Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33656445›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

A Clinical Communication Tool (Loop) for Team-Based Care in Pediatric and Adult Care Settings: Hybrid Mixed Methods Implementation Study.

Amna Husain, Eyal Cohen, Raluca Dubrowski, Trevor Jamieson, Allison Miyoshi Kurahashi, Bhadra Lokuge, Adam Rapoport, Stephanie Saunders, Elaine Stasiulis, Jennifer Stinson and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Amna HusainTemmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Sinai Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8638-3943
Eyal CohenPediatric Medicine and Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0112-7188
Raluca DubrowskiChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6557-6620
Trevor JamiesonDepartment of Medicine, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1050-3918
Allison Miyoshi KurahashiTemmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Sinai Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5109-4121
Bhadra LokugeTemmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Sinai Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7245-6769
Adam RapoportPediatric Advanced Care Team, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5090-8987
Stephanie SaundersTemmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Sinai Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5683-9994
Elaine StasiulisInstitute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3572-9371
Jennifer StinsonChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9969-8052
Saranjah SubramaniamHumber River Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5306-8111
Pete WegierHumber River Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0191-136X
Melanie BarwickChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2478-604X
Hospital for Sick Children · CASinai Health System · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAHumber River Regional Hospital · CAUnity Health Toronto

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunication within the circle of care is central to coordinated, safe, and effective care; yet patients, caregivers, and health care providers often experience poor communication and fragmented care. Through a sequential program of research, the Loop Research Collaborative developed a web-based, asynchronous clinical communication system for team-based care. Loop assembles the circle of care centered on a patient, in private networking spaces called Patient Loops. The patient, their caregiver, or both are part of the Patient Loop. The communication is threaded, it can be filtered and sorted in multiple ways, it is securely stored, and can be exported for upload to a medical record.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to implement and evaluate Loop. The study reporting adheres to the Standards for Reporting Implementation Research.

methodsThe study was a hybrid type II mixed methods design to simultaneously evaluate Loop's clinical and implementation effectiveness, and implementation barriers and facilitators in 6 health care sites. Data included monthly user check-in interviews and bimonthly surveys to capture patient or caregiver experience of continuity of care, in-depth interviews to explore barriers and facilitators based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and Loop usage extracted directly from the Loop system.

resultsWe recruited 25 initiating health care providers across 6 sites who then identified patients or caregivers for recruitment. Of 147 patient or caregiver participants who were assessed and met screening criteria, 57 consented and 52 were enrolled on Loop, creating 52 Patient Loops. Across all Patient Loops, 96 additional health care providers consented to join the Loop teams. Loop usage was followed for up to 8 months. The median number of messages exchanged per team was 1 (range 0-28). The monthly check-in and CFIR interviews showed that although participants acknowledged that Loop could potentially fill a gap, existing modes of communication, workflows, incentives, and the lack of integration with the hospital electronic medical records and patient portals were barriers to its adoption. While participants acknowledged Loop's potential value for engaging the patient and caregiver, and for improving communication within the patient's circle of care, Loop's relative advantage was not realized during the study and there was insufficient tension for change. Missing data limited the analysis of continuity of care.

conclusionsFundamental structural and implementation challenges persist toward realizing Loop's potential as a shared system of asynchronous communication. Barriers include health information system integration; system, organizational, and individual tension for change; and a fee structure for health care provider compensation for asynchronous communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient PortalsAdultCaregiversChildElectronic Health RecordsHealth PersonnelHumanscollaborative carecomplexityConsolidated Framework for Implementation Researchcoordination of careImplementation Outcome Taxonomyimplementation scienceinternet communication technologyinterprofessional teampatient engagementQuality Improvement Frameworksocial networking technologytheory of behavioruser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID33656445
PMCPMC8294640
OpenAlexW3121959724

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.