Integrated dementia care: A qualitative evidence synthesis of the experiences of people living with dementia, informal carers and healthcare professionals

Abstract Background: Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question ‘why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?’ The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS). Methods: A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorized into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, Empowerement, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation. Conclusions: The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Download Full-text

Personhood and Dementia Care: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of the Perspectives of People With Dementia

The Gerontologist ◽

10.1093/geront/gnz159 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Niamh Hennelly ◽

Adeline Cooney ◽

Catherine Houghton ◽

Eamon O’Shea

Keyword(s):

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Dementia Care ◽

Care Process ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Formal Caregivers ◽

Cart Analysis ◽

Qualitative Evidence ◽

People With Dementia ◽

Centered Care ◽

Design And Methods

Abstract Background and Objectives Personhood is considered the cornerstone of person-centered care for people with dementia. However, there is little research on personhood in dementia care from the perspective of the person with dementia themselves. This article presents a qualitative evidence synthesis of the experiences and perceptions of people with dementia on personhood in dementia care. Research Design and Methods A systematic search of nine databases was conducted. In addition to initial screening, CART analysis was used to determine the most relevant papers. Thematic synthesis was conducted on 20 papers. The CASP tool was used to examine the quality of the included papers. GRADE CERQual analysis examined confidence in the review findings. Results People with dementia experience many changes due to the disease and the experience of being cared for in different settings. Personhood is affirmed through personal interactions with family, friends, other care recipients, and formal caregivers, as well as through continued engagement in social and occupational roles. Discussion and Implications The review has important implications for practice, regulation, and policy. The person and their personhood should be protected rather than undermined, and relationships should be enhanced not diminished by the formal care process. The focus should be on creating and amplifying opportunities for people with dementia to affirm the self through interactions with others and engaging in occupational and social roles to ensure continuity of self.

Download Full-text

Meta-ethnography to understand healthcare professionals’ experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018411 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (12) ◽

pp. e018411 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Francine Toye ◽

Kate Seers ◽

Karen L Barker

Keyword(s):

Chronic Pain ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Biopsychosocial Model ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Bibliographic Databases ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Qualitative Evidence ◽

Patient Groups ◽

Provision Of Care

ObjectivesWe aimed to explore healthcare professionals’ experience of treating chronic non-malignant pain by conducting a qualitative evidence synthesis. Understanding this experience from the perspective of healthcare professionals will contribute to improvements in the provision of care.DesignQualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography. We searched five electronic bibliographic databases from inception to November 2016. We included studies that explore healthcare professionals’ experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain. We used the GRADE-CERQual framework to rate confidence in review findings.ResultsWe screened the 954 abstracts and 184 full texts and included 77 published studies reporting the experiences of over 1551 international healthcare professionals including doctors, nurses and other health professionals. We abstracted six themes: (1) a sceptical cultural lens, (2) navigating juxtaposed models of medicine, (3) navigating the geography between patient and clinician, (4) challenge of dual advocacy, (5) personal costs and (6) the craft of pain management. We rated confidence in review findings as moderate to high.ConclusionsThis is the first qualitative evidence synthesis of healthcare professionals’ experiences of treating people with chronic non-malignant pain. We have presented a model that we developed to help healthcare professionals to understand, think about and modify their experiences of treating patients with chronic pain. Our findings highlight scepticism about chronic pain that might explain why patients feel they are not believed. Findings also indicate a dualism in the biopsychosocial model and the complexity of navigating therapeutic relationships. Our model may be transferable to other patient groups or situations.

Download Full-text

Why do healthcare professionals fail to escalate as per the early warning system (EWS) protocol? A qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and facilitators of escalation

BMC Emergency Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12873-021-00403-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

S. M. O’Neill ◽

B. Clyne ◽

M. Bell ◽

A. Casey ◽

B. Leen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Early Warning ◽

Clinical Judgment ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Warning System ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Quality Appraisal ◽

Qualitative Evidence

Abstract Background Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question ‘why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?’ The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS). Methods A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorised into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, empowerment, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation. Conclusions The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Download Full-text

Why do healthcare professionals fail to escalate as per the Early Warning System (EWS) protocol? A qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and facilitators of escalation

10.21203/rs.3.rs-71412/v4 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sinead M O Neill ◽

Barbara Clyne ◽

Miriam Bell ◽

Avilene Casey ◽

Brendan Leen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Early Warning ◽

Clinical Judgment ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Warning System ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Quality Appraisal ◽

Qualitative Evidence

Abstract Background: Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question ‘why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?’ The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS). Methods: A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorized into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, Empowerement, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation. Conclusions: The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Download Full-text

A qualitative evidence synthesis to explore healthcare professionals’ experience of prescribing opioids to adults with chronic non-malignant pain

BMC Family Practice ◽

10.1186/s12875-017-0663-8 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Fran Toye ◽

Kate Seers ◽

Stephanie Tierney ◽

Karen Louise Barker

Keyword(s):

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Qualitative Evidence

Download Full-text

Assessing Fetal Movements in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of Women’s Views, Perspectives and Experiences

10.21203/rs.3.rs-105085/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Valerie Smith ◽

Kathryn Muldoon ◽

Vivienne Brady ◽

Hannah Delaney

Keyword(s):

Methodological Quality ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Common Source ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Qualitative Evidence ◽

Fetal Movements ◽

In Pregnancy

Abstract Background: Raising awareness of the importance of fetal movements (FMs) and advising women on the appropriate action to take if they experience reduced FMs, is critical for minimising or avoiding adverse perinatal outcomes. To gain insight and understanding of women’s perspectives of assessing FMs in pregnancy, we conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Methods: A qualitative evidence synthesis using thematic synthesis was conducted. Studies were eligible if they included pregnant women who were at least 20 weeks gestation and reported qualitative data from women on assessing FMs in pregnancy. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Social Science Citation Index, from inception to July 2020, were searched. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by at least two reviewers using an EPPI-Centre quality assessment tool. Data analysis, using the Thomas and Harden framework, involved line by line coding of extracted data, establishing descriptive themes, and determining analytical themes. Confidence in the findings was assessed using GRADE CER-Qual. Results: Nine studies, involving 2193 women, were included in the review. The methodological quality of the studies was overall generally high. The synthesis revealed three dominant themes, and seven sub-themes that reflected women’s perspectives of assessing FMs in pregnancy. These were; 1) How women engage with FMs, with subthemes of informal engagement, formal engagement, and strategies to stimulate FMs; 2) ‘…like a feather inside my belly’ - articulating and describing FMs, with sub-themes of sensations associated with FMs and timing and frequency of FMs; and 3) FMs and help/health seeking, with sub-themes of information sources and interacting with healthcare professionals. Confidence in the findings was either high or moderate, although two findings were rated low confidence and one very low.Conclusion: This qualitative evidence synthesis reveals that women informally engage with FMs during pregnancy. Women commonly adopt strategies to stimulate FMs when concerned. The use of the internet was a common source of obtaining information regarding FMS. Women require better support when contacting healthcare professionals about FMs. As only three of the nine included studies were exclusively qualitative in design, further qualitative studies exploring women’s perspective of assessing FMs in pregnancy are required.

Download Full-text

Why Do Healthcare Professionals Fail to Escalate as Per the Early Warning System (EWS) Protocol? A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of the Barriers and Facilitators of Escalation

10.21203/rs.3.rs-71412/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Sinead M O Neill ◽

Barbara Clyne ◽

Miriam Bell ◽

Avilene Casey ◽

Brendan Leen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Early Warning ◽

Clinical Judgment ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Warning System ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Quality Appraisal ◽

Qualitative Evidence

Abstract Background: Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question ‘why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?’ The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS). Methods: A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorized into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, Empowerement, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation.Conclusions: The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Download Full-text