Marilyn Macdonald

Bio: Marilyn Macdonald is an academic researcher from Dalhousie University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 15, co-authored 55 publications receiving 4832 citations. Previous affiliations of Marilyn Macdonald include The Joanna Briggs Institute & Queen's University.

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

Abstract: 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.

Assessing adverse events among home care clients in three Canadian provinces using chart review

Abstract: Objectives The objectives of this study were to document the incidence rate and types of adverse events (AEs) among home care (HC) clients in Canada; identify factors contributing to these AEs; and determine to what extent evidence of completion of incident reports were documented in charts where AEs were found. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study based on expert chart review of a random sample of 1200 charts of clients discharged in fiscal year 2009–2010 from publicly funded HC programmes in Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia, Canada. Results The results show that 4.2% (95% CI 3.0% to 5.4%) of HC patients discharged in a 12-month period experienced an AE. Adjusting to account for clients with lengths of stay in HC of less than 1 year, the AE incidence rate per client-year was 10.1% (95% CI 8.4% to 11.8%); 56% of AEs were judged preventable. The most frequent AEs were injuries from falls, wound infections, psychosocial, behavioural or mental health problems and adverse outcomes from medication errors. More comorbid conditions (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.26) and a lower instrumental activities of daily living score (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.04) were associated with a higher risk of experiencing an AE. Clients’ decisions or actions contributed to 48.4% of AEs, informal caregivers 20.4% of AEs, and healthcare personnel 46.2% of AEs. Only 17.3% of charts with an AE contained documentation that indicated an incident report was completed, while 4.8% of charts without an AE had such documentation.

Seeing the cage: stigma and its potential to inform the concept of the difficult patient.

Abstract: The phenomenon of the difficult patient is well known to nurses. Nursing research concerning this phenomenon is limited. The existing research focuses primarily on describing the characteristics of the difficult patient and tends to locate the problem within the patient. This has resulted in a perpetuation of the phenomenon of the difficult patient and has created a cage effect in which nurses' thinking about this phenomenon rests. The purpose of this article is to explore the concept of the difficult patient. The specific aims are to describe the attributes of the concept; arrive at a tentative definition; summarize the findings of a critical review of the nursing research on the concept, conducted within the framework of Goffman's conceptualization of stigma (Goffman E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1963.); and discuss the utility of Goffman's work to further illuminate our understanding of the difficult patient. Particular emphasis was placed on the implications for nursing research. Clinical implications are also included.

Patient Involvement in Patient Safety: A Qualitative Study of Nursing Staff and Patient Perceptions

Abstract: The risk associated with receiving health care has called for an increased focus on the role of patients in helping to improve safety. Recent research has highlighted that patient involvement in patient safety practices may be influenced by patient perceptions of patient safety practices and the perceptions of their health care providers. The objective of this research was to describe patient involvement in patient safety practices by exploring patient and nursing staff perceptions of safety. Qualitative focus groups were conducted with a convenience sample of nursing staff and patients who had previously completed a patient safety survey in 2 tertiary hospital sites in Eastern Canada. Six focus groups (June 2011 to January 2012) were conducted and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: (1) wanting control, (2) feeling connected, (3) encountering roadblocks, and (4) sharing responsibility for safety. Both patient and nursing staff participants highlighted the importance of building a personal connection as a precursor to ensuring that patients are involved in their care and safety. However, perceptions of provider stress and nursing staff workload often reduced the ability of the nursing staff and patient participants to connect with one another and promote involvement. Current strategies aimed at increasing patient awareness of patient safety may not be enough. The findings suggest that providing the context for interaction to occur between nursing staff and patients as well as targeted interventions aimed at increasing patient control may be needed to ensure patient involvement in patient safety.

Home care safety perspectives from clients, family members, caregivers and paid providers.

Abstract: There is a growing demand for home care services in Canada. Yet, overwhelmingly, research on patient safety has focused on institutional settings. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute convened a Core Safety in Home Care Team of researchers and decision-makers to identify priority research areas and to advance patient safety research in home care. As part of this initiative to investigate and extend our understanding of home care safety, key informant interviews were carried out with a wide range of respondents including researchers, decision-makers, service providers and regulators. In-depth audiotaped interviews were conducted in two Canadian provinces. Interpretive descriptive analyses revealed three main themes: the meaning of home care, safety concerns and the place of technology in the future of home care. Given the multidimensionality and complexity of home care as well as the challenges and strains involved, the risk to all the players is becoming increasingly evident.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis

Abstract: การวจยเชงคณภาพ เปนเครองมอสำคญอยางหนงสำหรบทำความเขาใจสงคมและพฤตกรรมมนษย การวจยแบบการสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล กเปนหนงในหลายระเบยบวธการวจยเชงคณภาพทกำลงไดรบความสนใจ และเปนทนยมเพมสงขนเรอยๆ จากนกวชาการ และนกวจยในสาขาสงคมศาสตร และศาสตรอนๆ เชน พฤตกรรมศาสตร สงคมวทยา สาธารณสขศาสตร พยาบาลศาสตร จตวทยาสงคม ศกษาศาสตร รฐศาสตร และสารสนเทศศกษา ดงนน หนงสอเรอง “ConstructingGrounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” หรอ “การสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล:แนวทางการปฏบตผานการวเคราะหเชงคณภาพ” จะชวยใหผอานมความรความเขาใจถงพฒนาการของปฏบตการวจยแบบสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล ตลอดจนแนวทาง และกระบวนการปฏบตการวจยอยางเปนระบบ จงเปนหนงสอทควรคาแกการอานโดยเฉพาะนกวจยรนใหม เพอเปนแนวทางในการนำความรความเขาใจไประยกตในงานวจยของตน อกทงนกวจยผเชยวชาญสามารถอานเพอขยายมโนทศนดานวจยใหกวางขวางขน

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Abstract: Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.