Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37344776›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Implementing a ward-based programme to improve care for older inpatients: process evaluation of the cluster randomised CHERISH trial.

Alison M Mudge, Prue McRae, Adrienne Young, Irene Blackberry, Karen Lee-Steere, Sally Barrimore, Tara Quirke, Gillian Harvey

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Use of the i-PARIHS framework in nutrition and dietetics research and practice: A citation analysis of the literature and case studies.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Alison M MudgeRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Department of Internal Medicine and Aged Care, Herston, Australia. Alison.Mudge@health.qld.gov.au.
Prue McRaeRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Department of Internal Medicine and Aged Care, Herston, Australia.
Adrienne YoungUniversity of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Australia.
Irene BlackberryLaTrobe University John Richards Centre for Rural Ageing Research, Wodonga, Australia.
Karen Lee-SteereRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Department of Internal Medicine and Aged Care, Herston, Australia.
Sally BarrimoreThe Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia.
Tara QuirkeConsumer Advocate Dementia Training Australia, Brisbane, Australia.
Gillian HarveyQueensland University of Technology Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Kelvin Grove, Australia.

Funding

Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Queensland Government Accelerate Partnership GrantMetro North Hospital and Health Service Clinician Researcher Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder inpatients are at high risk of hospital-associated complications, particularly delirium and functional decline. These can be mitigated by consistent attention to age-friendly care practices such as early mobility, adequate nutrition and hydration, and meaningful cognitive and social activities. Eat Walk Engage is a ward-based improvement programme theoretically informed by the i-PARIHS framework which significantly reduced delirium in a four-hospital cluster trial. The objective of this process evaluation was to understand how Eat Walk Engage worked across trial sites.

methodsProspective multi-method implementation evaluation on medical and surgical wards in four hospitals implementing Eat Walk Engage January 2016-May 2017. Using UK Medical Research Council guidance, this process evaluation assessed context, implementation (core components, implementation strategies and improvements) and mechanisms of impact (practice changes measured through older person interviews, structured mealtime observations and activity mapping) at each site.

resultsThe four wards had varied contextual barriers which altered dynamically with time. One ward with complex outer organisational barriers showed poorer implementation and fewer practice changes. Two experienced facilitators supported four novice site facilitators through interactive training and structured reflection as well as data management, networking and organisational influence. Novice site facilitators used many implementation strategies to facilitate 45 discrete improvements at individual, team and system level. Patient interviews (42 before and 38 after implementation) showed better communication about program goals in three sites. Observations of 283 meals before and 297 after implementation showed improvements in mealtime positioning and assistance in all sites. Activity mapping in 85 patients before and 111 patients after implementation showed improvements in cognitive and social engagement in three sites, but inconsistent changes in mobility. The improvements in mealtime care and cognitive and social engagement are plausible mediators of reduced delirium observed in the trial. The lack of consistent mobility improvements may explain why the trial did not show reduction in functional decline.

conclusionsA multi-level enabling facilitation approach supported adaptive implementation to varied contexts to support mechanisms of impact which partly achieved the programme goals. Contexts changed over time, suggesting the need for adequate time and continued facilitation to embed, enhance and sustain age-friendly practices on acute care wards and optimise outcomes.

trial registrationThe CHERISH trial was prospectively registered with the ANZCTR ( http://www.anzctr.org.au ): ACTRN12615000879561.

Indexed as

DeliriumInpatientsAgedHospitalsHumansNutritional StatusProspective StudiesAge-friendly hospitalsDeliriumEvaluationFacilitationImplementation

Identifiers

PMID37344776
PMCPMC10283300

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.