Developing the Review Question and Inclusion Criteria

Stern, Cindy; Jordan, Zoe; McArthur, Alexa

doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000445689.67800.86

Cited by 374 publications

(227 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

189

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The search was limited to the English language. Given the nature of the research question, an adapted “PCO” framework was used for this review. A broad range of key search terms and MeSH topics were used based around the topics of “decision making,” “caregivers,” “dementia,” and “cancer.” A combination of free text searches and MeSH terms were used to identify articles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How are caregivers involved in treatment decision making for older people with dementia and a new diagnosis of cancer?

Martin¹,

Shrestha²,

Burton

et al. 2019

Psycho-Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To explore how caregivers are involved in making treatment decisions for older people living with dementia and a new diagnosis of cancer. Method A systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted. Studies recruiting formal or informal caregivers for older people with dementia and a diagnosis of cancer were considered for inclusion. Results Of 1761 articles screened, 36 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and six were included in the review. This review has identified that health care professionals (HCPs) are often unaware of the coexistence or severity of dementia in cancer patients, and therefore fail to properly address care needs as a result. While caregivers are relied on to help make decisions, they have unmet information needs and feel excluded from decision‐making. Conclusion Treatment decision making in the context of older adults with dementia and a new diagnosis of cancer needs further research. This will help HCPs to understand their needs and improve the experience of decision making for both caregivers and the people that they care for.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How are caregivers involved in treatment decision making for older people with dementia and a new diagnosis of cancer?

Martin¹,

Shrestha²,

Burton

et al. 2019

Psycho-Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The systematic review process followed the PICO structure (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) (9, 10) for defining the scope of the review and the studies to be considered. The a priori protocol (Supplemental Table #1) is a key component of a systematic review that ensures an objective process for including and excluding studies to be reviewed (11).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hourly Rounding to Improve Nursing Responsiveness

Mitchell

Lavenberg

Trotta

et al. 2014

JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Synthesize the evidence concerning the effect of hourly rounding programs on patient satisfaction with nursing care, and discuss implications for nurse administrators. Background Patient satisfaction is a key metric that influences both hospital ratings and reimbursement. Studies have suggested that purposeful nursing rounds can improve patient satisfaction but the evidence to date has not been systematically examined. Methods Systematic review of published literature and GRADE analysis of evidence regarding nursing rounds. Results There is little consistency in how results of hourly rounds were measured, precluding quantitative analysis. There is moderate-strength evidence that hourly rounding programs improve patients’ perception of nursing responsiveness. There is also moderate-strength evidence that these programs reduce patient falls and call light use. Conclusions Nurse administrators should consider implementing an hourly rounding program while controlled trials discern the most cost-effective approach.

show abstract

“…First, according to the available literature, we have considered NHs as: A healthcare intervention, measured in its effectiveness with intervention studies (e.g., measuring the effect of a specific method of NH on PS, Tobiano et al, ) as summarised in reviews using appropriate Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison and Outcome framework (PICO, Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, ); and A phenomenon of interest, as a defined event, activity, experience, or process (e.g., measuring the nurses or patient's experiences regarding NHs, Starks & Brown Trinidad, ), thus summarised in reviews using Population, Phenomena of interest and Context framework (PICo, Stern, Jordan, & McArthur, ). …”

Section: The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, with the purpose of achieving a broader picture of the available recommendations, we combined the approaches by identifying the research question as both PICO and PICo (Smith et al, ; Stern et al, ). Then, we planned the search strategy using a reliable methodology for evidence synthesis by identifying only secondary studies with appropriate inclusion criteria (Aromataris et al, ).…”

Section: The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Findings regarding the relationship between NHs and PS were summarized in recommendations, adopting an iterative approach based on the identification of similarities and differences of findings as documented in each review. Recommendations were then categorised and summarised according to two frameworks: Practice recommendations, such as those suggesting how to perform NHs with the purpose of promoting PS: these were categorised following the domains of handovers as implemented in the nursing field by Forde, Coffey, and Hegarty () in (a) ‘How NHs affect PS’, by reporting a summary of mechanisms explaining the effect of NH on PS; and (b) ‘How to design and implement NHs capable of promoting PS’, by summarising practical strategies to consider when changes are being designed and implemented. Research recommendations as future directions that researchers should undertake in the field of NHs and PS: these were categorised and summarized as ‘How to design and conduct research on NHs and PS’, reporting recommendations on both PICO an PICo frameworks (Smith et al, ; Stern et al, ) adding other two components: Setting and Time. This choice was supported by the opportunity to better reflect on the structure of research enquiries and the need to offer all information (Lunny, Brennan, McDonald, & McKenzie, ) capable of supporting future research. …”

Section: The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nursing handovers and patient safety: Findings from an umbrella review

Bressan

Mio

Palese

2019

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To summarise available reviews on nursing handover (NH) and patient safety (PS), providing a set of evidence‐based recommendations for clinical practice and research. Design Umbrella review. Data sources We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library CENTRAL databases up to October 2018. Review methods Retrieved reviews were critically evaluated using the Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses. Then, an iterative approach and two different frameworks were adopted to categorize the findings in: (a) practice; and (b) research recommendations. Results A total of 17 reviews were included: among them, 16 reported a range of recommendations for clinical practice to promote PS by reducing adverse events. For what concerns research, 16 reviews recommended specific strategies to improve and strengthen research and its quality in the field of NHs and PS. Conclusion Changing nursing handover practices to increase PS is complex: it means changing the culture, roles and behaviour of any given clinical nursing setting. To be effective, the change requires a tailored approach, time and implementation strategies including education and support. Future studies should address the flexibility required by handovers in daily practice and the multiple needs with the aim of increasing the robustness of the available evidence on NHs. These should also embrace the Complex Interventions Research Framework. Impact Several reviews have been performed as summaries of research and practice evidence on NHs, but no summary of the established clinical and research recommendations on NHs and PS has been provided to date. Standardized handovers supported by technological solutions, facilitating face‐to‐face contact between nurses, possibly alongside bedside reports, can improve PS. Well‐designed longitudinal studies, on a wide scale, in different settings, based on a strong rationale and focused on measuring the association between handover and patients’ safety issues are recommended.

show abstract

Developing the Review Question and Inclusion Criteria

Cited by 374 publications

References 4 publications

How are caregivers involved in treatment decision making for older people with dementia and a new diagnosis of cancer?

How are caregivers involved in treatment decision making for older people with dementia and a new diagnosis of cancer?

Hourly Rounding to Improve Nursing Responsiveness

Nursing handovers and patient safety: Findings from an umbrella review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About