ReviewFamily practice2023
General practitioners' role in improving health care in care homes: a realist review.
Review in Family practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- General practitioners' support and implementation concerns for Australia's proposed aged care primary care model: a cross-sectional survey.Family practice · 2025Article
- Care homes and primary care in England working together: A multi-method qualitative study.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025Article
- Predicting future medical needs and mortality risk in geriatric long-term care patients : Development and validation of the Nascher score and revised Nascher score.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite recent focus on improving health care in care homes, it is unclear what role general practitioners (GPs) should play. To provide evidence for future practice we set out to explore how GPs have been involved in such improvements.
methodsRealist review incorporated theory-driven literature searches and stakeholder interviews, supplemented by focussed searches on GP-led medication reviews and end-of-life care. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched. Grey literature was identified through internet searches and professional networks. Studies were included based upon relevance. Data were coded to develop and test contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes for improvements involving GPs.
resultsEvidence was synthesized from 30 articles. Programme theories described: (i) "negotiated working with GPs," where other professionals led improvement and GPs provided expertise; and (ii) "GP involvement in national/regional improvement programmes." The expertise of GPs was vital to many improvement programmes, with their medical expertise or role as coordinators of primary care proving pivotal. GPs had limited training in quality improvement (QI) and care home improvement work had to be negotiated in the context of wider primary care commitments.
conclusionsGPs are central to QI in health care in care homes. Their contributions relate to their specialist expertise and recognition as leaders of primary care but are challenged by available time and resources to develop this role.
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.