ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2024
Piloting a Supplemental Assessment Tool with Younger Residents of Long-Term Care.
Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Young adults living with disabilities may sometimes end up in long-term care facilities which may not always meet their needs. Our project set out to pilot a supplemental assessment tool, a questionnaire to be used upon admission of younger adults into long-term care. We wanted the opinions of both staff and younger residents on what modifications may be needed in the implementation processes to ensure effectiveness of the tool. Methods: This project followed a qualitative design, implementing a previously designed supplemental assessment tool with five staff members and seven younger residents of two long-term care homes in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Residents completed the questionnaire with members of staff involved in admissions. Each group participated in follow-up interviews regarding their thoughts on implementation of the tool. Responses were analyzed using the constructs of the Consolidated Framework in Implementation Research following direct content analysis methods. Results: Feedback from residents and staff suggested that the tool could not be used as a one-size-fits-all solution but that flexibility in the format, content, and structure of the tool would be beneficial to ensure its utility in a variety of settings. Issues raised by staff and residents included, but were not limited to, accessibility of the intervention, the availability of resources, the format of the intervention and topics covered within it, and ensuring that processes for implementation are clearly defined. Conclusions: Both staff and residents approved of the tool for use in the admissions process and agreed that it would enhance the admissions practices already in place.
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.