Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37239698›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Making Neglect Invisible: A Qualitative Study among Nursing Home Staff in Norway.

Stine Borgen Lund, John-Arne Skolbekken, Laura Mosqueda, Wenche Malmedal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Stine Borgen LundDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
John-Arne SkolbekkenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Laura MosquedaKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 91803, USA.
Wenche MalmedalDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch shows that nursing home residents' basic care needs are often neglected, potentially resulting in incidents that threaten patients' safety and quality of care. Nursing staff are at the frontline for identifying such care practices but may also be at the root of the problem. The aim of this study was to generate new knowledge on reporting instances of neglect in nursing homes based on the research question "How is neglect reported and communicated by nursing home staff?"

methodsA qualitative design guided by the principles of constructivist grounded theory was used. The study was based on five focus-group discussions (20 participants) and 10 individual interviews with nursing staff from 17 nursing homes in Norway.

resultsNeglect in nursing homes is sometimes invisible due to a combination of personal and organizational factors. Staff may minimize "missed care" and not consider it neglect, so it is not reported. In addition, they may be reluctant to acknowledge or reveal their own or colleagues' neglectful practices.

conclusionNeglect of residents in nursing homes may continue to occur if nursing staff's reporting practices are making neglect invisible, thus proceeding to compromise a resident's safety and quality of care for the foreseeable future.

Indexed as

constructivist grounded theorylong-term careneglectnursing homenursing staff’s perceptionspatient safetyqualitativequality of careresidential care

Identifiers

PMID37239698
PMCPMC10218649

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.