Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Change Staff Care Practices in Order to Improve Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We systematically reviewed interventions that attempted to change staff practice to improve long-term care resident outcomes.

Methods

Studies met criteria if they used a control group, included 6 or more nursing home units and quantitatively assessed staff behavior or resident outcomes. Intervention components were coded as including education material, training, audit and feedback, monitoring, champions, team meetings, policy or procedures and organizational restructure.

Results

Sixty-three unique studies were broadly grouped according to clinical domain-oral health (3 studies), hygiene and infection control (3 studies), nutrition (2 studies), nursing home acquired pneumonia (2 studies), depression (2 studies) appropriate prescribing (7 studies), reduction of physical restraints (3 studies), management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (6 studies), falls reduction and prevention (11 studies), quality improvement (9 studies), philosophy of care (10 studies) and other (5 studies). No single intervention component, combination of, or increased number of components was associated with greater likelihood of positive outcomes. Studies with positive outcomes for residents also tended to change staff behavior, however changing staff behavior did not necessarily improve resident outcomes. Studies targeting specific care tasks (e.g. oral care, physical restraints) were more likely to produce positive outcomes than those requiring global practice changes (e.g. care philosophy). Studies using intervention theories were more likely to be successful. Program logic was rarely articulated, so it was often unclear whether there was a coherent connection between the intervention components and measured outcomes. Many studies reported barriers relating to staff (e.g. turnover, high workload, attitudes) or organizational factors (e.g. funding, resources, logistics).

Conclusion

Changing staff practice in nursing homes is possible but complex. Interventionists should consider barriers and feasibility of program components to impact on each intended outcome.

SUBMITTER: Low LF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4641718 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Change Staff Care Practices in Order to Improve Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes.

Low Lee-Fay LF Fletcher Jennifer J Goodenough Belinda B Jeon Yun-Hee YH Etherton-Beer Christopher C MacAndrew Margaret M Beattie Elizabeth E

PloS one 20151111 11

<h4>Background</h4>We systematically reviewed interventions that attempted to change staff practice to improve long-term care resident outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies met criteria if they used a control group, included 6 or more nursing home units and quantitatively assessed staff behavior or resident outcomes. Intervention components were coded as including education material, training, audit and feedback, monitoring, champions, team meetings, policy or procedures and organizational restructur ...[more]

PMID: 26559675

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElder abuse in long-term care is an important public health concern with social, health-related, and economic implications. Staff-to-resident abuse is of particular interest since institutions should protect residents' rights and prevent harm. To provide an up-to date comprehensive overview of staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes, we performed a scoping review considering types of abuse, their prevalence and associated factors, descriptions, experiences, and preventive interventions.MethodsWe performed a scoping review following the framework provided by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO via Ovid, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, we performed free web searching using Google Scholar and checked relevant reviews. Two reviewers independently selected studies. We narratively synthesised the results.ResultsOut of 3876 references retrieved by our search, we included 46 studies in 47 reports. The prevalence rates of abuse varied widely, ranging from 0 to 93% depending on the type of abuse. Associated factors of abuse at the staff, resident, and nursing home level were evaluated inconsistently. Abuse was perceived ambiguous: even though it was considered unacceptable, it was underreported. We found only four studies addressing preventive interventions. Of these, four made recommendations for intervention development. Only one study with an experimental design examined a multi-component intervention including education and mutual support.ConclusionsThe review yielded heterogenous evidence not allowing a concrete conclusion on prevalence and associated factors. However, the results show the significance of the problem and indicate that there are associate factors of abuse that can be influenced by appropriate interventions. These are amongst other staff education, organisational culture, and conditions. Further research should investigate the composition and content of preventive interventions and their potential to reduce abusive behaviours.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of surveillance testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) among staff members in skilled nursing facilities, evidence is limited regarding its relationship with outcomes among facility residents.MethodsUsing data obtained from 2020 to 2022, we performed a retrospective cohort study of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among staff members in 13,424 skilled nursing facilities during three pandemic periods: before vaccine approval, before the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant wave, and during the omicron wave. We assessed staff testing volumes during weeks without Covid-19 cases relative to other skilled nursing facilities in the same county, along with Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents during potential outbreaks (defined as the occurrence of a case after 2 weeks with no cases). We reported adjusted differences in outcomes between high-testing facilities (90th percentile of test volume) and low-testing facilities (10th percentile). The two primary outcomes were the weekly cumulative number of Covid-19 cases and related deaths among residents during potential outbreaks.ResultsDuring the overall study period, 519.7 cases of Covid-19 per 100 potential outbreaks were reported among residents of high-testing facilities as compared with 591.2 cases among residents of low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -71.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -91.3 to -51.6). During the same period, 42.7 deaths per 100 potential outbreaks occurred in high-testing facilities as compared with 49.8 deaths in low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -7.1; 95% CI, -11.0 to -3.2). Before vaccine availability, high- and low-testing facilities had 759.9 cases and 1060.2 cases, respectively, per 100 potential outbreaks (adjusted difference, -300.3; 95% CI, -377.1 to -223.5), along with 125.2 and 166.8 deaths (adjusted difference, -41.6; 95% CI, -57.8 to -25.5). Before the omicron wave, the numbers of cases and deaths were similar in high- and low-testing facilities; during the omicron wave, high-testing facilities had fewer cases among residents, but deaths were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsGreater surveillance testing of staff members at skilled nursing facilities was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents, particularly before vaccine availability.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether facility-reported staff shortages and total staff levels were independently associated with changes in nursing home (NH) outcomes in 2020.DesignLongitudinal cohort study.Setting and participantsA total of 8466 NHs with staffing and outcome data.MethodsThis study used NH COVID-19 Public File (2020), Nursing Home Compare (2019-2020), and Payroll-Based Journal data (2019-2020). Outcome measures included the percentage of long-stay residents in a facility with declines in activities in daily living (ADLs), decreases in mobility, weight loss, and pressure ulcers in 2020 Q2, 2020 Q3, and 2020 Q4. Independent variables were whether NHs reported any shortage of aides or licensed nurses and total staff hours per resident day (HPRD). Separate 2-level (NH, state) Hierarchical Generalized Linear Mixed models examined the association of facility-reported shortages and staff hours with key NH resident outcomes, controlling for NH characteristics and COVID-19 infections.ResultsThe weekly percentage of NHs reporting any staff shortage averaged 20%. Total staff HPRD increased slightly from 3.7 in 2019 to 3.8 in 2020. Health outcomes were stable during 2019 and 2020 Q1 but worsened substantially starting in 2020 Q2. For example, the percentage of residents with mobility loss increased from 16.2% in 2020 Q1 to 27.9% in 2020 Q4. Facility-reported staff shortages were associated with an increase in the proportion of residents with an ADL decline (0.54 percentage points), mobility loss (0.80 percentage points), weight loss (0.22 percentage points), and pressure ulcers (0.22 percentage points) (all P < .01). Total staff HPRD was not associated with changes in any outcomes (all P > .05).Conclusions and implicationsNHs reported worsened health outcomes among long-stay residents in 2020, with worse outcomes found among facilities that reported staff shortages but not among those with lower total staff levels. Facility-reported shortages provide important quality information during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe study aimed to: (i) describe whether culture change (CC) practice implementation related to physical environment, resident-centered care, and staff empowerment increased within the same nursing homes (NHs) over time; and (ii) identify factors associated with observed increases.Research design and methodsThis was a nationally representative panel study of 1,584 U.S. NHs surveyed in 2009/2010 and 2016/2017. Survey data were merged with administrative, NH, and market-level data. Physical environment, staff empowerment, and resident-centered care domain scores were calculated at both time points. Multivariate logistic regression models examined factors associated with domain score increases.ResultsOverall, 22% of NHs increased their physical environment scores over time, 32% their staff empowerment scores, and 44% their resident-centered care scores. However, 32%-68% of NHs with below median baseline scores improved their domain scores over time compared with only 11%-21% of NHs with baseline scores at or above the median. Overall, NHs in states with Medicaid pay-for-performance (with CC components), in community care retirement communities, with special care units and higher occupancy had significantly higher odds of increases in physical environment scores. Only baseline domain scores were associated with increases in staff empowerment and resident-centered care scores.Discussion and implicationsThis is the first nationally representative panel study to assess NH CC adoption. Many NHs increased their CC practices, though numerous others did not. While financial incentives and indicators of financial resources were associated with increase in physical environment scores, factors associated with staff empowerment and resident-centered care improvements remain unclear. Studies are needed to assess whether the observed increases in CC adoption are associated with greater quality of life and care gains for residents and whether there is a threshold effect beyond which the efficacy of additional practice implementation may be less impactful.

Project description:ImportanceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major threat to nursing homes. During the COVID-19 pandemic wave that hit France in March and April 2020, staff members of some French nursing homes decided to confine themselves with their residents on a voluntary basis to reduce the risk of entry of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 into the facility.ObjectiveTo investigate COVID-19-related outcomes in French nursing homes that implemented voluntary staff confinement with residents.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in French nursing homes from March 1 to May 11, 2020. Participants included residents and staff members of the nursing homes where staff participated in voluntary self-confinement as well as those of the facilities for elderly people where staff did not practice self-confinement. Rates of COVID-19 cases and mortality in the cohort of nursing homes with self confinement were compared with those derived from a population-based survey of nursing homes conducted by French health authorities.ExposuresNursing homes with staff who self-confined were identified from the media and included if the confinement period of staff with residents was longer than 7 days.Main outcomes and measuresMortality related to COVID-19 among residents and COVID-19 cases among residents and staff members. COVID-19 was diagnosed by primary care or hospital physicians on the basis of fever and respiratory signs (eg, cough, dyspnea) or a clinical illness compatible with COVID-19; COVID-19 diagnoses were considered confirmed if real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on nasopharyngeal swab was positive and considered possible if the test had not been performed or results were negative. Cases of COVID-19 were recorded by a telephone interview with the directors of nursing homes with staff who self-confined and by a nationwide declaration survey to health authorities for all facilities.ResultsThis study included 17 nursing homes in which 794 staff members confined themselves to the facility with their 1250 residents. The national survey included 9513 facilities with 385 290 staff members and 695 060 residents. Only 1 nursing home with staff who self-confined (5.8%) had cases of COVID-19 among residents, compared with 4599 facilities in the national survey (48.3%) (P < .001). Five residents (0.4%) in the nursing homes with staff who self-confined had confirmed COVID-19, compared with 30 569 residents (4.4%) with confirmed COVID-19 in the national survey (P < .001); no residents of facilities with self-confinement had possible COVID-19, compared with 31 799 residents (4.6%) with possible COVID-19 in the national survey (P < .001). Five residents (0.4%) in the nursing homes with staff who self-confined died of COVID-19, compared with 12 516 (1.8%) in the national survey (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.53; P < .001). Twelve staff members (1.6%) from the facilties with self-confinement had confirmed or possible COVID-19, compared with 29 463 staff members (7.6%) in the national survey (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of French nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates related to COVID-19 were lower among nursing homes that implemented staff confinement with residents compared with those in a national survey. These findings suggest that self-confinement of staff members with residents may help protect nursing home residents from mortality related to COVID-19 and residents and staff from COVID-19 infection.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Change Staff Care Practices in Order to Improve Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Change Staff Care Practices in Order to Improve Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets