Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39020281›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2024

Current situation, strengths and problems in intra- and interprofessional collaboration in German nursing homes - A holistic multiple case study.

Kathrin Schmüdderich, Jonas Dörner, Anne Fahsold, Rebecca Palm, Martina Roes, Bernhard Holle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Kathrin SchmüdderichDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE), Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany. kathrin.schmuedderich@dzne.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5955-8824
Jonas DörnerDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE), Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7631-9881
Anne FahsoldDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE), Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7977-8805
Rebecca PalmFaculty of Health, School of Nursing Science, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58455, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4910-8413
Martina RoesDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE), Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4531-8584
Bernhard HolleDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE), Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2549-7765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing care complexity of nursing home residents living with dementia requires new care models that strengthen professional collaboration. To contribute to the sustainable implementation of new care models, it is important that they are linked to the care reality. However, little is known about intra- and interprofessional organization and provision of care in German nursing homes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the current care situation, problems and strengths regarding intra- and interprofessional collaboration in the care of residents living with dementia.

methodsWe conducted a holistic multiple case study. The individual care units in which residents living with dementia are cared for were defined as cases. The context was built by the respective nursing homes and their regional affiliation to the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. We used qualitative face-to-face interviews, documents and context questionnaires for data collection. The different sources of evidence served to capture complementary perspectives and to validate the findings. First, the collected qualitative data were analyzed using deductive-inductive content analysis. Second, similarities and differences between the cases were identified to elaborate case-specific and cross-case patterns and themes. The reporting followed the EQUATOR reporting guideline for organizational case studies.

resultsWe included four care units comprising 21 professionals (nurses, physicians, social worker, physiotherapist, pharmacist) and 14 relatives of residents living with dementia. The analysis revealed four categories to describe current intra- and interprofessional collaboration in all cases: actors and their roles, service delivery, coordination and governance, and communication channel. Moreover, we identified three categories that relate to the strengths and problems of intra- and interprofessional collaboration in all cases: role understanding, teamwork, and communication and exchange. Although we examined similar care units, we found differences in the realization of professional collaboration and resulting problems and strengths that are connected to the organizational contexts and strategies used.

conclusionsEven though professional collaboration follows given patterns; these patterns do differ context-specifically and are perceived as problematic and fragmentary. Therefore, the identified differences and problems in collaboration need to be addressed in future research to develop and successfully implement tailored innovative care models.

Indexed as

DementiaInterprofessional RelationsNursing HomesAgedAged, 80 and overCooperative BehaviorFemaleGermanyHomes for the AgedHumansMalePatient Care TeamCase studiesOrganization of careProfessional collaborationProfessional relationsQualitative researchResidential facilitiesRole development

Identifiers

PMID39020281
PMCPMC11253382

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.