OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors that affect the quality of interactions between nursing personnel and the informal caregivers of people with memory disorders.
METHODS: Systematic review and metasummary of qualitative empirical research.
METHODS: The literature search targeted studies concerning the professional care interactions between nursing personnel and the informal caregivers of people with progressive memory disorders. The search in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus covered records from the earliest possible date up to December 2020. The data were summarised using a qualitative metasummary method. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to validate the reporting process.
RESULTS: Ten articles were included. As presented in 33 statements, the factors affecting the quality of interactions were related to (1) expectations, (2) memory disorders, (3) interaction strategies, (4) time and place of interactions and (5) organisational aspects. Meeting the individual interactional needs of informal caregivers is recommended. The results provide guidance for improving the quality of interactions between nursing personnel and informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Classification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit the outcomes of routine care.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess published systems used to characterise ulcers in people with diabetes to determine which should be recommended to (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) characterise people with infection and/or peripheral arterial disease, and (d) audit to compare outcomes in different populations. This systematic review is part of the process of developing the 2023 guidelines to classify foot ulcers from the International Working Group on Diabetic Foot.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published up to December 2021 which evaluated the association, accuracy or reliability of systems used to classify ulcers in people with diabetes. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of >80% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer.
RESULTS: We found 28 systems addressed in 149 studies. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for each classification was low or very low, with 19 (68%) of the classifications being assessed by ≤ 3 studies. The most frequently validated system was the one from Meggitt-Wagner, but the articles validating this system focused mainly on the association between the different grades and amputation. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer-free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalisation, limb amputation, mortality, and cost.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations, this systematic review provided sufficient evidence to support recommendations on the use of six particular systems in specific clinical scenarios.

Classification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit outcomes of routine care. The aim of this study was to assess published systems of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) to determine which should be recommended for a given clinical purpose. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of > 75% people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. Each study was assessed for internal and external validity and reliability. Eight key factors associated with failure to heal were identified from large clinical series and each classification was scored on the number of these key factors included. Classifications were then arranged according to their proposed purpose into one or more of four groups: (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) aid clinical management decision making for an individual case, and (d) audit to compare outcome in different populations. Thirty-seven classification systems were identified of which 18 were excluded for not being validated in a population of >75% DFUs. The included 19 classifications had different purposes and were derived from different populations. Only six were developed in multicentre studies, just 13 were externally validated, and very few had evaluated reliability.Classifications varied in the number (4 - 30), and definition of individual items and the diagnostic tools required. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer-free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalization, limb amputation, mortality, and cost. Despite the limitations, there was sufficient evidence to make recommendations on the use of particular classifications for the indications listed above.

Social network analysis quantifies and visualizes relationships between and among individuals or organizations. Applications in the health sector remain underutilized. This systematic review seeks to analyze what social network methods have been used to study professional communication and performance among healthcare providers.
Ten databases were searched from 1990 through April 2016, yielding 5970 articles screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers who extracted data and critically appraised each study. Inclusion criteria were study of health care worker professional communication, network methods used, and patient outcomes measured. The search identified 10 systematic reviews. The final set of articles had their citations prospectively and retrospectively screened. We used narrative synthesis to summarize the findings.
The six articles meeting our inclusion criteria described unique health sectors: one at primary healthcare level and five at tertiary level; five conducted in the USA, one in Australia. Four studies looked at multidisciplinary healthcare workers, while two focused on nurses. Two studies used mixed methods, four quantitative methods only, and one involved an experimental design. Four administered network surveys, one coded observations, and one used an existing survey to extract network data. Density and centrality were the most common network metrics although one study did not calculate any network properties and only visualized the network. Four studies involved tests of significance, and two used modeling methods. Social network analysis software preferences were evenly split between ORA and UCINET. All articles meeting our criteria were published in the past 5 years, suggesting that this remains in clinical care a nascent but emergent research area. There was marked diversity across all six studies in terms of research questions, health sector area, patient outcomes, and network analysis methods.
Network methods are underutilized for the purposes of understanding professional communication and performance among healthcare providers. The paucity of articles meeting our search criteria, lack of studies in middle- and low-income contexts, limited number in non-tertiary settings, and few longitudinal, experimental designs, or network interventions present clear research gaps.
PROSPERO CRD42015019328.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how nurses experience caring for people with intellectual disability in an acute care setting.
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in the care of people with intellectual disability in hospital are primarily based upon the experiences of people with intellectual disability and their caregivers. Little is known about the experiences of registered nurses caring for people with intellectual disability, yet the experiences of nurses in delivering care largely determine the quality of care experienced by people with intellectual disability and their caregivers.
METHODS: A narrative literature review using electronic database searches was conducted using variants of the terms disability, nursing and acute care.
RESULTS: Through our reading of the recent literature describing the experiences of nurses caring for people with intellectual disability in an acute care setting, we have identified three themes: (1) nurses feel underprepared when caring for patients with intellectual disability, (2) nurses experience challenges when communicating with people with intellectual disability and (3) nurses have ambiguous expectations of paid and unpaid caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS: The enablers of and barriers to the delivery of nursing care in acute care settings need to be made explicit and researchers and nurses need to collaborate in the development, implementation and evaluation of care delivery strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurses need to be adequately prepared to care for people with intellectual disability. Preparation should include dealing with the complexities of communicating with people with intellectual disability and practical experience of doing so in clinical and educational environments that ensure the safety and dignity of nurses and people with intellectual disability. Nurses need supportive strategies for developing therapeutic relationships with a range of informal and formal caregivers.