ArticlePEC innovation2023
Patient and family perceptions of a discharge bedside board.
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore patient and family perspectives of a discharge bedside board for supporting engagement in patient care and discharge planning to inform tool revision. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study included 45 semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of English-speaking patients ( Results: Four themes were generated from interview data: understanding the board, included essential information to guide care, balancing information on the board, and maintaining a sense of connection. Despite application inconsistencies, documented standard procedures aligned with recommended board (re)orientation, timely patient-friendly content, attention to privacy, and patient-provider engagement strategies. Conclusion: Findings indicate the tool supported consultation and some involvement level engagement in patient care and discharge. Board information was usually valued, however, perceived procedural gaps in tool education, privacy, and the quality of tool-related communication offer opportunities to strengthen patients' and families' tool experience. Innovation: Novel application of a continuum engagement framework in the exploration of multiple data sources generated significant insights to guide tool revision.
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.