Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol

Aileen Hetherton; Frances Horgan; Jan Sorensen; Siobhan E. Mc Carthy

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.1

Home Browse Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding...

ALL Metrics

Views

171

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Aileen Hetherton ¹, Frances Horgan², Jan Sorensen³, Siobhan E. Mc Carthy⁴

PUBLISHED 01 Dec 2023

Author details Author details

¹ School of Postgraduate Studies, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Leinster, D02 YN77, Ireland
² School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Leinster, D02 YN77, Ireland
³ Health Outcomes Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Leinster, D02 YN77, Ireland
⁴ Graduate School of Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Leinster, D02 YN77, Ireland

Aileen Hetherton
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Frances Horgan
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Jan Sorensen
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Siobhan E. Mc Carthy
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

This study aims to understand and explain the influence of contextual factors on the implementation of Intentional Rounding in acute hospitals using the realist synthesis methodology.

Falls of hospital admitted patients are one of the most frequent concerns for patient safety in the acute hospital environment. The reasons why people fall are complex. International guidelines recommend a multifactorial assessment and effective prevention and management of identified risk factors in order to reduce the number of falls. One approach for delivering this is by Intentional Rounding (IR). IR is an umbrella term, understood as a structured process whereby nurses or care staff carry out regular checks with individual patients using a standardised protocol to address such issues as positioning, pain, personal needs and placement of possessions.

Methods

This study will use realist synthesis to understand what works, for whom, in what circumstances and in what settings. Realist synthesis is a theory driven interpretive approach to evidence synthesis. It is the intention of the researchers to analyse IR as an intervention, which aims to enhance patient care and safety in hospital settings. The synthesis forms part of a larger implementation study examining interventions that reduce the number of falls that occur in hospitals. Search terms will include intentional rounding, purposeful rounding, comfort rounding and hourly rounding and will encompass search terms beyond IR and falls rates in order not to limit the synthesis. This synthesis will conform to the RAMESES (realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis group) publication and reporting quality standards for a realist synthesis.

Conclusions

The findings will inform the next phase of an implementation study on IR in acute hospital settings, namely selection of an IR approach and evidence informed barriers and enablers to its implementation. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and through presentations.

Keywords

Intentional Rounding, Nurse rounding, Patient rounding, Acute Hospital, Intervention, Falls Prevention, Realist synthesis,

Corresponding author: Aileen Hetherton

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Health Research Board [CDA-PA-2019-007].

Copyright: © 2023 Hetherton A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Hetherton A, Horgan F, Sorensen J and Mc Carthy SE. Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:72 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.1) First published: 01 Dec 2023, 6:72 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.1) Latest published: 21 Aug 2024, 6:72 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.3)

Introduction

Falls pose a significant challenge to healthcare systems internationally, with ageing populations and increasingly higher expectations of active living (Gerrish et al., 2019). Falls are a leading cause of non-fatal injuries among older adults and these injuries may have physical, social and psychological effects. In Ireland, hospital falls are the most commonly reported incident within the Health Service Executive (HSE) with 34,114 falls being reported in 2021. Over half (n= 18,023) of these occurred in acute hospitals (HSE, 2022). Falls are costly to patients, carers and society from a physical, psychological and economic perspective. Falls lead to physical harm, prolonged hospital stays, decreased quality of life for patients, and affects those who care for them and society in general (WHO, 2021).

A fall is defined as an event, which results in a person coming to rest inadvertently on the ground or floor or other lower level (WHO, 2021). There are different types of falls - assisted, injurious, negligible or no harm and the reasons why they occur are complex and multifactorial (State Claims Agency, SCA, 2019). Intrinsic risk factors are related to the person, including age, history of falls, physical illness, cognitive impairment, medications and movement disorders. Extrinsic risk factors include elements of the environment: lighting, flooring, clutter, unstable furniture and faulty walking aids (NICE, 2013).

The cost of falls worldwide is in excess of €400 billion each year (WHO, 2021). There is speculation of continued rising costs across countries yet data on falls incidence with associated costs are not collated routinely in countries. In Ireland, fall-related injuries in older people cost at least €402 million to the Irish economy (HSE, 2008). A National Fall Prevention Strategy has yet to be developed. In the US, using 2015 data, falls cost the economy an estimated $50 billion per year (Florence et al., 2018) and falls and fall related fractures cost the National Health Service (NHS) more than £2.3 billion per year in 2013. However, these figures are not current and much has changed since these data were collected. The costs of falls in healthcare are understudied and better and routine measurement is needed to ensure that falls-prevention strategies are economically sound. The World Health Organisation (WHO, 2021) estimate that 37.3 million falls require medical attention per year (2017–2020), with an estimated 684,000 individuals dying because of a fall annually worldwide (WHO, 2021).

To reduce the number of falls that occur in hospital settings, international guidelines recommend a multifactorial assessment and the cost-effective prevention and management of identified risk factors (NICE, 2013). Multifactorial interventions are recommended in the literature as a mechanism to prevent in-hospital falls (AHRQ, 2013). Individualised interventions expounded from assessment include hypotension treatment, footwear assessment and mobility treatment, among others. However, these individual interventions will assist a limited cohort of patients. Systematic approaches target a wider group of patients to help reduce inpatient falls on a large scale. IR is an example of a systematic approach and aims to complement stand-alone interventions.

Initially known as “hourly rounding” (Meade et al., 2006), IR is an umbrella term, understood as a structured process whereby nurses or care staff carry out regular checks with individual patients using a standardised protocol to address such issues as positioning, pain, personal needs and placement of possessions (Harris et al., 2017). In 2006, a landmark US study developed a specific intervention recognised as IR and examined its effects on patient satisfaction, call bell use and patient falls. There are many terms used for this process, including “comfort rounding”, “care rounding”, “purposeful rounding”, “patient rounding” and “nursing rounding” among others (Sims et al., 2018).

In Ireland, the adoption and use of IR has yet to be formally studied. In the UK, IR came to favour following recommendations from the Mid Staffordshire report to have systematised and regular interaction and engagement between nurses and patients on ward rounds (Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry (2013, Vol III). Although IR was not explicitly recommended, the concept of regular rounding on patients underpinned the recommendations made. The British Government endorsed IR in 2012 and advocated IR as a method of proactively addressing patients’ needs. As the NHS introduced IR across trusts, some limitations became evident; for example, staff engagement was limited in areas where education programmes had not preceded the introduction of IR (Sims et al., 2018).

While there are established benefits of IR, including improved nurse-patient communication and improved visibility of nursing staff, there are a number of methodological limitations in the IR studies, such as bias, weak study design and conflicts of interest have been identified (Snelling, 2013). There is also little information available on the implementation costs and value-for-money of IR, which is important to inform what IR protocol is selected and how it is implemented (OECD, 2022).

There is an information gap on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ and in ‘what context’, IR works. This realist synthesis forms the first phase of a study and will examine the existing evidence on IR and develop a programme theory of how IR works in an acute hospital setting, with whom and in what circumstances. Using the programme theory, the second phase of the study will involve the design, testing, implementation and evaluation of an IR intervention to reduce inpatient falls in a hospital setting. Results from the synthesis will inform the design and evaluation of strategies to address the barriers and enablers of implementation of IR in acute hospital settings.

Rationale and existing reviews

Research on IR has focussed on the effectiveness of IR on call bell usage, patient satisfaction rates, falls, pressure ulcers and pain management (Meade et al,, 2006) (Lucas, 2010). Results from the Meade study found that IR reduced call bell use and falls and improved patient satisfaction rates when completed hourly, but the acknowledged use of quasi-experimental approaches may have produced more positive results than a random assignment. Based on staff reporting, Lucas found that IR reduced pressure ulcer incidences and improved pain management. The results of these studies suggest that further research on the implementation and potential effects of IR on patient outcomes is required. There is a dearth of research focussing on the barriers and enablers to implementation of IR. IR has been the focus of literature reviews who found that it has mixed results, and contextual factors play a part in its success or otherwise (Harris et al., 2017; Ryan et al., 2019). A recent systematic mixed method review that included twenty-one studies, found that evidence is mixed and quality of data is not robust, due to weak methodological design of many of the studies and a large variation in sample sizes (Christiansen et al., 2018). Ryan et al. (2019) conducted an integrative literature review of IR and found that overall it is a positive intervention as it encourages improved nurse patient interaction. They recommend further research around how it has been implemented, what was working well about IR, what the barriers are and in what context it is successful.

A small number of existing literature reviews demonstrate the contextual factors influencing IR (Christiansen et al., 2018; Sims et al., 2018). These offer explanations about how it works well in some areas where patients may need regular interaction e.g. care of the older person units, and may not be successful in other areas, e.g. a busy surgical ward where the patient is mostly independent (Christiansen et al., 2018). There has been only one realist review completed on fall prevention programs using IR (Sims et al., 2018). There has been no study in Ireland on the implementation of IR in an acute setting and how it may impact on falls. This review, as part of a larger implementation study on IR in Irish hospitals, is necessary to learn more about what it is about IR that enhances patient safety and prevents harmful outcomes for patients.

The question about IR, and for whom it will work, in what circumstances and how it works, is best answered using a realist synthesis, as there is a requirement to understand more fully how and for whom IR is successful in an acute hospital setting. Duddy and Wong (2023) recommend that a realist approach is best suited when the outcome of an intervention is likely to be variable and context dependent. A realist synthesis will assist in the development of a programme theory about why IR works in some areas and not in others based on learning from previous studies. As this synthesis is part of a larger implementation study, searching only evidence related to IR and falls rates would limit the synthesis. Therefore, it is our intention to analyse IR as an intervention, which affects patient care and safety in hospital settings.

Sims et al. (2018) carried out a realist synthesis of IR in acute hospital wards that informed an evaluation project (Harris et al., 2019). The literature search spanned from 2006 up to and including 2016, 44 papers were reviewed spanning a variety of settings such as accident and emergency, orthopaedic, maternity, medical and surgical units, mental health and intensive care. Harris et al. (2019) discussed how previous studies failed to explain how IR works in a specific context and what drives IR to succeed or otherwise. They found that IR reduces potential harm when implemented in a comprehensive and consistent manner but that there is limited evidence of how it works in practice. They concluded that a poor understanding of how IR works poses a major challenge to learning, replication and sustainability of the intervention.

Realist synthesis methods

Realist synthesis is a theory-driven approach to evaluation. It enables the researcher to answer the question “what works for whom under what circumstances, how and why?” (Wong et al., 2013b). A realist synthesis may begin with an initial search of literature to illicit how an intervention is avowed to work (the initial programme theory). It is suited to complex interventions such as IR as any intervention that is used and adapted in healthcare is prone to modification due to many variables such as staff engagement and perception, environment, education, policy and patient factors among others. IR is a good example of a complex social intervention as it is multicomponent and the outcomes and resource implications may be influenced by the context in which it occurs.

A realist synthesis approach views causation as generative: mechanisms might be triggered within certain contexts resulting in one or more outcomes following an intervention (Pawson et al., 2005). There is no simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the question of the implementation and cost effectiveness of IR unless we explore what makes it successful, for what type of patient and in what circumstances. The identification and understanding of context-mechanism-outcome configurations may achieve this. The realist synthesis approach is required to help policy-makers and healthcare professionals to understand how IR may alter contexts, which then trigger hidden mechanisms that reduce falls and produce other intended or unintended outcomes.

In order to identify and describe the resource use and cost requirements of the implementation of IR in the hospital setting, the use of the realist synthesis methodology is not the most obvious choice, as most researchers would look to an economic evaluation to assess cost-effectiveness of an intervention and implementation strategy (Anderson & Hardwick, 2016). Realist evaluation will typically explain how an intervention works, in what circumstances and why, but in order for decision-makers and service managers to accept an intervention as financially viable, it should be affordable and cost-effective. In order to compare costs and the impacts of an intervention, decision-makers often use economic evaluations as appraisal tools. However, economic evaluations do not often consider context and the results are difficult to generalise to other areas and so for this reason a combination of both realist and economic evaluation may assist in this study involving a complex intervention. Coast et al. (2000) found this following collaboration between economic researchers in the UK. They suggested that context, capacity and the timing of a study might affect its acceptance by decision-makers and practitioners.

Anderson and Hardwick (2016) proposed that cost effectiveness should be articulated in realist synthesis. The relation between costs and outcomes, and in favour of selecting interventions and implementation strategies that are cost effective can inform the programme theory. In order to calculate costs of an initiative, the cost of harm is a factor. With in-hospital falls, there are direct costs such as longer length of stay, diagnostics, surgery, health professional wages etc. The unknown additional costs that need to be considered include follow-up care in a non-acute setting, consequent hospital readmissions and outpatient appointments, a loss of wages for the individual or their family carers, among others. The principles of economic evaluation, i.e. resource use and responses to resource use will form part of the criteria for this synthesis. There are no economic evaluations on the implementation of IR in an Irish hospital setting so the advancement of knowledge on IR and whether it is a viable option to consider is necessary and timely.

Research aim and objectives

Research aim

This study aims to understand how, when and under what circumstances does IR in acute hospital settings promote stakeholder engagement in IR and improve patient safety outcomes.

Objectives

1. Determine how IR has been implemented in hospital settings.
2. Develop a range of programme theories that describe how IR works, for what type of patient, in what setting and with what types of staff, in what circumstances and why.
3. Identify and describe the most important mechanisms by which IR is thought to produce better outcomes for patients, healthcare staff and the service in the hospital setting.
4. Identify and describe the contextual factors that enable or block the impact of these mechanisms (enablers and barriers)
5. Identify and describe the resource use and cost requirements or impacts of the different mechanisms and contextual factors related to developing and implementing IR in a hospital ward
6. Synthesise the data using realist methodology to explain the circumstances in which IR is likely to be effective and cost effective in a hospital setting.

Methods

This synthesis will conform to the RAMESES (realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis group) publication and reporting quality standards for a realist synthesis (Wong et al., 2013b; Wong et al., 2016). Realist synthesis is a theory-driven approach designed for evaluating complex social interventions such as IR (Sims et al., 2018). Realist inquiry postulates that the outcomes of an intervention are influenced by how it is implemented and in what context it is conveyed (Pawson et al., 2004). A key output of a realist synthesis is a programme theory or theories and understanding the success or failure of an intervention by asking exploratory questions. These questions include: What is it about this intervention that works? For whom? In what circumstances? These questions may be answered through the identification of context-mechanism-outcome configurations (Sims et al., 2018).

This synthesis will be based on the stages of a realist review put forward by Pawson et al. (2004) with the addition of a further stage of stakeholder involvement for theory refinement, which was added by Molnar et al. (2015) and used by Power et al. (2019) see box 2.

Box 2. Planned Stages of Realist Synthesis (Hunter et al., 2022) (Pawson et al., 2004)

1. Identify the Review Question

a. Map the research area

b. Informal literature search

c. Concept mining

d. Develop initial rough programme theories

e. Consult stakeholders

f. Build hypothetical model of key initial rough programme theories to test in literature

2. Searching for primary studies

a. Database search

b. Skimming for relevance – Citation tracking

c. Snowballing

d. Grey literature

e. Contact authors

3. Quality Appraisal

a. Bespoke screening and appraisal tools

b. Consider rigour and relevance

4. Extracting the data

a. Extraction templates

b. Rich description and thick detail

5. Synthesising the data

a. Juxtaposing

b. Adjudicating

c. Reconciling

d. Consolidating

e. Situating

6. Disseminating the findings

a. Consult with stakeholders for widest impact

b. Recommendations based on middle range theories around which particular aspects of programme implementation need to be considered

Publication

Stage one: clarify scope and developing an initial programme theory

In the initial stage of the synthesis, a literature search will be carried out to locate existing theories that explain how IR works, in what circumstances, for whom and how it generates outcomes for patients. To conduct a realist synthesis, it is important that a broad range of empirical research is included. The realist synthesis method, as described by Pawson et al. (2005), highlights that a significant amount of papers will be identified through "snowballing", that is using the reference lists of relevant articles to identify further papers for review.

Sims et al. (2018) conducted a realist synthesis of IR and used seven terms to describe the concept of IR for their literature search and this study will use the same strategy. This synthesis will consist of two phases; Phase One is theory-initiation and development where a programme theory of IR will aim to explain how and why IR is thought to generate outcomes for patients. Phase two will involve theory testing, where the programme theory will be reviewed and rival explanations to the theory developed will be explored. The realist synthesis is part of an implementation study, testing IR in a variety of acute ward settings in hospitals in order to assess whether IR is an effective and cost-effective intervention in reducing falls in the acute hospital setting.

In order to develop programme theories, an initial immersion in sources of information about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IR will be completed. The exclusion/inclusion criteria are necessarily broad in order to ensure the theory development phase is able to take in the widest range of evidence of theories (Hardwick et al., 2013). A preliminary informal search (stage one) of literature was conducted in CINAHL and PubMed in November 2022. The informal searches conducted in stage one are different from the more formal searching that will be conducted in stage two, as they are exploratory in nature. Programme theory development will necessitate iterative discussions within the research team to progress competing theories in to an initial programme theory (McConnell et al., 2022).

Stage two: search strategy

The search strategy has been planned with the assistance of an Information Specialist. The major healthcare databases and repositories will be searched. See Box 1 for a list of search terms and databases that will be used for the search strategy. There will necessarily be further literature searches based on analysis of the preliminary evidence. Realist synthesis are iterative in process and there will be ongoing need for searching of databases throughout the synthesis until saturation is reached (Pawson et al., 2004). The references and citations in the 2018 realist synthesis and 2019 evaluation papers on IR in the hospital setting by Sims et al., and Harris et al., respectively will be used as a starting point for review of the literature and theory development.

Box 1. Search Strategy

Databases that will be utilised for search include

CINAHL, Medline/PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library and any other relevant databases identified by the information specialist

Search terms to be used for Intentional Rounding

Intentional round OR hourly round OR patient round OR comfort round OR purposeful round

OR proactive nurse round AND acute hospital setting or hospital or acute ward

The inclusion and exclusion criteria will be broad in order to ensure that the theory development phase will take in the widest range of evidence of theories. In line with Sims et al. (2018) criteria, areas of general weakness in evidence and individual study weakness will be reported where appropriate.

Inclusion criteria:

➢ Studies on implementation of IR in acute hospital settings.
➢ Population will include inpatients over 18 years of age in hospital
➢ Study design type includes all types of design which will help to direct theory development
➢ Any publication deemed relevant by the researcher (i.e. opinion pieces in peer-reviewed journals, healthcare policy documents, studies including other interventions to reduce falls in acute hospitals that may add to theory development

Exclusion criteria:

➢ Studies not in the English language.
➢ Studies in non-acute hospital or community settings.

Stage three: selection and appraisal

During the initial phase of the synthesis, sources that contribute to theory development will be reviewed through a process of note taking, annotation and conceptualisation. The abstracts of all papers identified by searches will be screened for suitability by AH. Allocation of abstracts to other members and double screening of all abstracts by another member of the team will ensure rigour. The entire team will discuss conflicts until agreement is reached. Potentially relevant papers will be assessed using a structured data extraction form developed by AH. Inclusion criteria are studies (a) conducted in acute hospitals, and (b) implemented and tested a version of IR as a single intervention or allied to/bundled with other existing interventions. The relevance and contribution of documents to theory building will be part of the selection criteria.

After relevance checks, the full text of the literature will then be retrieved and independently assessed for rigour by AH. This is in line with RAMESES publication and reporting standards for realist synthesis as described by Wong et al. (2013a; 2016). Further searching will arise due to the iterative fashion of the review and the team will decide selection criteria based on whether the literature can further refine theory (Power et al., 2019).

For the different study types, a range of quality assessment tools will be used as appropriate to the study design, for example, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. These appraisal tools assess the methodological quality of a study and determine the extent to which a study has addressed the possibility of bias in its design, conduct and analysis. Any disagreements over eligibility based on quality will be resolved through discussion by the team.

Stage four: data extraction

The included data will be uploaded to an Excel spreadsheet to include variables summarised in the Table 1 below. The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Checklist by Pinnock et al. (2017) has been used to guide this extraction tool.

Table 1. Data Extraction Tool - Adapted from the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Checklist (Pinnock et al., 2017).

Checklist Item	Variable	Details of data to be retrieved
1	Author and Year
2	Title
3	Rationale for study	The scientific background and rationale for the implementation strategy (including any underpinning theory/framework/model, how it is expected to achieve its effects and any pilot work.
4	Details of intervention	Including evidence about its effectiveness and how it is expected to achieve its effects
5	Country of Origin
6	Aims and Objectives	The aims of the study, differentiating between implementation objectives and any intervention objective
7	Methods – Design and Key features	Cross referencing to any appropriate methodology reporting standards
8	Details of Intervention	Include details of intervention, frequency, who completed it, what it consists of, i.e. what needs it addressed for the patient
9	Details of implementation strategy	How was it carried out – education, role modelling, protocol,
10	Context/Setting	The context in which the intervention was implemented (consider social, economic, policy, healthcare, organisational barriers and facilitators that might influence implementation elsewhere).
11	Details of the site chosen for implementation	Location, specialty, personnel, resources – single site or multi-site
12	Sample size	Include number of patients the intervention was tested on. Rationale for sample size?
13	Duration of data collection
14	Evaluation	Outcomes – Include Organisation, Staff, Patient, Process or implementation outcomes – what was expected and what happened
15	Results	Outcomes
		Characteristics of population
		Process Outcomes
16	Resource Use, costs, economic outcomes	Is this reported? Are they once-off costs, implementation costs, cost-outcome descriptions/relationships?
17	Implementation and Intervention Fidelity	Did the implementation strategy go as planned and was the intervention delivered as planned
18	Methods of analysis	How did they analyse the findings?
19	Context	The backdrop of programmes – triggers or modifies the behaviour of a mechanism
20	Mechanism	An underlying entity, process or structure that operates in a particular context to generate an outcome
21	Outcomes	The result of interaction between a mechanism and its triggering context
22	CMO Configuration	How a context triggers or changes the behaviour of mechanisms (enables or blocks) and produces an outcome

Contexts, Mechanisms and Outcomes will be extracted from papers. This synthesis will take consideration of the programme theories that Sims et al. (2018) explored for IR and use these to guide new theory development. In line with the RAMESES realist synthesis guidance by Wong et al. (2013b), “all theories remain theories that can be refined or disproved as new evidence comes to light”. Literature from 2016 to 2022 will be reviewed using the same search criteria and databases for identification of any new mechanisms of IR that may be relevant. Data from each of the studies selected will be analysed thematically to provide a comprehensive description of the purported mechanism of IR. Contexts that appear to activate or inhibit the mechanisms will be identified and outcomes when the mechanism is present or absent will be noted (Harris et al., 2017). A realist causal explanation for an outcome involves the researcher understanding the mechanism that produces the outcome and identification of what is functioning as context to activate the mechanism (Duddy & Wong, 2023). Text related to context, mechanisms and their relationship to outcomes will be coded by AH. The codes used will be inductive (created to categorise data reported in included studies), deductive (created in advance of data extraction based on the initial programme theory) and retroductive (created based on interpretation of the data to infer what the hidden causes might be for outcomes). This process is similar to that being used by Ford et al. (2021) in their EQUALISE study on health inequalities.

Stage five: data synthesis and analysis

The key analytic process in a realist synthesis involves iterative testing and refinement of theoretically based explanations (programme theories) using empirical evidence from data sources (Wong et al., 2013b). Programme theories will be tested and refined. This will be achieved by drawing comparisons with the evidence, exploring, and analysing the relationships between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Evidence will be compared to identify recurring patterns of CMOs across the data including trends that may support, contradict or generally inform the programme theory. Iterative analysis will be carried out to refine the identified CMO configurations in order to fully explain how, why and in what circumstances IR may successfully or otherwise be implemented (Coles et al., 2017; Power et al., 2019).

Rayan software will assist in management of the data and a thematic analysis approach will be adopted to synthesise findings. All included studies will be analysed by AH. The process of synthesis will include: (1) comparison of findings from different studies; (2) using findings from studies to address the purpose(s) of the synthesis; (3) seeking both confirmatory and contradictory findings; (4) refining programme theories in the light of evidence; and (5) disseminating the review with findings, conclusions and recommendations. Data analysis should take a “retroductive” approach – using both inductive and deductive approaches to identify hidden or causal factors that lie beneath patterns of change. The researcher must test and refine programme theories (RAMESES II project, 2017). The realist synthesis will include diverse sources of evidence and synthesis structured around the analytical activities described in Pawson et al. (2004), including juxtaposition, reconciliation, adjudication, consolidation and situation of evidence. These activities when clearly documented in a realist review achieve transparency of synthesis (Hardwick et al., 2013).

Stage six: theory refinement with stakeholders

A stakeholder consultation workshop is planned following on from data synthesis, in order to refine the programme theory. The group will consist of people involved directly in patient care, management, quality, finance and patient or family representatives. This workshop will serve two purposes. It will aid the process of theory development and refinement and ensure that any research findings are clear and useful to those involved in providing and receiving IR in a hospital setting. Brennan et al. (2014) describe this process as a reality check, to assist in validation of the programme theory for use in clinical practice. This process is recommended in realist synthesis as understanding what key stakeholders know about an intervention and their reasoning for or against its implementation is essential to understanding it (Harris et al., 2017).

Dissemination of findings

Findings and results from this synthesis will be disseminated and shared with stakeholders, frontline practitioners and policy makers. They will be shared as a final report with presentations to stakeholders and practitioners. The results will be utilised to inform the next stage of a larger implementation study on the effect and cost-effectiveness of the implementation of IR in acute hospital settings on fall rates. The work will be presented at a relevant national conference, and publications from the review will be written up and published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

Discussion

This study will use a realist synthesis approach to synthesise the available evidence and enable a better understanding of what works, for whom and in what circumstances, when, how and why in relation to IR in acute hospital settings. It is intended to build on the most recent realist synthesis on IR, which was published in 2018. The use of a realist approach will allow the synthesis to describe and explain how and why IR works in different contexts by exploring programme theories and the interactions between contexts, mechanisms of change and outcomes.

The emphasis in this synthesis on context-sensitive findings will offer broad principles that may be applied in different situations and circumstances (Gordon et al., 2020). The chosen approach will ensure that current evidence of contextual enablers and barriers can be taken in to account in designing and planning the implementation phase of a larger project.

Data availability

All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.

Acknowledgements

The proposed realist synthesis is part of a larger PhD project currently being undertaken by the first author (AH) and funded by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Hospitals Group. The authors acknowledge the support from Andrew Simpson, librarian at Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, for supporting the development of the search strategy of the proposed synthesis.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Preventing Falls in Hospitals: A Toolkit for Improving Quality of Care. 2013. Reference Source
Anderson A, Hardwick R: Realism and Resources: Towards more explanatory economic evaluation. Evaluation (Lond). 2016; 22(3): 323–341. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Brennan N, Bryce M, Pearson M, et al.: Understanding how appraisal of doctors produces its effects: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(6): e005466. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Christiansen A, Coventry L, Graham R, et al.: Intentional rounding in acute healthcare settings: A systematic mixed-method review. J Clin Nurs. 2018; 27(9–10): 1759–1792. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Coast JH, Hensher M, Mulligan JA, et al.: Conceptual and Practical difficulties with the economic evaluation of health services developments. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000; 5(1): 42–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Coles E, Wells M, Maxwell M, et al.: The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: what works, for whom and in what setting? Protocol for a realist review. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1): 168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Duddy C, Wong G: Grand rounds in methodology: when are realist reviews useful, and what a 'good' realist reviews look like? BMJ Qual Saf. 2023; 32(3): 173–180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Florence CS, Bergen G, Atherly A, et al.: Medical Costs of Fatal and Nonfatal Falls in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018; 66(4): 693–698. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Ford JA, Gkiouleka A, Kuhn I, et al.: Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE). BMJ Open. 2021; 11(6): e052746. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Gerrish K, Keen C, Palfreyman J: Learning from a clinical microsystems quality improvement initiative to promote integrated care across a falls care pathway. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2019; 20: e62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Gordon AL, Devi R, Williams C, et al.: Protocol for a realist review of General Practitioners’ Role in Advancing Practice in Care Homes (GRAPE study). BMJ Open. 2020; 10(6): e036221. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Hardwick R, Pearson M, Byng R, et al.: The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care: protocol for a realist review. Syst Rev. 2013; 2: 12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Harris R, Sims S, Levenson R, et al.: What aspects of intentional rounding work in hospital wards, for whom and in what circumstances? A realist evaluation protocol. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(1): e014776. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Harris R, Sims S, Leamy M, et al.: Intentional rounding in hospital wards to improve regular interaction and engagement between nurses and patients: a realist evaluation. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2019; 7(35): 1–168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Health Service Executive, National Council on Ageing and Older People, Department of Health and Children: Strategy to Prevent Falls and Fractures in Ireland’s Ageing Population. Report of the National Steering Group on the Prevention of Falls in Older People and the Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis throughout Life. 2008. Reference Source
Health Service Executive: Service user Falls: A Practical Guide for Review, Version 2, 2022. Incident Management Team, Quality and Patient Safety Directorate. 2022; (Accessed December 2022). Reference Source
Hunter R, Gorely T, Beattie M, et al.: Realist Review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2022; 15(1): 242–265. Publisher Full Text
Lucas B: Proactive patient rounding: developing nursing practice to improve the quality of patient care. London, Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust, 2010. Reference Source
McConnell T, Burden J, Duddy C, et al.: Integrating palliative care and heart failure: a protocol for a realist synthesis (PalliatHeartSynthesis). BMJ Open. 2022; 12(1): e058848. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Meade CM, Bursell AL, Ketelsen L: Effects of nursing rounds: On patients’ call light use, satisfaction, and safety. Am J Nurs. 2006; 106(9): 58–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Executive summary (HC 947). The Stationery Office, 2013. Reference Source
Molnar A, O'Campo P, Ng E, et al.: Protocol: Realist synthesis of the impact of unemployment insurance policies on poverty and health. Eval Program Plann. 2015; 48: 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Falls: Assessment and Prevention of Falls in Older People. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); Jun, 2013.
OECD: The economics of patient safety: From analysis to action. Health Working papers No. 145. 2022; Accessed 20th April, 2023. Reference Source
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al.: Realist Synthesis: an Introduction. ESRC Research Methods programme. Methods Paper 2, 2004; (Accessed November 2022). Reference Source
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al.: Realist review -- a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1: 21–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, et al.: Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017; 356: i6795. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Power J, Gilmore B, Vallières F, et al.: Adapting health interventions for local fit when scaling-up: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(1): e022084. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Ryan L, Jackson D, Woods C, et al.: Intentional Rounding - An Integrative literature Review. J Adv Nurs. 2019; 75(6): 1151–1161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Sims S, Leamy M, Davies N, et al.: Realist Synthesis of Intentional Rounding in Hospital wards: Exploring the evidence of what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018; 27(9): 743–757. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Snelling P: Intentional rounding: a critique of the evidence. Nurs Times. 2013; 109(20): 19–21. PubMed Abstract
State Claims Agency: State Claims Agency Risk Research Series Report 01: Slips, Trips and Falls A 5-year review of incidents and claims across the State sector (2014-2018). 2019. Reference Source
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al.: RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013a; 11: 21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wong G, Westhorp G, Greenhalgh J, et al.: Quality and reporting standards, resources, training materials and information for realist evaluation: the RAMESES II project. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017; 5(28). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Wong G, Westhorp G, Manzano A, et al.: RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016; 14(1): 96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R, et al.: Realist Synthesis: Training Materials. 2013b. Reference Source
World Health Organisation (WHO): Falls Fact Sheet. April, 2021. Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 01 Dec 2023

Author details Author details

Frances Horgan
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Jan Sorensen
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Siobhan E. Mc Carthy
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Health Research Board [CDA-PA-2019-007].

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 21 Aug 2024, 6:72

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 18 Jun 2024, 6:72

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.2

version 1

Published: 01 Dec 2023, 6:72

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.1

© 2023 Hetherton A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1298

downloads

171

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Hetherton A, Horgan F, Sorensen J and Mc Carthy SE. Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:72 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13792.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 01 Dec 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 12 Apr 2024

Ruth Harris, King's College London, London, England, UK

Sarah Sims, : King's College London, London, London, UK

Mary Leamy, King's College London (Ringgold ID: 4616), King's College London, London, UK

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15090.r38252

Thank you very much for asking us to review this paper reporting the protocol for a realist synthesis of intentional rounding. First of all, we must acknowledge that we are members of the team that undertook the NIHR funded realist synthesis and evaluation that this paper refers to (Harris et al 2017, 2019, Sims et al 2018). We are very pleased that another research team is planning to build on our work and to test out and refine further the programme theories that we identified in our realist synthesis and tested in the realist evaluation of intentional rounding in hospital wards in England. We have a number of questions and comments which we hope will be helpful to authors as they develop their work:
Introduction

The introduction to the proposal focuses the review on intentional rounding as a multifactorial intervention to reduce falls. Although this is an assumption made in many published papers, the research evidence for this is very weak due to serious methodological and/or reporting weaknesses. In most healthcare organisations there are several interventions which are implemented to reduce falls, e.g., falls assessments, enhanced care, bay tagging, medicine review etc., and so it would be very difficult to identify the impact of intentional rounding. Furthermore, no evidence was found to support this in our evaluation of intentional rounding. There is a need to provide a clear rationale to focus on falls and not other outcomes (intended or unintended).
It would be useful to say more about the intentional rounding intervention, its origins and the reasons for adoption. For example, there is no mention of the Studer group and there is no reference for the "landmark US study in 2006" that is referred to.
Given that there is an existing realist synthesis it would be helpful to provide an idea of how many new papers about intentional rounding have been published since 2016 to provide a rationale for the need to repeat/update it.
The realist synthesis is presented as the preparation for a realist evaluation study in acute hospital settings in Ireland. It is stated that there is an evidence gap in how, why and in what context IR works and that it is necessary to learn more about what it is about IR that enhances patient safety and prevents harmful outcomes for patients. However, although the previous realist synthesis and evaluation are frequently cited, this protocol paper doesn’t report the findings of either or provide details of how this proposed realist synthesis builds on the programme theory identified in the previous review and tested in the realist evaluation study. In our realist evaluation on acute hospital wards in England we found little or no evidence that the intervention works in the way it was expected to work or had an impact on patient safety.
It is not completely clear, but it appears that the plan is to repeat the realist review to generate a programme theory rather than update/refine the existing programme theory. We think it would be more useful to continue refining the programme theory of intentional rounding from the current empirically informed programme theory. We have a recent paper which provides more detail of the realist evaluation which may be useful (Leamy et al 2023) [Refer ref 1]

Methods

Stage one: clarifying scope and developing initial programme theory – the authors state that they are undertaking a realist to identify existing theories of IR but as mentioned above they do not share the programme theories that have already identified in the previous synthesis. They state the ‘the references and citations in the 2018 realist synthesis and 2019 evaluation papers on IR in the hospital setting by Sims et al., and Harris et al., respectively will be used as a starting point for review of the literature and theory development.’ This suggests that they plan to start the review from scratch rather than starting from existing realist programme theories and searching for new evidence to support or refute them.
Use of the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools – It would be useful to provide a rationale for the use of these tools. In realist approaches, the quality of evidence is usually assessed a different way focussing on the quality of evidence on refining understanding of the intervention’s programme theory [refer Ref 2]
It would be helpful to give a rationale for why the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Checklist was selected as a framework for data extraction. Not all the studies reviewed will be implementation studies. Will this tool support extraction of the different types of data/information that will help explain the nuances of explaining how intentional rounding works and the contexts that influence this?

We hope these comments are helpful. In summary, our main point is that it would be helpful for this proposal for a realist synthesis to report and build on what is already known about the programme theory of intentional rounding. There are existing programme theories that have been refined through empirical evaluation, these should be reported and discussed and the review protocol designed to build on these. We think these revisions are necessary for the paper to be scientifically valid and therefore have no alternative than to select the publisher’s ‘Not approved’ status.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Leamy M, Sims S, Levenson R, Davies N, et al.: Intentional rounding: a realist evaluation using case studies in acute and care of older people hospital wards.BMC Health Serv Res. 2023; 23 (1): 1341 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Pawson, R: Evidence-Based Policy:A Realist Perspective. Sage Publications Inc., London. 2006.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Nursing, realist synthesis and evaluation, intentional rounding, complex interventions

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 07 Mar 2024

Sonya Kowalski, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15090.r38009

This article is a realist synthesis research plan to investigate the contextual factors that impact the success or failure of intentional rounding (IR) strategies on inpatient fall rates. Cost factors are included in the synthesis plan.
The rationale for the study, to fill an information gap related to specific contextual factors that contribute to efficacy of IR strategies, is clear. The objectives are clearly written and included in the search and evaluation strategies.
The realist synthesis methodology is appropriate for the study.
The search strategy; inclusion/exclusion criteria; selection and appraisal; data extraction; data synthesis and analysis; theory refinement with stakeholders are clear.
The article is well written and the work is relevant to cost-effective patient safety.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Fall Risk Prevention Strategies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 25 May 2024

Aileen Hetherton, School of Postgraduate Studies, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, D02 YN77, Ireland

25 May 2024

Author Response

Dear Professor Kowalski,
Thank you for reviewing the article Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol
We are ... Continue reading Dear Professor Kowalski,
Thank you for reviewing the article Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol
We are delighted to have received approval status from you and thank you for your commentary on our published work.
Kind Regards
Aileen Hetherton
Dear Professor Kowalski,
Thank you for reviewing the article Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol
We are delighted to have received approval status from you and thank you for your commentary on our published work.
Kind Regards
Aileen Hetherton
Competing Interests: None Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 25 May 2024

Aileen Hetherton, School of Postgraduate Studies, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, D02 YN77, Ireland

25 May 2024

Author Response

Dear Professor Kowalski,
Thank you for reviewing the article Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol
We are ... Continue reading Dear Professor Kowalski,
Thank you for reviewing the article Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol
We are delighted to have received approval status from you and thank you for your commentary on our published work.
Kind Regards
Aileen Hetherton
Dear Professor Kowalski,
Thank you for reviewing the article Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol
We are delighted to have received approval status from you and thank you for your commentary on our published work.
Kind Regards
Aileen Hetherton
Competing Interests: None Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 28 Feb 2024

Amy Drahota, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, England, UK

Leah Fullegar, University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, England, UK; University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, England, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15090.r38011

Overall, this was a clearly written paper outlining the protocol for a realist synthesis on the use of intentional rounding in acute hospitals. The realist synthesis methodology is well referenced in the protocol; This is an appropriate method for the research topic. The inclusion of stage 6 (theory refinement with stakeholders) is a key stage in realist methodologies and good to see in the plan. We have a few key aspects of feedback for consideration, itemised below:

Introduction:

1. Paragraph 3. Maybe worth highlighting where the costs/figures being discussed are associated with all falls (including community-based falls), and the relationship of this to in-patient falls, given the focus of the review is on preventing hospital-based falls.

2. Paragraph 4. There has been updated world guidelines published in Age & Ageing (Ref [1]) that might be beneficial to cite where NICE 2013 are cited.

3. Paragraph 4. It would be worth citing the Cochrane review on preventing falls in hospitals, which is more up-to-date than the AHRQ 2013 (Ref [2]).

4. Paragraph 8. Could perhaps signpost here that this publication sets out the protocol for the realist synthesis, and the second phase will be set out in future publications. Later on in the paper (see comment 11 below) it sometimes becomes confusing when the second phase is discussed within the realist synthesis methods.

Rationale and existing reviews:

5. The rationale for the review could be further strengthened to explain how this review relates to Sims et al (2018) and explicitly indicate the gap in knowledge that necessitates the proposed review. By the end of the report it becomes clearer that this is an update of Sims (2018), however the paper would benefit from explaining this earlier on (and why there’s a need for an update), and to explain any ways in which this realist synthesis differs.

6. Where it is stated that there has been no study in Ireland, is that in reference to primary evidence or to a realist synthesis having not yet been conducted in Ireland? Does that mean that this review is only going to focus on Irish primary research evidence, or that having the review undertaken in Ireland is going to shape the findings in some way that’s important? It’s currently a bit tricky to follow the line of argument as to why no study having yet been conducted in Ireland justifies this new review. It feels like perhaps this is a justification for the planned realist evaluation that is to follow in phase 2, rather than a justification for the synthesis, but it’s currently unclear.

Realist synthesis methods:

7. The line of argument around assessing resources and cost is a bit difficult to follow in this section. Some of the writing and referencing appears to be more related to phase 2 (the realist evaluation) rather than this realist synthesis. We suggest this is reviewed to focus more specifically on the incorporation of economic data into the realist synthesis.

Research aim and objectives:

8. The part of the aim on “promote stakeholder engagement in IR” comes as a bit of a surprise, having read the introduction/rationale, as stakeholder engagement isn’t explicitly mentioned up until this point, so it’s unclear what is being referred to here.

9. The objectives appear clear, however objective 5 does not seem to relate to the aim; would it be worth revising the aim to incorporate the issue of resource use/costs?

Stage one: clarifying scope and developing an initial programme theory

10. The stages of the review seem logical and fit with realist synthesis theory, however some clarity and reorganisation may be helpful in the protocol. Much of the information under the stage one heading describes the search strategy (snowballing) rather than explaining how the IPT will be developed and used. This section also states that the authors will be using the same search strategy as the existing realist synthesis on this topic, indicating they are aiming to update the existing review. This could do with clarifying earlier (see feedback point 5).

11. It’s slightly confusing to discuss the two stages in this section. Does the synthesis have two phases (as stated) or is it that the overall project has two phases (i.e. a realist synthesis and realist evaluation)? It might be clearer simply to focus on stage one (the synthesis) here in this methods section, rather than referring to later stages of the project.

12. Reference is made here to the inclusion/exclusion criteria being necessarily broad, however it is not yet clearly articulated what those eligibility criteria are. Consider where best to present the information on eligibility criteria (see comment 10 above).

13. Will the initial programme theory be adapted from Sims et al (2018) or developed from scratch?

Stage 2: search strategy

14. The inclusion and exclusion criteria do not include any mention of stakeholder engagement, patient safety outcomes, falls, or cost effectiveness – all of which have been discussed as focal points for this review. It would be helpful to clarify what is being investigated. Are there any limits placed on country, and dates?

Stage 4: data extraction

15. The data extraction section states that the programme theories established in the existing realist review will be used but does not state how, this might fit better under Stage 1.

16. This section also states only studies from 2016 to 2022 will be included, this information should be with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The justification for this should also be clarified. Is it necessary to state 2022 as the upper date? What if newer research is discovered during the review process – will this not be eligible?

To summarise, this was an enjoyable protocol to read. We suggest it could be improved further by strengthening the rationale, looking at the organisation of where content is being presented and enhancing the clarity around the eligibility criteria. We wish you well with this interesting and important research.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Montero-Odasso M, van der Velde N, Martin FC, Petrovic M, et al.: World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative.Age Ageing. 2022; 51 (9). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Cameron ID, Dyer SM, Panagoda CE, Murray GR, et al.: Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 9 (9): CD005465 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: falls prevention; health & care of older adults; systematic reviews; realist synthesis.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 18 Jun 2024

Aileen Hetherton, School of Postgraduate Studies, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, D02 YN77, Ireland

18 Jun 2024

Author Response

We wish to thank you for your very thorough and insightful feedback on this protocol paper.
We have taken your sixteen points in to consideration and made amendments accordingly.
Your ... Continue reading We wish to thank you for your very thorough and insightful feedback on this protocol paper.
We have taken your sixteen points in to consideration and made amendments accordingly.
Your feedback and suggestions have been greatly appreciated and we hope the second version has addressed the concerns that you have highlighted.
We welcome any further feedback on this paper to ensure it is valid and will inform a scientifically sound realist synthesis study.
Once again thank you
We wish to thank you for your very thorough and insightful feedback on this protocol paper.
We have taken your sixteen points in to consideration and made amendments accordingly.
Your feedback and suggestions have been greatly appreciated and we hope the second version has addressed the concerns that you have highlighted.
We welcome any further feedback on this paper to ensure it is valid and will inform a scientifically sound realist synthesis study.
Once again thank you
Competing Interests: None to disclose Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Jun 2024

Aileen Hetherton, School of Postgraduate Studies, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, D02 YN77, Ireland

18 Jun 2024

Author Response

We wish to thank you for your very thorough and insightful feedback on this protocol paper.
We have taken your sixteen points in to consideration and made amendments accordingly.
Your ... Continue reading We wish to thank you for your very thorough and insightful feedback on this protocol paper.
We have taken your sixteen points in to consideration and made amendments accordingly.
Your feedback and suggestions have been greatly appreciated and we hope the second version has addressed the concerns that you have highlighted.
We welcome any further feedback on this paper to ensure it is valid and will inform a scientifically sound realist synthesis study.
Once again thank you
We wish to thank you for your very thorough and insightful feedback on this protocol paper.
We have taken your sixteen points in to consideration and made amendments accordingly.
Your feedback and suggestions have been greatly appreciated and we hope the second version has addressed the concerns that you have highlighted.
We welcome any further feedback on this paper to ensure it is valid and will inform a scientifically sound realist synthesis study.
Once again thank you
Competing Interests: None to disclose Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 01 Dec 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3	4	5
Version 3 (revision) 21 Aug 24				read	read
Version 2 (revision) 18 Jun 24	read		read
Version 1 01 Dec 23	read	read	read

Amy Drahota, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Leah Fullegar, University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, UK; University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, UK
Sonya Kowalski, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, USA
Ruth Harris, King's College London, London, UK

Sarah Sims, : King's College London, London, UK

Mary Leamy, King's College London, London, UK
Alice Hemenway, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA
Janet Long, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

20 Dec 2024 | for Version 3

Janet Long, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

7 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

This is a protocol for a realist synthesis of intentional rounding as an intervention to address falls in hospitals. Falls have been a costly adverse event (in terms of human suffering, as well as money and resources) that have persisted in spite of decades of targeted interventions. Building on previous work that is now dated, they will determine what contextual factors are associated with desired outcomes. References are current and authoritative in this field showing their firm understanding of realist methodologies. I have noted the previous comments and responses. I think the protocol is acceptable and good quality. I wish them all the best in the execution of the study.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Health systems research, Implementation science, knowledge translation, realist evaluation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

10 Oct 2024 | for Version 3

Alice Hemenway, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The article describes a planned review of intentional rounding, focusing on what works for whom, in what certain circumstances, and in what settings. They describe the plans for a realist synthesis process in 6 stages (identify the question, search, quality appraisal, data extraction, synthesizing and dissemination). The article provides a level of detail of the methodology to allow replication.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Internal medicine, use of theory in pharmacy services

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

22 Jul 2024 | for Version 2

Ruth Harris, King's College London, London, England, UK

Sarah Sims, : King's College London, London, London, UK

Mary Leamy, King's College London (Ringgold ID: 4616), King's College London, London, UK

24 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

We have reviewed the revisions and it appears that the authors have not responded to our comments. Therefore, we are unable to amend our previous status of 'Not Approved.' We would be happy to review the paper when they address our comments.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

23 Aug 2024

Aileen Hetherton, School of Postgraduate Studies, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, D02 YN77, Ireland

The realist synthesis protocol has kindly been reviewed by our colleagues in King’s College, London. Professor Ruth Harris, Sarah Sims and Dr Mary Leamy have provided valuable commentary and feedback to enable improvements in this protocol.
There has been a revision of the section regarding the origins of Intentional Rounding (IR) in the USA by the Studer Group in 2007. The reference list and paper has been updated with two more references including a more recent publication by Leamy et al., (2023), which has been published since version 1 of this protocol. This paper has provided greater focus for the proposed realist synthesis. The rationale for this review has been updated to reflect how this realist synthesis is intended to further refine the programme theory which was published by Leamy et al (2023). The two programme theories which were supported in the evaluation in hospital ward settings have been a starting point for the current realist synthesis and have provided valuable insight into the implementation of IR at the frontline in hospital wards. There has been 32 more international research studies on intentional rounding in acute care settings since the literature search prior to publication of the realist evaluation in 2019 and it is intended to incorporate this research into the current synthesis to build on and refine the programme theory. The methods section has also been updated based on the valuable commentary.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interest

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

18 Views

09 Jul 2024 | for Version 2

Amy Drahota, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, England, UK

Leah Fullegar, University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, England, UK; University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, England, UK

18 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you for considering our previous feedback. We have no further comments to make.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

falls prevention; health & care of older adults; systematic reviews; realist synthesis.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

40 Views

12 Apr 2024 | for Version 1

Ruth Harris, King's College London, London, England, UK

Sarah Sims, : King's College London, London, London, UK

Mary Leamy, King's College London (Ringgold ID: 4616), King's College London, London, UK

40 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

The introduction to the proposal focuses the review on intentional rounding as a multifactorial intervention to reduce falls. Although this is an assumption made in many published papers, the research evidence for this is very weak due to serious methodological and/or reporting weaknesses. In most healthcare organisations there are several interventions which are implemented to reduce falls, e.g., falls assessments, enhanced care, bay tagging, medicine review etc., and so it would be very difficult to identify the impact of intentional rounding. Furthermore, no evidence was found to support this in our evaluation of intentional rounding. There is a need to provide a clear rationale to focus on falls and not other outcomes (intended or unintended).
It would be useful to say more about the intentional rounding intervention, its origins and the reasons for adoption. For example, there is no mention of the Studer group and there is no reference for the "landmark US study in 2006" that is referred to.
Given that there is an existing realist synthesis it would be helpful to provide an idea of how many new papers about intentional rounding have been published since 2016 to provide a rationale for the need to repeat/update it.
The realist synthesis is presented as the preparation for a realist evaluation study in acute hospital settings in Ireland. It is stated that there is an evidence gap in how, why and in what context IR works and that it is necessary to learn more about what it is about IR that enhances patient safety and prevents harmful outcomes for patients. However, although the previous realist synthesis and evaluation are frequently cited, this protocol paper doesn’t report the findings of either or provide details of how this proposed realist synthesis builds on the programme theory identified in the previous review and tested in the realist evaluation study. In our realist evaluation on acute hospital wards in England we found little or no evidence that the intervention works in the way it was expected to work or had an impact on patient safety.
It is not completely clear, but it appears that the plan is to repeat the realist review to generate a programme theory rather than update/refine the existing programme theory. We think it would be more useful to continue refining the programme theory of intentional rounding from the current empirically informed programme theory. We have a recent paper which provides more detail of the realist evaluation which may be useful (Leamy et al 2023) [Refer ref 1]

Methods

Stage one: clarifying scope and developing initial programme theory – the authors state that they are undertaking a realist to identify existing theories of IR but as mentioned above they do not share the programme theories that have already identified in the previous synthesis. They state the ‘the references and citations in the 2018 realist synthesis and 2019 evaluation papers on IR in the hospital setting by Sims et al., and Harris et al., respectively will be used as a starting point for review of the literature and theory development.’ This suggests that they plan to start the review from scratch rather than starting from existing realist programme theories and searching for new evidence to support or refute them.
Use of the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools – It would be useful to provide a rationale for the use of these tools. In realist approaches, the quality of evidence is usually assessed a different way focussing on the quality of evidence on refining understanding of the intervention’s programme theory [refer Ref 2]
It would be helpful to give a rationale for why the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Checklist was selected as a framework for data extraction. Not all the studies reviewed will be implementation studies. Will this tool support extraction of the different types of data/information that will help explain the nuances of explaining how intentional rounding works and the contexts that influence this?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Nursing, realist synthesis and evaluation, intentional rounding, complex interventions

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

35 Views

07 Mar 2024 | for Version 1

Sonya Kowalski, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan, USA

35 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Fall Risk Prevention Strategies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

47 Views

28 Feb 2024 | for Version 1

Amy Drahota, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, England, UK

Leah Fullegar, University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, England, UK; University of Portsmouth (Ringgold ID: 6697), Portsmouth, England, UK

47 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

falls prevention; health & care of older adults; systematic reviews; realist synthesis.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Preventing Falls in Hospitals: A Toolkit for Improving Quality of Care. 2013. Reference Source

[2] Anderson A, Hardwick R: Realism and Resources: Towards more explanatory economic evaluation. Evaluation (Lond). 2016; 22(3): 323–341. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] Brennan N, Bryce M, Pearson M, et al.: Understanding how appraisal of doctors produces its effects: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(6): e005466. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] Christiansen A, Coventry L, Graham R, et al.: Intentional rounding in acute healthcare settings: A systematic mixed-method review. J Clin Nurs. 2018; 27(9–10): 1759–1792. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] Coast JH, Hensher M, Mulligan JA, et al.: Conceptual and Practical difficulties with the economic evaluation of health services developments. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000; 5(1): 42–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] Coles E, Wells M, Maxwell M, et al.: The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: what works, for whom and in what setting? Protocol for a realist review. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1): 168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] Duddy C, Wong G: Grand rounds in methodology: when are realist reviews useful, and what a 'good' realist reviews look like? BMJ Qual Saf. 2023; 32(3): 173–180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] Florence CS, Bergen G, Atherly A, et al.: Medical Costs of Fatal and Nonfatal Falls in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018; 66(4): 693–698. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] Ford JA, Gkiouleka A, Kuhn I, et al.: Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE). BMJ Open. 2021; 11(6): e052746. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] Gerrish K, Keen C, Palfreyman J: Learning from a clinical microsystems quality improvement initiative to promote integrated care across a falls care pathway. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2019; 20: e62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] Gordon AL, Devi R, Williams C, et al.: Protocol for a realist review of General Practitioners’ Role in Advancing Practice in Care Homes (GRAPE study). BMJ Open. 2020; 10(6): e036221. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] Hardwick R, Pearson M, Byng R, et al.: The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care: protocol for a realist review. Syst Rev. 2013; 2: 12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] Harris R, Sims S, Levenson R, et al.: What aspects of intentional rounding work in hospital wards, for whom and in what circumstances? A realist evaluation protocol. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(1): e014776. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] Harris R, Sims S, Leamy M, et al.: Intentional rounding in hospital wards to improve regular interaction and engagement between nurses and patients: a realist evaluation. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2019; 7(35): 1–168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Health Service Executive, National Council on Ageing and Older People, Department of Health and Children: Strategy to Prevent Falls and Fractures in Ireland’s Ageing Population. Report of the National Steering Group on the Prevention of Falls in Older People and the Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis throughout Life. 2008. Reference Source

[16] Health Service Executive: Service user Falls: A Practical Guide for Review, Version 2, 2022. Incident Management Team, Quality and Patient Safety Directorate. 2022; (Accessed December 2022). Reference Source

[17] Hunter R, Gorely T, Beattie M, et al.: Realist Review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2022; 15(1): 242–265. Publisher Full Text

[18] Lucas B: Proactive patient rounding: developing nursing practice to improve the quality of patient care. London, Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust, 2010. Reference Source

[19] McConnell T, Burden J, Duddy C, et al.: Integrating palliative care and heart failure: a protocol for a realist synthesis (PalliatHeartSynthesis). BMJ Open. 2022; 12(1): e058848. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] Meade CM, Bursell AL, Ketelsen L: Effects of nursing rounds: On patients’ call light use, satisfaction, and safety. Am J Nurs. 2006; 106(9): 58–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Executive summary (HC 947). The Stationery Office, 2013. Reference Source

[22] Molnar A, O'Campo P, Ng E, et al.: Protocol: Realist synthesis of the impact of unemployment insurance policies on poverty and health. Eval Program Plann. 2015; 48: 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Falls: Assessment and Prevention of Falls in Older People. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); Jun, 2013.

[24] OECD: The economics of patient safety: From analysis to action. Health Working papers No. 145. 2022; Accessed 20th April, 2023. Reference Source

[25] Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al.: Realist Synthesis: an Introduction. ESRC Research Methods programme. Methods Paper 2, 2004; (Accessed November 2022). Reference Source

[26] Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al.: Realist review -- a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1: 21–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, et al.: Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017; 356: i6795. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] Power J, Gilmore B, Vallières F, et al.: Adapting health interventions for local fit when scaling-up: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(1): e022084. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] Ryan L, Jackson D, Woods C, et al.: Intentional Rounding - An Integrative literature Review. J Adv Nurs. 2019; 75(6): 1151–1161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] Sims S, Leamy M, Davies N, et al.: Realist Synthesis of Intentional Rounding in Hospital wards: Exploring the evidence of what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018; 27(9): 743–757. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] Snelling P: Intentional rounding: a critique of the evidence. Nurs Times. 2013; 109(20): 19–21. PubMed Abstract

[32] State Claims Agency: State Claims Agency Risk Research Series Report 01: Slips, Trips and Falls A 5-year review of incidents and claims across the State sector (2014-2018). 2019. Reference Source

[33] Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al.: RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013a; 11: 21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[34] Wong G, Westhorp G, Greenhalgh J, et al.: Quality and reporting standards, resources, training materials and information for realist evaluation: the RAMESES II project. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017; 5(28). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] Wong G, Westhorp G, Manzano A, et al.: RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016; 14(1): 96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R, et al.: Realist Synthesis: Training Materials. 2013b. Reference Source

[37] World Health Organisation (WHO): Falls Fact Sheet. April, 2021. Reference Source

Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Rationale and existing reviews

Realist synthesis methods

Research aim and objectives

Methods

Box 2. Planned Stages of Realist Synthesis (Hunter et al., 2022) (Pawson et al., 2004)

Stage one: clarify scope and developing an initial programme theory

Stage two: search strategy

Box 1. Search Strategy

Stage three: selection and appraisal

Stage four: data extraction

Table 1. Data Extraction Tool - Adapted from the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Checklist (Pinnock et al., 2017).

Stage five: data synthesis and analysis

Stage six: theory refinement with stakeholders

Dissemination of findings

Discussion

Data availability

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Contextual factors and intentional rounding in acute hospitals: understanding what works, for whom, in what settings: a realist synthesis protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Rationale and existing reviews

Realist synthesis methods

Research aim and objectives

Methods

Box 2. Planned Stages of Realist Synthesis (Hunter et al., 2022) (Pawson et al., 2004)

Stage one: clarify scope and developing an initial programme theory

Stage two: search strategy

Box 1. Search Strategy

Stage three: selection and appraisal

Stage four: data extraction

Table 1. Data Extraction Tool - Adapted from the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Checklist (Pinnock et al., 2017).

Stage five: data synthesis and analysis

Stage six: theory refinement with stakeholders

Dissemination of findings

Discussion

Data availability

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!