ArticleBMC health services research2023
Implementing a ward-based programme to improve care for older inpatients: process evaluation of the cluster randomised CHERISH trial.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Organisational Strategies for Pressure Injury Prevention and Treatment in Acute Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Training and education provided to local change champions within implementation trials: a rapid systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Pooled it
- Organizational barriers and enablers of adult mobility in general acute hospital units: a scoping review.Physical therapy · 2026Article
- The Participation of Older Persons in the Adoption of Age-Friendly Care Models in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- Do process evaluations open up the 'black box' of implementation interventions in health care? A scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Review
- Improving patient reported experience in inpatients with palliative care needs: a pre-post quality improvement study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Improving hospital food and meal provision: a qualitative exploration of nutrition leaders' experiences in implementing change.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- World delirium awareness and quality survey in 2023-a worldwide point prevalence study.Age and ageing · 2024Article
- Navigating the facilitation journey: a qualitative, longitudinal evaluation of 'Eat Walk Engage' novice and experienced facilitators.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Delirium in the United States: Results From the 2023 Cross-Sectional World Delirium Awareness Day Prevalence Study.Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison PsychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.