Background
High-quality transitional care
Person-centred integrated care
Aims of the study
Methods
Article | Aim | Main themes |
---|---|---|
1. Hestevik et al. (2019) [39] | ‘To explore how HCPs experience providing individualized nutritional care within the organizational frames of acute geriatric hospital care and home care’ ([39] p. 2) | 1) Meeting patients with complex nutritional problems 2) The structure of nutritional care |
2. Hestevik et al. (2020) [40] | ‘To explore older patients’ and family caregivers’ perceptions regarding the food, meals and nutritional care provided in the transition between hospital and home the first 30 days at home’ ([40] p. 2) | 1) The need for a comprehensive approach to nutritional care 2) Non-individualised nutritional care at home 3) Lack of mutual comprehension and shared decision making 4) The role of family caregivers |
3. Hestevik et al. (2020) [41] | ‘To explore HCPs’ views on how older persons and their family caregivers participate in decisions about their own nutritional care and possible barriers for that participation’ ([41] p. 199) | 1) Lack of shared decision making in nutritional care 2) Conflict between patients’ preferences and standard nutritional care procedures 3) The value of family caregivers who are seldom involved in nutritional care |
4. Kvæl et al. (2019) [42] | ‘To explore older patients’ and their relatives’ experiences and preferences regarding patient participation in IC and identify types of patient participation and their potential empowering or disempowering effect’ ([42] p. 2) | 1) Lack of choice and expectation of compliance 2) The need of a rehabilitation perspective and reciprocal engagement 3) Patient participation meeting experts’ views |
5. Kvæl et al. (2019) [43] | ‘To explore how HCPs, experience patient participation in IC, and explain how they perform their clinical work balancing between the patients’ needs, resources and regulatory constraints’ ([43] p. 923) | 1) The purchaser-provider model and standardisation of patient participation 2) Intermediate care as a storage facility losing its rehabilitative function 3) Lack of professional discretion and empowerment of HCPs |
6. Kvæl et al. (2020) [44] | ‘To explore the negotiation of patient participation in family meetings in IC services, by observing the interactions between the older patient, their relatives, and the HCPs in IC’ ([44] p. 812) | 1) Patients’ needs for masquerade to participate 2) The strategies of relatives in coming across 3) Professionals’ roles in defining the situation |
7. Lilleheie et al. (2020) [45] | ‘To explore the experiences of older patients and informal caregivers in the first 30 days after the patient’s discharge with a special focus on the burden of care’ ([45] p. 2) | 1) Bridging the gap 2) Family is family 3) Never enough 4) Stress and distress |
8. Lilleheie et al. (2020) [46] | ‘To explore older patients’ informal caregivers’ views on healthcare quality in the hospital and in the first 30 days after hospitalisation’ ([46] p. 2) | 1) Fast in, fast out 2) Scant information 3) Disclaimer of responsibility 4) The struggle to secure professional care |
9. Lilleheie et al. (2020) [47] | ‘To explore older patients’ experiences of the quality of the health services in hospital and the first 30 days at home after discharge’ ([47] p. 2) | 1) Hospital stays and the person behind the diagnosis 2) Poor communication and coordination 3) Life after discharge 4) Patients’ relationship with their next of kin 5) Organisational and systemic determinants |
10. Olsen et al. (2020) [48] | ‘To explore health care providers’ perceptions and experiences regarding “What matters to you?” in the context of improving transitional care for older, chronically ill persons’ ([48] p. 3) | 1) WMTY [what matters to you] is a complex process that needs to be framed competently 2) Framing WMTY as a functional approach 3) Framing WMTY as a relational approach |
11. Olsen et al. (2021) [49] | ‘To explore HCPs’ experiences and understandings of implementing a care pathway to improve the quality of transitional care for older people’ ([49] p. 3) | 1) Understanding the care pathway as patient flow 2) Understanding the care pathway as the patient’s journey 3) The dilemma between improving patient flow and the patient’s journey |
12. Olsen et al. (2021) [50] | ‘To explore HCPs’ perceptions and experiences of what is important to achieve more person-centered patient pathways for older people’ ([50] p. 3) | 1) Finding common ground through the mapping of the patient journey 2) The importance of understanding the whole patient pathway 3) The significance of getting to know the older patient 4) The key role of home care providers in the patient pathway 5) Ambiguity towards checklists and practice implementation |
Setting
Material
Getting started—Phase 1
Deciding what is relevant to the initial interest—Phase 2
Article | Informants | Context | Sample | Methodology | Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hestevik (2019) [39] | 12 HCPs from hospital 11 HCPs home care | Two hospitals and five home care units | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Descriptive interpretative | Thematic analysis |
Hestevik (2020) [40] | 15 older patients (≥ 65) 9 informal caregivers | Two hospitals and five home care units | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Descriptive interpretative | Thematic analysis |
Hestevik (2020) [41] | 12 HCPs from hospital 11 HCPs home care | Two hospitals and five home care units | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Descriptive interpretative | Thematic analysis |
Kvæl (2019) [42] | 15 older patients (≥ 65) 15 informal caregivers | Three IC institutions (6 wards) | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Critical realism | Thematic analysis |
Kvæl (2019) [43] | 18 HCPs = three multidisciplinary team | Three IC institutions (6 wards) | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Critical realism | Thematic analysis |
Kvæl (2020) [44] | 14 initial family meetings in IC services | Three IC institutions (6 wards) | Purposive | Observation of meetings Critical realism | Thematic analysis |
Lilleheie (2020) [45] | 18 older patients (≥ 80) 12 informal caregivers | One hospital, home care and IC | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Phenomenological | Thematic analysis |
Lilleheie (2020) [46] | 12 informal caregivers of geriatric patients | One hospital, home care and IC | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Phenomenological | Thematic analysis |
Lilleheie (2020) [47] | 18 older patients (≥ 80) in transitional care | One hospital, home care and IC | Purposive | Semi-structured interviews Phenomenological | Thematic analysis |
Olsen (2020) [48] | 20 HCPs 3 key informants and 22 meetings | A quality improvement collaborative | Purposive | Interviews and observation Social constructivism | Thematic analysis |
Olsen (2021) [49] | 20 HCPs 3 key informants and 22 meetings | A quality improvement collaborative | Purposive | Interviews and observation Social constructivism | Thematic analysis |
Olsen (2021) [50] | 20 HCPs 3 key informants and 22 meetings | A quality improvement collaborative | Purposive | Interviews and observation Social constructivism | Thematic analysis |
Reading the studies—Phase 3
Determining how the studies are related—Phase 4
Translating the studies into one another—Phase 5
Synthesising translations—Phase 6
Individualised care | Person-centred versus efficient care |
Predetermined patient pathway | |
Relatives bridging the care gap | |
Medical-oriented care | Everyday patient life versus treating the illness |
Complex geriatric problems | |
User choice and responsibility | User choice versus “What Matters to You” |
What matters to you? | |
Professional knowledge and skills | Relational versus practical care |
Relational and communication skills | |
Working conditions of staff |
Expressing the synthesis—Phase 7
Results
Balancing person-centred versus efficient care
I understand that society has to think about money, both the hospital and municipality. But there are too many cases where the patients are not heard and directly ignored because it costs NOK 5000 [550 USD] extra per night [in hospital] ([49] p. 8).
The system is not self-explanatory and I didn’t really know anything, what to ask for and so forth. They should have given her [the patient] better information. Relatives and patients need better information ([46] p. 6).
I understand the importance of the patient’s voice being heard. No one fits into a box, I understand the thinking. But I see that real patient participation [and PCC] is difficult to achieve in a health-care system that is built up like ours. These are the services we have! The day center has a specific structure that you have to fit within. And within IC there are other criteria. As a patient, you might say what you would like, but whether you ever receive it, is not up to you ([43] p. 925).
I had to get a microwave oven, because that was the first thing they [homecare services] asked for when they started coming here. I don’t like such food. I want to make homemade food. I don’t know what kinds of food I am supposed to buy. I can’t eat only ready-made meals. First of all, I can’t stand the taste of these ready meals, and secondly, I find them too expensive ([40] pp. 6-7).
That the user doesn’t have to repeat herself at each new place, but feels like the people I relate to here, they communicate, they know who I am [...] that the user feels like when they ask me questions they ask them as if they already know me a little ([50] p. 9).
Balancing patients’ everyday lives versus the treatment of illness
We see the disease but not the person behind it. I believe that if we increase our holistic understanding, it will also become more natural for us to let the patients decide ([43] p. 926).
It’s going to be like this: ‘Now we have arranged the pills, and the situation with the pills is OK and stabilised, so now you can go home, because we must have your bed for someone else’ ([46] p. 5).
It seems like the lack of food intake is not solely due to illness, but it is also due to more psychosocial issues like the loss of a loved one, suddenly being alone and maybe not being able to get out of the house ([39] p. 4).
Balancing user choice versus “What Matters to You”
We already know that patients may not be in the hospital if they are not sick and need treatment … Then we asked: ‘What about a stay or rehabilitation in another department?’. …We were a little unsure of her condition, how she was going to be when she got home. But then we really only got a message the day she was sent home, that now she had been sent home ([46] p. 7).
One has to try to make the question less dangerous; ‘how shall we plan ahead? What matters to you? What do you want in the future?’ So, I think it needs to be rendered less dangerous. And if your focus is on user involvement, then it really is just a part of a conversation and a larger approach ([48] p. 6).
Balancing relational versus practical care
For many people living alone, the only human conversation they have during a day is with the people from home care services. I think it is important that they take the time to talk to these people, not just rush in, make food and goodbye ([40] p. 7).
We write a lot of electronic reports based on our experience of how we see the patient when he is admitted here. And then maybe we see a frail older person and we haven’t looked into how they are able to function at home. And then immediately we think ‘oh they need a nursing home placement, oh poor person’ ([50] p. 8).
It’s about empowerment. In this case, you must give the patient an understanding and confidence that their reflections are necessary to hear. Being able to initiate a good dialogue ([42] p. 8).
We would very much like to hear the user’s voice and take it into account. And to get to know what matters to the user, we actually have to ask, if not, we are just guessing. And then, it is easy that we guess based on what matters to us instead ([48] p. 9).