Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090450›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

A qualitative study of what care workers do to provide patient safety at home through telecare.

Randi Stokke, Line Melby, Jørn Isaksen, Aud Obstfelder, Hege Andreassen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Randi StokkeCentre for Care Research, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway. Randi.stokke@ntnu.no.
Line MelbyCentre for Care Research, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.
Jørn IsaksenFaculty of Social and Health Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Gudbrandsdalsvegen 350, 2624, Lillehammer, Norway.
Aud ObstfelderCentre for Care Research, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.
Hege AndreassenCentre for Care Research, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOInland Norway University of Applied Sciences · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn health care, the work of keeping the patient safe and reducing the risk of harm is defined as safety work. In our digitised and technology-rich era, safety work usually involves a relationship between people and technologies. Telecare is one of the fastest-growing technology-domains in western health care systems. In the marketing of telecare, the expectation is that safety is implicit simply by the presence of technology in patients' homes. Whilst both researchers and health authorities are concerned with developing cost-benefit analyses and measuring effects, there is a lack of attention to the daily work needed to ensure that technologies contribute to patient safety. This paper aims to describe how patient safety in home care is addressed through and with telecare. We base our exploration on the social alarm, an established technology that care workers are expected to handle as an integrated part of their ordinary work.

methodsThe study has a qualitative explorative design where we draw on empirical data from three case studies, involving five Norwegian municipalities that use social alarm systems in home care services. We analyse observations of practice and interviews with the actors involved, following King's outline of template analysis.

resultsWe identified three co-existing work processes that contributed to patient safety: "Aligning people and technologies"; "Being alert and staying calm"; and "Coordinating activities based on people and technology". Attention to these work processes exposes safety practices, and how safety is constructed in relational practices involving multiple people and technologies.

conclusionsWe conclude that the three work processes identified are essential if the safety alarm is to function for the end user's safety. The safety of home-dwelling patients is reliant on the person-technology interface. The efforts of care workers and their interface with technology are a central feature of creating safety in a patient's home, and in doing so, they utilise a repertoire of skills and knowledge.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesTelemedicineHumansNorwayPatient SafetyQualitative ResearchCare workHome care practiceInvisible workSafety workSocial alarmTelecareWelfare technology

Identifiers

PMID34090450
PMCPMC8180066
OpenAlexW3167368574

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.