Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35285557›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2023

'It enables the carers to see the person first': Qualitative evaluation of point-of-care digital management system in residential aged care.

Kasia Bail, Diane Gibson, Alicia Hind, Karen Strickland, Catherine Paterson, Eamon Merrick, Jo Gibson, Maria Kozlovskaia, Amy O'Dea, Bridget Smith and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Participation in the digital transformation of healthcare: a review of qualitative studies.International journal of health care quality assurance · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Aspiration pneumonia in nursing literature-a mapping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Kasia BailSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-0042
Diane GibsonUniversity of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7235-3719
Alicia HindSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Karen StricklandUniversity of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3123-8778
Catherine PatersonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-6782
Eamon MerrickSchool of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4269-6360
Jo GibsonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3217-2101
Maria KozlovskaiaSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Amy O'DeaSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Bridget SmithSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Bernice RedleyDeakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2376-3989

Funding

Humanetix Pty Ltd and Australian Government Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

objectivesTo evaluate acceptability, efficiency, and quality of a new digital care management system in a residential aged care home (RACH).

backgroundImproving care quality and efficiency in RACH, while simultaneously upgrading data management, is a priority for communities and governments.

designParticipatory action research with mixed methods data collection was employed to evaluate a digital care management system implemented at a 169-bed RACH. This paper reports qualitative findings of the 2-year evaluation.

methodsQualitative data were collected using focus groups with residents, visitors, nurses, managers, care workers, and consultants; resident/visitor and staff hallway interviews and responses to open-ended questions in online staff surveys. Data were analysed thematically under the four predetermined study objectives. Reporting adhered to COREQ guidelines.

results325 data captures from 88 participants, over seven data sources were coded. Findings indicate that the system was acceptable to both residents and staff due to perceptions of time-saving and improved quality of care. Increased efficiency was perceived through timeliness as well as reduced time spent retrieving and documenting information. Quality of care was improved through care scheduling individualised to resident needs, with reminders to avoid missed care. Relatives were reassured and activities were scheduled to loved one's preferences. The co-design implementation process was successful through commitment to quality from leadership teams and prioritising the focus on the holistic needs of the residents.

conclusionA strong emphasis on co-design with care staff in developing and implementing the digital care system contributed to a system that supported nursing and care work, facilitated reporting and documentation, and improved resident care and well-being including identification of missed care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses, carers, administrators, and advocates can support the co-design creation of information systems that suit the workflow of an organisation and keep the focus on individualised models of care provision.

Indexed as

Nursing HomesPoint-of-Care SystemsAgedCaregiversHumansPalliative CareQuality of Health Caredementiaefficiency - organisationalgeriatricslong-term carenursingnursing homesnursing informaticspatient-centred carepoint-of-care systemsquality of health care

Identifiers

PMID35285557
PMCPMC10078649

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.