RNSystematic ReviewNursing open2023

Quality of interaction between the nursing personnel and the informal caregivers of people with memory disorders: A systematic review and metasummary of qualitative studies.

Johanna Rannikko, Jenny Paananen, Minna Stolt and 1 others

PMID 37828798

WHAT IT FOUND

Nurses and family caregivers of people with memory disorders described interactions as better when expectations were clear, caregivers were recognised, and information was shared.

Emotional burden, staff turnover and no named contact person made interactions harder.

Key findings

01Conflicting expectations about roles, goals and care opportunities were described as causing conflict, frustration, misunderstanding and dissatisfaction.

02Informal caregivers' emotional burden was described as inhibiting their interactions with nursing personnel.

03Open and proactive communication was described as improving interaction, while lack of communication led to assumptions, misinterpretation and frustration.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This is a metasummary of qualitative studies, so it describes themes about nurse-caregiver interaction, not effects of a tested communication programme. The review did not include care recipients' own views. Only 10 studies and 596 participants were summarised, and the studies varied widely in setting and method. Seven of the 10 primary studies were more than a decade old, so current practice may differ. The protocol was not pre-registered or published, and reviewers had to decide which sentences counted as findings. Only English peer-reviewed studies were included, and grey literature was excluded. Frequency and intensity percentages show how often themes appeared across studies, not how much they change patient care. Organisational themes were fragmented and based on lower frequencies than the strongest themes.

Declared interests

The review was funded by the Academy of Finland, grant number 331555, and by Turku University Hospital, special grant in aid VTR 13238. The funders did not influence conducting or reporting the review, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the 80% frequency as an effect on care quality. It shows how often that theme appeared across studies. This review summarises experiences, not tested interventions or patient outcomes.

Read it on PubMed →