SynthesisBMC health services research2025
Initial programme theory developing for interprofessional case discussions (InCaD) in acute hospital care: a realist approach.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional case discussions (InCaD) are vital for managing complex patient care in acute hospital settings. Despite their widespread use, the absence of theoretical frameworks hinders consistent implementation and evaluation. This study aims to develop an initial programme theory for InCaD using a realist methodology to identify Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations.
methodsThis study employed a multi-method approach grounded in the realist methodology following a prospective approach of the RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. Data were collected from three sources: internal programme documents, a systematic review (N = 42), and stakeholder focus group interviews (N = 17) involving nurses, physicians, managers and therapists. Internal programme documents provided an understanding of theoretical foundations and informed the review and interview design. The systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and included studies on multiprofessional case discussions in inpatient settings. Focus group interviews were conducted with hospital stakeholders to explore practical insights into the implementation and impact of InCaD. Data synthesis involved generating CMO-configurations through thematic coding and iterative team discussions.
resultsThe analysis identified direct mechanisms, such as interprofessional reflection, structured protocols, and shared decision-making, and indirect mechanisms, such as fostering team trust and a culture of learning. Key outcomes for patients included improved care quality, satisfaction, and continuity, while staff outcomes encompassed enhanced job satisfaction, team cohesion, and workflow efficiency. Contextual factors, including leadership support and tailored adaptations, were crucial for successful implementation. Nurse leadership emerged as a significant driver of InCaD's effectiveness.
conclusionsThis study provides a theory-driven framework for systematically implementing and evaluating InCaD in clinical practice. By understanding the interactions of context, mechanisms, and outcomes, healthcare organizations can enhance patient safety, care quality, and staff well-being. Future research should validate and refine these findings in diverse healthcare settings to inform broader applications.
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.