Exploration of the Evidence on Discharge From Hospital to Home for Children With Medical Complexity and Their Parents: A Review of the Literature

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

ABSTRACT

Background

Children with medical complexity (CMC) require complex care that parents must independently provide and manage when discharged home from hospital. It is important that parents are adequately prepared to safely transition home from hospital with their child.

Method

A synthesis of findings from research articles was conducted to map and summarize available evidence on CMC and their parents' experiences of discharge from hospital to home. A total of 32 studies were included in this review. Thematic analysis was used to analyze and describe the data.

Results

The following key themes were developed during data analysis: preparation and readiness, aids for discharge, overwhelmed with the transition, frustration with time to get home, difficulties with transitions and discharge interventions.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate the importance of taking steps to ensure CMC and their parents undergo a thorough and planned discharge process to prepare parents to confidently provide safe care to their children in the home. Approaches and strategies for comprehensive and safe discharge are provided.

Related collections

Most cited references 56

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

0 comments Cited 10132 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Micah D.J. Peters, Christina M Godfrey, Hanan Khalil … (2015)

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

0 comments Cited 2393 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

Andrea Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin … (2016)

Background Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. Methods We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. Results After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. Conclusion The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 497 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Lyndsay Mackay:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0476-0667

lyndsay.mackay@twu.ca

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Child Care Health Dev

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Child Care Health Dev

Journal ID (doi): 10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2214

Journal ID (publisher-id): CCH

Title: Child

Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )

ISSN (Print): 0305-1862

ISSN (Electronic): 1365-2214

Publication date (Electronic): 22 January 2025

Publication date (Print): January 2025

Volume: 51

Issue: 1 ( doiID: 10.1111/cch.v51.1 )

Electronic Location Identifier: e70031

Affiliations

[ ¹ ] School of Nursing Trinity Western University Langley British Columbia Canada

[ ² ] Department of Pediatrics University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada

[ ³ ] Alberta Children's Hospital Calgary Alberta Canada

[ ⁴ ] Library and Cultural Resources University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada

Author notes

[*] [* ] Correspondence:

Lyndsay Mackay ( lyndsay.mackay@ 123456twu.ca )

Author information

Lyndsay Mackay https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0476-0667

Article

Publisher ID: CCH70031 Other ID: CCH-2024-0491.R3

DOI: 10.1111/cch.70031

PMC ID: 11754706

PubMed ID: 39843972

SO-VID: a886c7c0-7bf0-4c55-88d5-9f0f36ce1c1f

License:

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

History

Date revision received : 12 December 2024

Date received : 31 July 2024

Date accepted : 13 December 2024

Page count

Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 20, Words: 11700

Funding

Funded by: O'Brien Institute for Public Health , doi 10.13039/100012469;

Funded by: Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary

Funded by: Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute , doi 10.13039/100012856;

Custom metadata

source-schema-version-number 2.0

cover-date January 2025

details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.5.2 mode:remove_FC converted:22.01.2025

ScienceOpen disciplines: Pediatrics

Keywords: paediatric,review,service organization,transition

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Pediatrics

Keywords: paediatric, review, service organization, transition

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Most referenced authors 910

See all reference authors

Exploration of the Evidence on Discharge From Hospital to Home for Children With Medical Complexity and Their Parents: A Review of the Literature

Read this article at

ABSTRACT

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Related collections

Pediatric Pulse: Advancing Neonatal and Child Health

Most cited references 56

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 84

Most referenced authors 910