Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34696803›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Implementing lateral flow devices in long-term care facilities: experiences from the Liverpool COVID-19 community testing pilot in care homes- a qualitative study.

Patrick Kierkegaard, Massimo Micocci, Anna McLister, John S P Tulloch, Paula Parvulescu, Adam L Gordon, Peter Buckle

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Patrick KierkegaardNIHR London In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK. P.Kierkegaard@imperial.ac.uk.
Massimo MicocciNIHR London In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Anna McListerNIHR London In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
John S P TullochInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, CH64 7TE, UK.
Paula ParvulescuPublic Health Department, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool, Cunard Building, Water Street, Liverpool, L3 1DS, UK.
Adam L GordonDivision of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Peter BuckleNIHR London In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAntigen-based lateral flow devices (LFDs) offer the potential of widespread rapid testing. The scientific literature has primarily focused on mathematical modelling of their use and test performance characteristics. For these tests to be implemented successfully, an understanding of the real-world contextual factors that allow them to be integrated into the workplace is vital. To address this gap in knowledge, we aimed to explore staff's experiences of integrating LFDs into routine practice for visitors and staff testing with a view to understand implementation facilitators and barriers.

methodsSemi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.

resultsWe identified two main themes and five subthemes. The main themes included: visitor-related testing factors and staff-related testing factors. Subthemes included: restoring a sense of normality, visitor-related testing challenges, staff-related testing challenges, and pre-pilot antecedent factors.

conclusionOur study demonstrates that the real-world implementation of LFDs to test visitors and staff faces significant challenges as a result of several contextual factors negatively affecting the work practice and environment. More comprehensive studies are needed to identify and inform effective implementation strategies to ensure that LFDs can be adopted in an agile way that better supports an already exhausted and morally depleted workforce.

Indexed as

COVID-19Long-Term CareHumansNursing HomesQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2Antigen testCare homesLateral flow devicesNursing homesResidential homesSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34696803
PMCPMC8544628

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.