Dataset Information

TIME to reduce agitation in persons with dementia in nursing homes. A process evaluation of a complex intervention.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The Targeted Intervention Interdisciplinary Model for Evaluation and Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms (TIME) has recently in a three-month cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated reduction in agitation in nursing home residents with dementia. To ease replication and future implementation, and to clarify possible causal mechanisms, we performed a process evaluation of the intervention based on the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance). METHODS:An exploratory and a quasi-experimental design with mixed methods were used. The RE-AIM dimensions were explored by questionnaires to 807 staff members and 46 leading ward nurses in both the intervention nursing homes (INH) and the control nursing homes (CNH), before the start of the trial (baseline), and six and 12?months later. These questionnaires assessed data regarding the reach, effectiveness (staff level) and adoption dimensions. To assess implementation, we used a checklist for performance of the main components in TIME and analysed the minutes from 84 case conferences in the INH. To explore adoption and maintenance, five focus group interviews with 32 participants from the staff in the INH were conducted three to 6 months after the end of the trial. RESULTS:Reach: On average 61% (SD 22) of the staff in each ward in the INH attended the training sessions. Effectiveness at staff level: There were no between-group differences throughout the study period for attitudes towards dementia, perceived competence or perception of mastery and social interaction. Adoption: 16 of the 17 INH completed the intervention. IMPLEMENTATION:75% or more of the components of TIME were performed for 91% of the included residents. Maintenance: Most of the nursing homes used TIME three to 6 months after the end of the trial. An easy to grasp model and an engaged leadership facilitated the intervention and maintenance. CONCLUSIONS:A high degree of reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance contributed to the effectiveness of TIME at resident level. One other causal assumption of the effectiveness of TIME is the development in the staff of a new, shared and situated knowledge about each individual resident, not reflected by measurements in general knowledge and attitudes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was registered January 6, 2016 with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02655003 ).

SUBMITTER: Lichtwarck B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6544967 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

TIME to reduce agitation in persons with dementia in nursing homes. A process evaluation of a complex intervention.

Lichtwarck Bjørn B Myhre Janne J Selbaek Geir G Kirkevold Øyvind Ø Rokstad Anne Marie Mork AMM Benth Jūratė Šaltytė JŠ Bergh Sverre S

BMC health services research 20190531 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Targeted Intervention Interdisciplinary Model for Evaluation and Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms (TIME) has recently in a three-month cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated reduction in agitation in nursing home residents with dementia. To ease replication and future implementation, and to clarify possible causal mechanisms, we performed a process evaluation of the intervention based on the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, ...[more]

PMID: 31151437

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The COME-ON study was a cluster-controlled trial of a complex intervention that consisted of a blended training program, local interdisciplinary meetings, and interdisciplinary case conferences in Belgian nursing homes. The intervention was associated with significant improvements in the appropriateness of prescribing. The aims of this study were to describe the implementation of the intervention and to explore the experiences of participants, for the purpose of identifying factors associated with implementation and perceived impact and to draw lessons for future implementation. METHODS:We performed a mixed-method process evaluation. Questionnaires and reports were used to collect quantitative data on implementation and experiences from the 24 NHs and participating healthcare professionals (coordinating physicians, general practitioners, pharmacists, and nurses) in the intervention group. Multidisciplinary focus groups focusing on factors associated with implementation and perceived impact were conducted in 11 NHs. RESULTS:Overall, the rate of implementation and the satisfaction of participants were good, despite some variability between NHs and HCPs. Although perceived impact on nursing home residents varied, most participants perceived a positive impact for themselves. Factors associated with implementation and perceived impact were identified at different levels: intervention, healthcare professionals, organization, and external context. The interdisciplinary and face-to-face approaches were recognized as key elements for the success of the intervention, despite organizational constraints. The attitude of general practitioners was identified both as a barrier to and a facilitator for implementation and its success. The professional role and competency of the pharmacist influenced perceived impact. The pre-existing relationships between HCPs and the presence of a leader facilitated implementation and perceived impact. Remuneration was deemed necessary for the study and for future implementation. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the intervention, and more specifically its interdisciplinary aspect, was well implemented and appreciated by HCPs. This probably contributed to the positive effect on the appropriateness of prescribing. Future implementation must take into account the various factors found to affect implementation and perceived impact, in order to maximize effect and sustainability. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66138978; registered 18 November 2015, retrospectively registered, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66138978.

Project description:BackgroundResearch suggests that collaborative and tailored approaches with external expertise are important to process implementations. We therefore performed a process evaluation of an intervention using participatory action research, tailored information provision, and external coaching to reduce inappropriate psychotropic drug use among nursing home residents with dementia. The process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial assessing the utility of this approach.MethodsWe used Leontjevas' model of process evaluation to guide data collection and analysis, focusing on the relevance and feasibility, extent of performance, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Data on the relevance and feasibility and on the extent of performance were collected using a questionnaire targeting internal project leaders at nursing homes and our external coaches. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified by individual semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to structure and describe the identified barriers and facilitators.ResultsThe intervention was viewed positively, but it was also considered time consuming due to the involvement of many people and designing a tailored action and implementation plan was viewed as complex. The extent of performance differed between nursing homes. Delays in implementation and suboptimal execution of actions may have reduced effectiveness of the RID intervention in some nursing homes. Barriers to implementation were reorganizations, staff turnover, communication issues, unclear expectations, and perceived time pressures. Implementation also depended on the involvement and skills of key stakeholders, and organizations' readiness to change. Although external coaches stimulated implementation, their additional value was rated variably across organizations.ConclusionsBarriers to implementation occurred on several levels and some barriers appear to be inherent to the nursing home environment and could be points of leverage of future implementation trajectories. This underlines the importance of assessing and supporting organizations in their readiness to change. Sensitivity analyses, taking into account the week in which nursing homes started with implementation and the degree to which actions were implemented as intended, will be appropriate in the effect analyses of the trial.

Project description:BackgroundPeople living with dementia in nursing homes are most likely to be restrained. The primary aim of this mixed-method education intervention study was to investigate which factors hindered or facilitated staff awareness related to confidence building initiatives based on person-centred care, as an alternative to restraint in residents with dementia in nursing homes. The education intervention, consisting of a two-day seminar and monthly coaching sessions for six months, targeted nursing staff in 24 nursing homes in Western Norway. The present article reports on staff-related data from the study.MethodsWe employed a mixed-method design combining quantitative and qualitative methods. The P-CAT (Person-centred Care Assessment Tool) and QPS-Nordic (The General Nordic questionnaire for psychological and social factors at work) instruments were used to measure staff effects in terms of person-centred care and perception of leadership. The qualitative data were collected through ethnographic fieldwork, qualitative interviews and analysis of 84 reflection notes from eight persons in the four teams who facilitated the intervention. The PARIHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) theoretical framework informed the study design and the data analysis. Six nursing homes were selected for ethnographic study post-intervention.ResultsQualitative data indicated increased staff awareness related to using restraint - or not- in the context of person-centered care. A slight increase in P-CAT supported these findings. Thirteen percent of the P-CAT variation was explained by institutional belonging. Qualitative data indicated that whether shared decisions of alternative measures to restraint were applied was a function of dynamic interplay between facilitation and contextual elements. In this connection, the role of the nursing home leaders appeared to be a pivotal element promoting or hindering person-centered care. However, leadership-staff relations varied substantially across individual institutions, as did staff awareness related to restraint and person-centeredness.ConclusionsLeadership, in interplay with staff culture, turned out to be the most important factor hindering or promoting staff awareness related to confidence building initiatives, based on person-centered care. While quantitative data indicated variations across institutions and the extent of this variation, qualitative data offered insight into the local processes involved. A mixed method approach enabled understanding of dynamic contextual relationships.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at Clinical Trials gov. reg. 2012/304 NCT01715506.

Project description:BACKGROUND | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of three intervention elements to reduce hospitalizations in nursing home residents.DesignConvergent mixed-method design within a hybrid type-2 effectiveness-implementation study.SettingEleven nursing homes in the German-speaking region of Switzerland.ParticipantsQuantitative data were collected from 573 care workers; qualitative data were collected from 108 care workers and the leadership from 11 nursing homes.InterventionThree intervention elements targeting care workers were implemented to reduce unplanned hospitalizations: (1) the STOP&WATCH instrument for early recognition of changes in resident condition; (2) the ISBAR instrument for structured communication; and (3) specially-trained INTERCARE nurses providing on-site geriatric support. Multifaceted implementation strategies focusing both on the overall nursing home organization and on the care workers were used.MethodsThe quantitative part comprised surveys of care workers six- and twelve-months post-intervention. The intervention's acceptability, feasibility and uptake were assessed using validated and self-developed scales. Qualitative data were collected in 22 focus groups with care workers, then analyzed using thematic analysis methodology. Data on implementation processes were collected during implementation meetings with nursing home leadership and were analyzed via content analysis. Findings were integrated using a complementary approach.ResultsThe ISBAR instrument and the INTERCARE nurse role were considered acceptable, feasible, and taken up by > 70% of care workers. The STOP&WATCH instrument showed the lowest acceptance (mean: 68%), ranging from 24 to 100% across eleven nursing homes. A combination of factors, including the amount of information received, the amount of support provided in daily practice, the users' perceived ease of using the intervention and its adaptations, and the intervention's usefulness, appeared to influence the implementation's success. Two exemplary nursing homes illustrated context-specific implementation processes that serve as either barriers or facilitators to implementation.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that, alongside the provision of information shortly before intervention start, constant daily support is crucial for implementation success. Ideally, this support is provided by designated and trained individuals who oversee implementation at the organizational and unit levels. Leaders who seek to implement interventions in nursing homes should consider their complexity and their consequences for workflow to optimize implementation processes accordingly.Trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03590470 ) on the 18/06/2018.

Project description:BackgroundNursing homes are likely to become increasingly important as end-of-life care facilities. Previous studies indicate that individuals residing in these facilities have a high prevalence of end-of-life symptoms and a significant need for palliative care. The aim of this study was to develop an end-of-life care program for nursing homes in Spain based on previous models yet adapted to the specific context and the needs of staff in nursing homes in the country.MethodsA descriptive study of a complex intervention procedure was developed. The study consisted of three phases. The first phase was a prospective study assessing self-efficacy in palliative care (using the SEPC scale) and attitudes towards end-of-life care (using the FATCOD-B scale) among nursing home staff before and after the completion of a basic palliative care training program. In the second phase, objectives were selected using the Delphi consensus technique, where nursing home and primary care professionals assessed the relevance, feasibility, and level of attainment of 42 quality standards. In phase 3, interventions were selected for these objectives through two focus group sessions involving nursing home, primary care, and palliative care professionals.ResultsAs a result of the training, an improvement in self-efficacy and attitudes towards end-of-life care was observed. In phase 2, 14 standards were selected and grouped into 5 objectives: to conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop a personalized care plan adapted to the palliative needs detected; to provide information in a clear and accessible way; to request and record advance care directives; to provide early care with respect to loss and grief; to refer patients to a specialized palliative care unit if appropriate, depending on the complexity of the palliative care required. Based on these objectives, the participants in the focus group sessions designed the 22 interventions that make up the program.ConclusionsThe objectives and interventions of the NUHELP program constitute an end-of-life care program which can be implemented in nursing homes to improve the quality of end-of-life care in these facilities by modifying their clinical practice, organization, and relationship with the health system as well as serving as an example of an effective health intervention program.

Project description:IntroductionPain is a common symptom in people with dementia; untreated, it reduces quality of life and causes suffering. People with dementia living in nursing homes most often have dementia in moderate to severe stages. The cognitive impairment, including language and communication difficulties, challenges pain assessment. Since pain is a subjective experience, self-reporting is the gold standard of assessment methods. Healthcare professionals are advised to help people with dementia communicate about their pain. The proposed scoping review is the first step in the development of a systematic pain assessment model for people with dementia living in nursing homes. The scoping review aims to identify, categorise and summarise knowledge on how pain assessment processes in this population are described in the literature, with a special focus on self-reporting.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following the six-stage framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, in addition to recent methodological developments. Systematic searches in CINAHL, Embase, Medline and PsycInfo will be conducted. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklists, and the scoping review will adhere to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The review will include research that concerns assessment of pain in people with dementia living in nursing homes. Studies will be evaluated for quality and ethical standards. The analysis process will follow Bradbury-Jones et al's PAGER framework. Patterns will be formed using thematic analysis. An overview of advances, gaps, evidence for practice and research recommendations associated with each pattern will be prepared. The research questions and results will be presented to and discussed in a reference group comprising nursing home residents, relatives, healthcare professionals and nursing home managers.Ethics and disseminationThe scoping review aims to collect and summarise data from available publications and does not require ethical approval. The final manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. REGISTRATION IN OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK: https://osf.io/8kaf5/.

Project description:Advance Care Planning (ACP) is the repeated communication and decision-making process between the patient, family, and healthcare professionals. This study describes an ACP intervention in nursing homes and evaluates the outcomes of the implementation process.The ACP intervention was part of a 4-month complex, cluster randomized controlled trial (COSMOS). 37 Norwegian nursing homes with 72 units (1 cluster?=?1 unit) and 765 patients were invited to participate and eligible units were randomised to the intervention group or control. Nursing home staff in the intervention group was offered a standardized education programme to learn early and repeated communication with patients and families and to implement ACP in their units. We used a train-the-trainer approach to educate staff in the units, supported by regular telephone calls and a midway seminar after two months. Individual patient logs consisting of different communication deliverables were used to evaluate the implementation process. Supported by Qualitative Content Analyses, we identified facilitators and barriers of the ACP implementation based on feedback during midway seminars and individual patient logs.The ACP intervention was conducted in 36 NH units (n?=?297); 105 healthcare providers participated at the education seminar prior to the study, and 3-4 employees from each unit participated in the midway seminar. NH staff reported the educational material relevant for the implementation strategy. The patient logs showed that ACP was successfully implemented in 62% (n?=?183) of the patients using our predefined implementation criteria. The staff emphasized the clear communication of the relevance of ACP addressed to leaders and staff as important facilitators, along with the clearly defined routines, roles and responsibilities. Identified barriers included lack of competence, perceived lack of time, and conflicting culture and staff opinions.Monthly communication with the family was the most frequently conducted communication, and the predefined criteria of successfully implemented ACP were largely achieved. Nursing home routines and engagement of leaders and staff were crucial facilitators, whereas lack of time and competence reduced the implementation success.The COSMOS-trial was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02238652 ) July 7th, 2014.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making provides an approach to discuss advance care planning in a participative and informed manner, embodying the principles of person-centered care. A number of guided approaches to achieve shared decision-making already exist, such as the three-talk model. However, it is uncertain whether daily practice methods in nursing home wards for persons with dementia comply with the underpinnings of this model. It is also uncertain whether professionals consider shared decision-making to be important in this context, and whether they perceive themselves sufficiently competent to practice this approach frequently.MethodsThe study has a cross-sectional design, with 65 wards (46 Belgian nursing homes) participating in the study. We compared nursing home professionals' and residents' perspectives on the level of shared decision-making during advance care planning conversations with ratings from external raters. Residents and professionals rated the level of shared decision-making by means of a questionnaire, which included the topic of the conversation. External raters assessed audio recordings of the conversations. Professionals filled in an additional self-report questionnaire on the importance of shared decision-making, their competence in practicing the approach, and with what frequency.ResultsAt ward level, professionals and residents rated the average achieved level of shared decision-making 71.53/100 (σ = 16.09) and 81.11/100 (σ = 19.18) respectively. Meanwhile, raters gave average scores of 26.97/100 (σ = 10.45). Only 23.8% of residents referred to advance care planning as the topic of the conversation. Professionals considered shared decision-making to be important (x̄=4.48/5, σ = 0.26). This result contrasted significantly with the frequency (x̄=3.48/5, σ = 0.51) and competence (x̄=3.76/5, σ = 0.27) with which these skills were practiced (P < 0.001).ConclusionsResidents with dementia are grateful when involved in discussing their care, but find it difficult to report what is discussed during these conversations. Receiving more information about advance care planning could provide them with the knowledge needed to prepare for such a conversation. External raters observe a discrepancy between the three-talk model and daily practice methods. Training programs should focus on providing professionals with better knowledge of and skills for shared decision-making. They should also promote team-based collaboration to increase the level of person-centered care in nursing home wards for persons with dementia.

Dataset Information

TIME to reduce agitation in persons with dementia in nursing homes. A process evaluation of a complex intervention.

Publications

TIME to reduce agitation in persons with dementia in nursing homes. A process evaluation of a complex intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets