ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Perspectives on which health settings geriatricians should staff: a qualitative study of patients, care providers and health administrators.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith a shortage of geriatricians and an aging population, strategies are needed to optimise the distribution of geriatricians across different healthcare settings (acute care, rehabilitation and community clinics). The perspectives of knowledge users on staffing geriatricians in different healthcare settings are unknown. We aimed to understand the acceptability and feasibility (including barriers and facilitators) of implementing a geriatrician-led comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in acute care, rehabilitation, and community clinic settings.
methodsA qualitative description approach was used to explore the experience of those implementing (administrative staff), providing (healthcare providers), and receiving (patients/family caregivers) a geriatrician-led CGA in acute care, rehabilitation and community settings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Toronto, Canada. The theoretical domains framework and consolidated framework for implementation research informed the interview guide development. Analysis was conducted using a thematic approach.
resultsOf the 27 participants (8 patients/caregivers, 9 physicians, 10 administrators), the mean age was 53 years and 14 participants (52%) identified as a woman (13 [48%] identified as a man). CGAs were generally perceived as acceptable but there was a divergence in opinion about which healthcare setting was most important for geriatricians to staff. Acute care was reported to be most important by some because no other care provider has the intersection of acute medicine skills with geriatric training. Others reported that community clinics were most important to manage geriatric syndromes before hospitalization was necessary. The rehabilitation setting appeared to be viewed as important but as a secondary setting. Facilitators to implementing a geriatrician-led CGA included (i) a multidisciplinary team, (ii) better integration with primary care, (iii) a good electronic patient record system, and (iv) innovative ways to identify patients most in need of a CGA. Barriers to implementing a geriatrician-led CGA included (i) lack of resources or administrative support, (ii) limited team building, and (iii) consultative model where recommendations were made but not implemented.
conclusionsOverall, participants found CGAs acceptable yet had different preferences of which setting to prioritise staffing if there was a shortage of geriatricians. The main barriers to implementing the geriatrician-led CGA related to lack of resources. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.