4752-6988
Julienne MeyerNational Care Forum/Care for Older People, School of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Sue FortescueAlzheimer Society Research Network, London, UK.
Ann-Marie TowersCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3597-1061
Lisa IrvineCentre for Research in Public health and Community Care (CRIPACC), School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1936-3584
Claire GoodmanCentre for Research in Public health and Community Care (CRIPACC), School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom c.goodman@herts.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8938-4893

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCare homes provide nursing and social care for older people who can no longer live independently at home. In the UK, there is no consistent approach to how information about residents' medical history, care needs and preferences are collected and shared. This limits opportunities to understand the care home population, have a systematic approach to assessment and documentation of care, identifiy care home residents at risk of deterioration and review care. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (eg, minimum data sets (MDS)) use the data to understand the care home population, guide resource allocation, monitor services delivery and for research. The aim of this realist review is to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care of individual residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review will be conducted in three research stages.Stage 1 will scope the literature and develop candidate programme theories of what ensures effective uptake and sustained implementation of an MDS.Stage2 will test and refine these theories through further iterative searches of the evidence from the literature to establish how effective uptake of an MDS can be achieved.Stage 3 will consult with relevant stakeholders to test or refine the programme theory (theories) of how an MDS works at the resident level of care for different stakeholders and in what circumstances. Data synthesis will use realist logic to align data from each eligible article with possible context-mechanism-outcome configurations or specific elements that answer the research questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Hertfordshire Ethics Committee has approved this study (HSK/SF/UH/04169). Findings will be disseminated through briefings with stakeholders, conference presentations, a national consultation on the use of an MDS in UK long-term care settings, publications in peer-reviewed journals and in print and social media publications accessible to residents, relatives and care home staff. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020171323; this review protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedReview Literature as TopicAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandHumansSystematic Reviews as Topicepidemiologygeriatric medicinehealth services administration & managementpalliative carepublic healthquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID33191266
PMCPMC7668360

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.