ArticlePloS one2024
Improving hospice delirium guideline adoption through an understanding of barriers and facilitators: A mixed-methods study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study seeks to understand and address barriers to practitioners' optimal assessment and management of people with delirium in hospices.
methodsRetrospective clinical record review to identify areas of low concordance with guideline-adherent delirium care; Survey of healthcare practitioners to identify barriers and facilitators to optimal care; Qualitative interviews with health care practitioners to explore and develop strategies to address barriers or optimise facilitators; Meeting with senior clinical staff to refine identified strategies.
resultsEighty clinical records were reviewed. Elements of poor guideline concordance were identified. Delirium screening on admission was conducted for 61% of admissions. Non-pharmacological management was documented for 59% of those we identified as having delirium from the clinical records. Survey and interview data identified key barriers to delirium assessment as competing priorities, poor knowledge and skills and lack of environmental resources (staff and guidelines, environment). Consultation with staff resulted in strategies to address barriers and enhance facilitators including champions, educational meetings, audit and feedback, and environmental changes (including careful consideration of the staff skills mix on shift and tools to support non-pharmacological management).
conclusionsWe conducted a theoretically underpinned, internationally relevant study in a hospice in England, UK. Implementation of strategies should result in greater guideline-adherent delirium care. Further work should test this in practice and include both process and clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in delirium days).
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.