↓ Skip to main content

Effective health care for older people living and dying in care homes: a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
74 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effective health care for older people living and dying in care homes: a realist review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1493-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Goodman, Tom Dening, Adam L. Gordon, Susan L. Davies, Julienne Meyer, Finbarr C. Martin, John R. F. Gladman, Clive Bowman, Christina Victor, Melanie Handley, Heather Gage, Steve Iliffe, Maria Zubair

Abstract

Care home residents in England have variable access to health care services. There is currently no coherent policy or consensus about the best arrangements to meet these needs. The purpose of this review was to explore the evidence for how different service delivery models for care home residents support and/or improve wellbeing and health-related outcomes in older people living and dying in care homes. We conceptualised models of health care provision to care homes as complex interventions. We used a realist review approach to develop a preliminary understanding of what supported good health care provision to care homes. We completed a scoping of the literature and interviewed National Health Service and Local Authority commissioners, providers of services to care homes, representatives from the Regulator, care home managers, residents and their families. We used these data to develop theoretical propositions to be tested in the literature to explain why an intervention may be effective in some situations and not others. We searched electronic databases and related grey literature. Finally the findings were reviewed with an external advisory group. Strategies that support and sustain relational working between care home staff and visiting health care professionals explained the observed differences in how health care interventions were accepted and embedded into care home practice. Actions that encouraged visiting health care professionals and care home staff jointly to identify, plan and implement care home appropriate protocols for care, when supported by ongoing facilitation from visiting clinicians, were important. Contextual factors such as financial incentives or sanctions, agreed protocols, clinical expertise and structured approaches to assessment and care planning could support relational working to occur, but of themselves appeared insufficient to achieve change. How relational working is structured between health and care home staff is key to whether health service interventions achieve health related outcomes for residents and their respective organisations. The belief that either paying clinicians to do more in care homes and/or investing in training of care home staff is sufficient for better outcomes was not supported.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 220 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Master 34 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 53 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 18%
Social Sciences 26 12%
Psychology 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 66 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2019.
All research outputs
#855,197
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#198
of 8,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,600
of 372,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#5
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.