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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing infant pain assessment and treatment: investigating barriers, facilitators, and implementation outcomes with the ImPaC Resource.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Factors that influence the uptake of virtual care solutions in Australian primary care practice: a systematic scoping review.JBI evidence implementation · 2025Article
- Toward a Conceptual Framework for Digitally Supported Communication, Coordination, Cooperation, and Collaboration in Interprofessional Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on Communication Pathways After Orthopedic Surgery and Discharge and Evaluation of Team-Based Digital Communication: Qualitative Exploratory Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Health Care Professionals' Perspectives Before and After Use of eDialogue for Team-Based Digital Communication Across Settings: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Distributed team processes in healthcare services: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A scoping review of applications of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to telehealth service implementation initiatives.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Planning and Implementation of COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine Facilities in Hawaii: A Public Health Case Report.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Implementation of a Statewide Web-Based Caregiver Resource Information System (CareNav): Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.