Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34996391›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

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

Massirfufulay Kpehe Musa, Gizdem Akdur, Sarah Brand, Anne Killett, Karen Spilsbury, Guy Peryer, Jennifer Kirsty Burton, Adam Lee Gordon, Barbara Hanratty, Ann-Marie Towers and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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
  16. Article
  17. 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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Massirfufulay Kpehe MusaCentre for Research in Public health and Community Care (CRIPACC), School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, 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, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7326-4750
Sarah BrandNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5979-2442
Anne KillettFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4080-8365
Karen SpilsburySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6908-0032
Guy PeryerFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0425-6911
Jennifer Kirsty BurtonInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4752-6988
Adam Lee GordonSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1676-9853
Barbara HanrattyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3122-7190
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, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1936-3584
Sarah KellyCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1114-2456
Liz JonesNational Care Forum, Friars House, Manor House Drive, Coventry, UK.
Julienne MeyerCare for Older People, School of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5378-2761
Claire GoodmanCentre for Research in Public health and Community Care (CRIPACC), School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. c.goodman@herts.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8938-4893
University of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBAcademic Health Science Network North East and North Cumbria · GBCity, University of London · GBCoventry (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Kent · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office PCL/21/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare homes provide long term care for older people. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (known as minimum data sets (MDS)) use the aggregate data to guide resource allocation, monitor quality, and for research. Less is known about how an MDS affects how staff assess, provide and review residents' everyday care. The review aimed to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff can effectively implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care for residents.

methodsThe realist review was organised according to RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: and Evolving Standards) guidelines. There were three overlapping stages: 1) defining the scope of the review and theory development on the use of minimum data set 2) testing and refining candidate programme theories through iterative literature searches and stakeholders' consultations as well as discussion among the research team; and 3) data synthesis from stages 1 and 2. The following databases were used MEDLINE via OVID, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ASSIA [Applied Social Sciences Citation Index and Abstracts]) and sources of grey literature.

resultsFifty-one papers informed the development of three key interlinked theoretical propositions: motivation (mandates and incentives for Minimum Data Set completion); frontline staff monitoring (when Minimum Data Set completion is built into the working practices of the care home); and embedded recording systems (Minimum Data Set recording system is integral to collecting residents' data). By valuing the contributions of staff and building on existing ways of working, the uptake and use of an MDS could enable all staff to learn with and from each other about what is important for residents' care

conclusionsMinimum Data Sets provides commissioners service providers and researchers with standardised information useful for commissioning planning and analysis. For it to be equally useful for care home staff it requires key activities that address the staff experiences of care, their work with others and the use of digital technology. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020171323.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareMotivationAgedHumanscare homelong-term careminimum-data-setOlder people carestandardised care

Identifiers

PMID34996391
PMCPMC8739629
OpenAlexW4205979187

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.