Dataset Information

The influence of care home managers on the implementation of a complex intervention: findings from the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of dementia care mapping.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Many people with dementia live in care homes, where staff can struggle to meet their complex needs. Successful practice improvement interventions in these settings require strong managerial support, but little is known about how managers can support implementation in practice, or what factors support or hinder care home managers in providing this support. Using Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) as an example, this study explored how care home managers can support the implementation of complex interventions, and identified factors affecting their ability to provide this support. METHODS:We undertook interviews with 48 staff members (managers and intervention leads) from care homes participating in the intervention arm of the DCM EPIC trial of DCM implementation. RESULTS:Managerial support played a key role in facilitating the implementation of a complex intervention in care home settings. Managers could provide practical and financial support in many forms. However, managerial support and leadership approaches towards implementation were highly variable in practice, and implementation was easily de-stabilised by management changes or competing managerial priorities. How well managers understood, valued and engaged with the intervention, alongside the leadership style they adopted to support implementation, were key influences on implementation success. CONCLUSIONS:For care home managers to effectively support interventions they must fully understand the proposed intervention and its potential value. This is especially important during times of managerial or practice changes, when managers lack the skills required to effectively support implementation, or when the intervention is complex. It may be unfeasible to successfully implement new interventions during times of managerial or practice instability. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852 , registered 16/01/2014.

SUBMITTER: Kelley R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7446218 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The influence of care home managers on the implementation of a complex intervention: findings from the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of dementia care mapping.

Kelley R R Griffiths A W AW Shoesmith E E McDermid J J Couch E E Robinson O O Perfect D D Surr C A CA

BMC geriatrics 20200825 1

<h4>Background</h4>Many people with dementia live in care homes, where staff can struggle to meet their complex needs. Successful practice improvement interventions in these settings require strong managerial support, but little is known about how managers can support implementation in practice, or what factors support or hinder care home managers in providing this support. Using Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) as an example, this study explored how care home managers can support the implementation ...[more]

PMID: 32842965

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBehaviours such as agitation impact on the quality of life of care-home residents with dementia and increase healthcare use. Interventions to prevent these behaviours have little evidence supporting their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a trial assessing Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) versus usual care for reducing agitation, and highlight methodological challenges of conducting evaluations in this population and setting.MethodsRCT data over 16 months from English care-home residents with dementia (intervention n = 418; control n = 308) were analysed. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from the healthcare provider perspective. We gathered resource use and utility (EQ-5D-5L and DEMQoL-Proxy-U) from people living with dementia and proxy informants (staff and relatives). Data were analysed using seemingly unrelated regression, accounting for care-home clustering and bootstrapping used to capture sampling uncertainty.ResultsCosts were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (incremental = £1479) due in part to high cost outliers. There were small QALY gains (incremental = 0.024) in favour of DCM. The base-case ICER (£64,380 per QALY) suggests DCM is not cost-effective versus usual care. With the exception of analyses excluding high cost outliers, which suggested a potential for DCM to be cost-effective, sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case findings. Bootstrapped estimates suggested DCM had a low probability (< 0.20 where λ = £20,000) of being cost-effective versus control.ConclusionDCM does not appear to be a cost-effective intervention versus usual care in this group and setting. The evaluation highlighted several methodological challenges relating to validity of utility assessments, loss to follow-up and compliance. Further research is needed on handling high-cost individuals and capturing utility in this group. ISRCTN reference 82288852.

Project description:IntroductionDementia care management is a complex intervention intended to support persons with dementia and their (caring) relatives in home-based care arrangements. Dementia care management was developed in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in Germany and subsequently adapted for the German region of Siegen-Wittgenstein, where it will now be implemented. Four different service providers will carry out the implementation process. This study protocol describes the planned procedures for the parallel evaluation of the implementation process.Methods and analysisA multiple embedded case study design was chosen for the planned process evaluation. Data collection and analysis will be informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, the Medical Research Council framework for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions and the Taxonomy of Outcomes for Implementation Research. Information (qualitative and quantitative) will be collected from all stakeholders involved in the dementia care management intervention (ie, dementia care managers, general practitioners, people with dementia).Ethics and disseminationThe process evaluation is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the recommendations on good scientific practice, the research ethics principles of the Code of Ethics of the German Society of Nursing Science, and on the basis of ethical approval from the Clinical Ethics Committee of University Medicine Greifswald (BB 110/22). The results of the process evaluation will be disseminated through reports to the funders of the study and also as a summary of recommendations for the sustainable implementation of dementia care management for future implementers. We also plan to publish the results of this process evaluation in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT05529277, Registered 7 September 2022, https://beta.Clinicaltrialsgov/study/NCT05529277.

Project description:BackgroundBehavioral and psychological symptoms of distress in dementia (BPSD) are major drivers of poor quality of life, caregiver burden, institutionalization, and cost of care in nursing homes. The Evidence Integration Triangle (EIT)-4-BPSD in nursing homes was a pragmatic Hybrid III trial of an implementation strategy to help staff use evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions to prevent and manage BPSD. This study aimed to describe and explore the stakeholders' perceptions of the process to implement the EIT-4-BPSD strategy including its utility, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation in real-world settings.MethodsEIT-4-BPSD was a multi-layer implementation strategy that engaged nursing home stakeholder groups to define community specific goals towards reducing BPSD over a 12-month period. Stakeholder groups from nursing homes that completed all 12-months of the implementation strategy were invited to participate in this process evaluation study. Qualitative data from focus group transcripts were analyzed using a conventional content analysis. Emerging codes were sorted into categories, then organized in meaningful clusters based on the domains of the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework.ResultsThe EIT-4-BPSD implementation strategy was completed in 21 nursing homes; 93 stakeholders participated in focus groups. Over half of participating nursing homes reported meeting their BPSD goals as expected or more. Challenges, facilitators, and contextual factors reported by stakeholder members explains variability in the implementation of EIT-4-BPSD strategy in 11 key categories: family; staff; organizational; staff, environmental, and resident outcomes; utility of EIT resources; adoption barriers and facilitators; care process adaptations; and future planning.ConclusionStakeholders offered guidance on salient factors influencing the feasibility and utility of EIT-4-BPSD adoption and implementation to consider in future implementation research that aims to improve behavioral well-being in NH residents living with dementia. Engagement of family and staff at all levels of the organization (Management, leadership, and direct care); and measurement of staff, environmental, and resident outcomes were perceived as critical for future implementation success. While regulations, finances, and competing demands on staff time were perceived as reducing implementation success.Trial registrationThe Testing the Implementation of EIT-4-BPSD study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03014570 ) January 9, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundDementia-care mapping (DCM) is a cyclic intervention aiming at reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms in people with dementia in nursing homes. Alongside an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial in which we studied the effectiveness of DCM on residents and staff outcomes, we investigated differences in costs of care between DCM and usual care in nursing homes.MethodsDementia special care units were randomly assigned to DCM or usual care. Nurses from the intervention care homes received DCM training, a DCM organizational briefing day and conducted the 4-months DCM-intervention twice during the study. A single DCM cycle consists of observation, feedback to the staff, and action plans for the residents. We measured costs related to health care consumption, falls and psychotropic drug use at the resident level and absenteeism at the staff level. Data were extracted from resident files and the nursing home records. Prizes were determined using the Dutch manual of health care cost and the cost prices delivered by a pharmacy and a nursing home. Total costs were evaluated by means of linear mixed-effect models for longitudinal data, with the unit as a random effect to correct for dependencies within units.Results34 units from 11 nursing homes, including 318 residents and 376 nursing staff members participated in the cost analyses. Analyses showed no difference in total costs. However certain changes within costs could be noticed. The intervention group showed lower costs associated with outpatient hospital appointments over time (p = 0.05) than the control group. In both groups, the number of falls, costs associated with the elderly-care physician and nurse practitioner increased equally during the study (p<0.02).ConclusionsDCM is a cost-neutral intervention. It effectively reduces outpatient hospital appointments compared to usual care. Other considerations than costs, such as nursing homes' preferences, may determine whether they adopt the DCM method.Trial registrationDutch Trials Registry NTR2314.

Project description:BackgroundThe STADPLAN study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial including 27 home care services in Germany. It assesses the effect of an advance care planning (ACP) intervention delivered by trained nurses to older care-dependent patients. Patients received two ACP conversations and an information brochure. Nurses were educated through a two-day programme and topic guides structuring the conversations. Objectives of the process evaluation were to determine: [1] whether the intervention was implemented as planned, [2] which change mechanisms were observed, [3] whether targeted process outcomes were achieved and [4] in which way contextual factors influenced the implementation process.MethodsThe process evaluation is based on a mixed methods approach following the recommendations of the UK-MRC framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Qualitative and quantitative assessments were developed and analysed guided by a logic model comprising intervention, participants, mechanisms of change and context factors. The results of the main trial will be published elsewhere.ResultsEducational programme and topic guides were mostly implemented as planned and resulted in motivation, knowledge, and perceived competencies to facilitate ACP conversations in nurses. Deviances in the performance of ACP conversations indicated patients' varied individual needs, but also obstacles like reluctance of patients and caregivers to participate actively and time constraints of nurse facilitators. Patients and caregivers reported increased awareness of ACP, planning and other activities indicating that targeted process outcomes could be achieved. The relevance of multifaceted contextual factors acting as barriers or facilitators for the engagement in ACP interventions on the individual, organisational and macro level was evident.ConclusionsThe process evaluation elicits obstacles and achievements of the ACP intervention. The logic model organised a plethora of mixed methods data into a holistic picture of multifaceted results. Nurses as ACP facilitators in home care can fulfil a crucial initiating role based on a trusting relationship with their patients. To support older care-dependent people's ACP engagement, access should be simplified. Furthermore, education for nurse facilitators and sufficient resources for service provision are needed. Independent of monetary reimbursement, healthcare providers must respect patients' choice for or against any ACP intervention.Ethics and trial registrationApproved by the Ethics Committees of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Ref.-No. 2019-045), Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg (Ref.-No. 2019-024), and University of Lübeck (Ref.-No. 19-080).German clinical trials registerDRKS00016886. Registered retrospectively 04/06/2019, first participant included 29/05/2019.

Dataset Information

The influence of care home managers on the implementation of a complex intervention: findings from the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of dementia care mapping.

Publications

The influence of care home managers on the implementation of a complex intervention: findings from the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of dementia care mapping.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets