Dataset Information

Compassionate care intervention for hospital nursing teams caring for older people: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Compassionate care continues to be a focus for national and international attention, but the existing evidence base lacks the experimental methodology necessary to guide the selection of effective interventions for practice. This study aimed to evaluate the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) intervention in improving compassionate care.

Setting

Ward nursing teams (clusters) in two English National Health Service hospitals randomised to intervention (n=4) or control (n=2). Intervention wards comprised two medicines for older people (MOPs) wards and two medical/surgical wards. Control wards were both MOPs.

Participants

Data collected from 627 patients and 178 staff.

Exclusion criteria

reverse barrier nursed, critically ill, palliative or non-English speaking. All other patients and all nursing staff and Health Care Assistant HCAs were invited to participant, agency and bank staff were excluded.

Intervention

CLECC, a workplace intervention focused on developing sustainable leadership and work-team practices to support the delivery of compassionate care.

Control

No educational activity.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Primary-Quality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) for observed staff-patient interactions. Secondary-patient-reported evaluations of emotional care in hospital (PEECH); nurse-reported empathy (Jefferson Scale of Empathy).

Results

Trial proceeded as per protocol, randomisation was acceptable. Some but not all blinding strategies were successful. QuIS observations achieved 93% recruitment rate with 25% of patient sample cognitively impaired. At follow-up there were more total positive (78% vs 74%) and less total negative (8% vs 11%) QuIS ratings for intervention wards versus control wards. Sixty-three per cent of intervention ward patients scored lowest (ie, more negative) scores on PEECH connection subscale, versus 79% of control. This was not a statistically significant difference. No statistically significant differences in nursing empathy were observed.

Conclusions

Use of experimental methods is feasible. The use of structured observation of staff-patient interaction quality is a promising outcome measure inclusive of hard to reach groups.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN16789770.

SUBMITTER: Gould LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5879452 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Compassionate care intervention for hospital nursing teams caring for older people: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

Gould Lisa Jane LJ Griffiths Peter P Barker Hannah Ruth HR Libberton Paula P Mesa-Eguiagaray Ines I Pickering Ruth M RM Shipway Lisa Jane LJ Bridges Jackie J

BMJ open 20180222 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Compassionate care continues to be a focus for national and international attention, but the existing evidence base lacks the experimental methodology necessary to guide the selection of effective interventions for practice. This study aimed to evaluate the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) intervention in improving compassionate care.<h4>Setting</h4>Ward nursing teams (clusters) in two English National Health Service hospitals randomised to interven ...[more]

PMID: 29472258

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcquired joint contractures have a significant impact on functioning and quality of life in nursing home residents. There is very limited evidence on measures for prevention and treatment of disability due to joint contractures. We have developed the PECAN intervention (Participation Enabling CAre in Nursing) to improve social participation in nursing home residents. A cluster-randomised pilot trial was conducted to assess the feasibility of study procedures in preparation for a main trial according to the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework.MethodsNursing homes in two regions of Germany were randomly allocated either to the intervention or optimised standard care (control group). All residents with joint contractures aged > 65 years were eligible for the study. The residents' data were collected through structured face-to-face interviews by blinded assessors at baseline, after 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome was social participation, measured by a subscale of the PaArticular Scales. Secondary outcomes included activities and instrumental activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, falls and fall-related consequences. Data on the trial feasibility were collected via documentation forms.ResultsSeven out of 12 nursing homes agreed to participate and remained in the trial. Of 265 residents who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 129 were randomised either to the intervention (n = 64) or control group (n = 65) and analysed. A total of 109 (85%) completed the trial after 6 months. The mean age was 85.7 years (SD 7.0), 80% were women. The severity of the residents' disability differed across the clusters. The completion rate was high (> 95%), apart from the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale. Some items of the PaArticular Scales were not easily understood by residents. The frequency of falls did not differ between study groups.ConclusionOur data confirmed the feasibility of the overall study design. We also revealed the need to improve the procedures for the recruitment of residents and for data collection before implementation into a main trial. The next step will be an adequately powered main trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Trial registrationGerman clinical trials register, ID: DRKS00010037 . Registered on 12 February 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Joint contractures in frail older people are associated with serious restrictions in participation. We developed the Participation Enabling CAre in Nursing (PECAN) intervention, a complex intervention to enable nurses to promote participation in nursing home residents with joint contractures. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of the implementation strategy and to identify enablers and barriers for a successful implementation. METHODS:The implementation of PECAN was investigated in a 6-month pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial (c-RCT). As a key component of the implementation strategy, nominated nurses were trained as facilitators in a one-day workshop and supported by peer-mentoring (visit, telephone counselling). A mixed-methods approach was conducted in conjunction with the pilot trial and guided by a framework for process evaluations of c-RCTs. Data were collected using standardised questionnaires (nursing staff), documentation forms, problem-centred qualitative interviews (facilitators, therapists, social workers, relatives, peer-mentors), and a group discussion (facilitators). A set of predefined criteria on the nursing home level was examined. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS:Seven nursing homes (n =?4 intervention groups, n =?3 control groups) in two regions of Germany took part in the study. Facilitators responded well to the qualification measures (workshop participation: 14/14; workshop rating: "good"; peer-mentor visit participation: 10/14). The usage of peer-mentoring via telephone varied (one to seven contacts per nursing home). Our implementation strategy was not successful in connection with supplying the intervention to all the nurses. The clear commitment of the entire nursing home and the respect for the expertise of different healthcare professionals were emphasised as enablers, whereas a lack of impact on organisational conditions and routines and a lack of time and staff competence were mentioned as barriers. CONCLUSION:The PECAN intervention was delivered as planned to the facilitators but was unable to produce comprehensive changes in the nursing homes and subsequently for the residents. Strategies to systematically include the management and the nursing team from the beginning are needed to support the facilitators during implementation in the main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German clinical trials register, DRKS00010037 . Registered 12 February 2016.

Project description:Background In 2006 the Chicago consensus statement on the management of people with variations of sex characteristics (VSC) acknowledged the importance of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. The consensus update from 2016 reinforced the call for multidisciplinary collaborations between medical professionals, parents and support groups, and proposed guidelines to improve shared decision making and patient-centred care embedded in ethical principles of self-determination and child participation. But there is little evidence that successfully MDTs have been implemented in clinical practice. Methods and aims A scoping review was conducted to identify studies that address the collaboration and decision making process of MDTs providing care of people with VSC to identify ideal and actual (1) team composition; (2) models of collaboration and (3) ethical principles that MDTs follow. Six databases were systematically searched: CINAHIL, Medline, Psychinfo, Scopus, Socindex and Web of Science. No restriction was placed on the type of methodology used in the studies. To frame the research, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used. Results The MDTs in the literature include mainly medical professionals: endocrinologists, urologists and surgeons. The collaboration among medical professionals in MDTs lacks cooperation as one team member sets the tasks of the team while each professional works separately. Despite the importance of psycho-social support the involvement of psychologists remains secondary. The implementation of ethical principles tends to exclude people with VSC. Conclusion The care of people with VSC described in the papers is medically oriented as the team members are mainly medical professionals working separately. MDT tend to exclude people with VSC despite references to shared decision making processes and informed consent. There was no mention of adult care and lack of inclusion of patient’s perspective in the care process. The future research should do more empirical research of MDTs.

Project description:BackgroundYoung people with mental health challenges present a major global challenge. More than half of adults with mental disorders experience their onset before age 14, but early detection and intervention may change this course. Shared care with mental health professionals in general practitioner (GP) offices has demonstrated its potential for improvement in these conditions.AimTo investigate whether shared care with mental health professionals in GP offices increases the detection of youth's mental health disorders and is associated with a decrease in use of unspecified symptom diagnoses, as a whole and stratified by patient and physician gender and age, and type of consulting physician.Design and settingThis was a stratified cluster-randomised controlled trial with data extraction from electronic records. Two GP offices were recruited from each of three boroughs. Each borough had 3-8 GP offices. One GP office was randomised to the intervention group and the other to the control group.MethodWe used generalised linear mixed models to assess whether the intervention helped GPs identify more International Classification of Primary Care 2 diagnoses of depression, anxiety and unspecified symptoms in youth.ResultsOver a 18-month period between between 2015 and 2017, the intervention helped GPs identify more youth with anxiety (p=0.002 for interaction), but not depression. The increase was most significant among the patients' regular GPs, less when patients met other GPs and least among external substitute physicians. The frequency of diagnoses with unspecified symptoms decreased in the intervention arm.ConclusionShared care with mental health professionals located in GP office contributed to increased detection of youth with anxiety symptoms. The increase was most prominent when the primary care physician was the patient's regular GP. GPs need to pay greater attention to detecting anxiety in youth and embrace shared care models, thereby contributing to reduced mental health disorders in this age group.Trial registration numberNCT03624829; Results.

Project description:IntroductionMultimorbidity and polypharmacy are important risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs). DRAs are often linked to prescribing problems (overprescribing and underprescribing), as well as non-adherence with drug regimens for different reasons. In this trial, we aim to assess whether a structured medication review compared with standard care can reduce DRAs in multimorbid older patients with polypharmacy.Methods and analysisOPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people is a European multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial. Hospitalised patients ≥70 years with ≥3 chronic medical conditions and concurrent use of ≥5 chronic medications are included in the four participating study centres of Bern (Switzerland), Utrecht (The Netherlands), Brussels (Belgium) and Cork (Ireland). Patients treated by the same prescribing physician constitute a cluster, and clusters are randomised 1:1 to either standard care or Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) intervention with the help of a clinical decision support system, the STRIP Assistant. STRIP is a structured method performing customised medication reviews, based on Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment criteria to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing. The primary endpoint is any DRA where the main reason or a contributory reason for the patient's admission is caused by overtreatment or undertreatment, and/or inappropriate treatment. Secondary endpoints include number of any hospitalisations, all-cause mortality, number of falls, quality of life, degree of polypharmacy, activities of daily living, patient's drug compliance, the number of significant drug-drug interactions, drug overuse and underuse and potentially inappropriate medication.Ethics and disseminationThe local Ethics Committees in Switzerland, Ireland, The Netherlands and Belgium approved this trial protocol. We will publish the results of this trial in a peer-reviewed journal.Main fundingEuropean Union's Horizon 2020 programme.Trial registration numberNCT02986425 , SNCTP000002183 , NTR6012, U1111-1181-9400.

Project description:ObjectivesTo pilot a complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment for common health conditions experienced by nursing home (NH) residents.DesignPilot cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting14 NHs (7 intervention, 7 control) in London and West Yorkshire.ParticipantsNH residents, their family carers and staff.InterventionComplex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment of urinary tract and respiratory infections, chronic heart failure and dehydration, comprising: (1) 'Stop and Watch (S&W)' early warning tool for changes in physical health, (2) condition-specific care pathway and (3) Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation tool to enhance communication with primary care. Implementation was supported by Practice Development Champions, a Practice Development Support Group and regular telephone coaching with external facilitators.Outcome measuresData on NH (quality ratings, size, ownership), residents, family carers and staff demographics during the month prior to intervention and subsequently, numbers of admissions, accident and emergency visits, and unscheduled general practitioner visits monthly for 6 months during intervention. We collected data on how the intervention was used, healthcare resource use and quality of life data for economic evaluation. We assessed recruitment and retention, and whether a full trial was warranted.ResultsWe recruited 14 NHs, 148 staff, 95 family carers and 245 residents. We retained the majority of participants recruited (95%). 15% of residents had an unplanned hospital admission for one of the four study conditions. We were able to collect sufficient questionnaire data (all over 96% complete). No NH implemented intervention tools as planned. Only 16 S&W forms and 8 care pathways were completed. There was no evidence of harm.ConclusionsRecruitment, retention and data collection processes were effective but the intervention not implemented. A full trial is not warranted.Trial registration numberISRCTN74109734 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74109734). ORIGINAL PROTOCOL: BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026510. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026510.

Dataset Information

Compassionate care intervention for hospital nursing teams caring for older people: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Setting

Participants

Exclusion criteria

Intervention

Control

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Compassionate care intervention for hospital nursing teams caring for older people: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets