Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37076808›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2023

Registered care home managers' experiences of responding to the national care home visiting guidance in England during the Covid-19 pandemic; a multi-method qualitative study.

Josie Dixon, Klara Lorenz-Dant, Edmund Stubbs, Karen Harrison Dening, Manna Mostaghim, Daniel Casson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. 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

6 authors.

Josie DixonCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. j.e.dixon@lse.ac.uk.
Klara Lorenz-DantUniversity of Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 2, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.
Edmund StubbsCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Karen Harrison DeningDe Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.
Manna MostaghimCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Daniel CassonCare England, 2nd Floor, 2 Devonshire Square, London, EC2M 4UJ, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR202482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisiting restrictions in care homes in England and many comparable countries during the Covid-19 pandemic were extensive and prolonged. We examined how care home managers experienced, understood and responded to the national care home visiting guidance in England in developing their visiting policies.

methodsA diverse sample of 121 care home managers across England, recruited through varied sources including the NIHR ENRICH network of care homes, completed a 10-item qualitative survey. Follow-up, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sub-sample of 40 managers. Data were analysed thematically using Framework, a theoretically and methodologically flexible tool for data analysis in multiple researcher teams.

findingsSome viewed the national guidance positively; as supporting the restrictive measures they felt necessary to protect residents and staff from infection, or as setting a broad policy framework while allowing local discretion. More commonly, however, managers experienced challenges. These included the guidance being issued late; the initial document and frequent, media-led updates not being user-friendly; important gaps, particularly in relation to dementia and the risks and harms associated with restrictions; guidance being unhelpfully open to interpretation while restrictive interpretations by regulators limited apparent scope for discretion; fragmented systems of local governance and poor central-local coordination; inconsistent access and quality of support from local regulators wider sources of information, advice and support that, while often valued, were experienced as uncoordinated, duplicative and sometimes confusing; and insufficient account taken of workforce challenges.

conclusionsUnderlying many of the challenges experienced were structural issues, for which there have been longstanding calls for investment and strategic reform. For increasing sector resilience, these should be are urgently addressed. Future guidance would also be significantly strengthened by gathering better data, supporting well-facilitated peer exchange, engaging the sector more fully and dynamically in policy-making and learning from care home managers' and staff's experiences, particularly of assessing, managing and mitigating the wider risks and harms associated with visiting restrictions.

Indexed as

COVID-19EnglandHumansPandemicsQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesCare homeCare home visitingCOVID-19DementiaFamily carerLong-term careMulti-methodPandemicQualitativeSocial careThematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID37076808
PMCPMC10113990

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.