Effects on staff outcomes from an intervention for management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in residents of young-onset dementia care units: A cluster randomised controlled trial

The impact of need-based care on formal caregivers' wellbeing in nursing homes: A cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Need-based care is a structured and standardized model that supports formal caregivers in nursing homes in delivering person-centered care by responding with tailored non-pharmacological interventions on residents' unmet needs as well as having positive effects on behavioral and psychological symptoms on residents with dementia. However, limited resources as well as the shortage of caregivers in nursing homes make the implementation of need-based care challenging, especially when it comes to finding ways to spend more time with residents. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the implementation of need-based care in nursing homes on formal caregivers' wellbeing.

METHODS

A three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial was set up in 24 Belgian nursing homes: formal caregivers in the 'need-based care' group (intervention; n = 195) spent time twice a week with residents who had behavioral and psychological symptoms according to the principles of need-based care while formal caregivers in the 'time' group (n = 257) filled in the way they spent time twice a week; a third group delivered standard care (n = 299). An implementation strategy was built upon the Implementation Quality Framework and used in the 'need-based care group'. A total of 741 formal caregivers completed the digital questionnaire at one or more of the five time points (every nine weeks) between November 2021 and July 2022; they rated their sense of competence in dementia care, level of burnout, and, level of engagement. Moments of time were registered in a printed registration book.

RESULTS

Only formal caregivers from the 'need-based care' group experienced a higher sense of competence in dementia care at time points three (p = 0.010) and four (p = 0.001) compared with baseline with an increase of respectively 1.5 (95 % confidence interval [0.25, 2.84]) and 2.4 (95 % confidence interval [0.77, 4.04]) points. No differences in scores on burnout and engagement were found.

CONCLUSION

Despite challenging workforce circumstances in nursing homes, caregivers in the need-based care group as well as in the time group were able to spend time twice a week with residents with behavioral and psychological symptoms. No negative effects were found on formal caregivers' wellbeing after the implementation of need-based care in nursing homes. However, it requires strong leadership and the use of well-considered implementation strategies including reflective practice.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Trial registration number ISRCTN56768265 (10/08/2023).

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Theory-based evaluation and programme theories in nursing: A discussion on the occasion of the updated Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework

Developing and evaluating health interventions for the benefit of patients is notoriously difficult. This also applies to the discipline of nursing, owing to the complexity of nursing interventions. Following significant revision, the updated guidance of the Medical Research Council (MRC) adopts a pluralistic view to intervention development and evaluation, including a theory-based perspective. This perspective promotes the use of program theory, aiming to understand how and under what circumstances interventions lead to change. In this discussion paper, we reflect the recommended use of program theory in the context of evaluation studies addressing complex nursing interventions. First, we review the literature by investigating the question whether and how evaluation studies targeting complex interventions used theory and to what extent program theories may contribute to enhance the theoretical foundations of intervention studies in nursing. Second, we illustrate the nature of theory-based evaluation and program theories. Third, we argue how this may impact theory building in nursing in general. We finish by discussing which resources, skills and competencies are necessary to fulfill the demanding task of undertaking theory-based evaluations. We caution against an oversimplified interpretation of the updated MRC guidance regarding the theory-based perspective, e.g. by using simple linear logic models, rather than articulating program theories. Instead, we encourage researchers to embrace the corresponding methodology, i.e. theory-based evaluation. With the prevailing perspective of knowledge production in crisis, we might be on the verge of a paradigm shift in health intervention research. Viewed through this lens, the updated MRC guidance could lead to a renewed understanding of what constitutes useful knowledge in nursing. This may facilitate knowledge production and, thereby, contribute to improve nursing practice for the benefit of the patient.

Effects on staff outcomes and process evaluation of the educating nursing staff effectively (TENSE) program for managing challenging behavior in nursing home residents with dementia: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Challenging behavior is prevalent in people with dementia residing in nursing homes and places a high burden on the nursing staff of dementia special care units. This study evaluates an educational program for nursing staff for managing challenging behavior: The Educating Nursing Staff Effectively (TENSE) program. This program can be tailored to care organizations' wishes and needs and combines various learning styles.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this cluster-randomized controlled trial was to examine the short-term (3 months) and long-term (9 months) effects of the TENSE training program on experienced stress, work contentment, and stress reactions at work in nursing staff working in dementia special care units.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Nursing staff members of 18 dementia special care units within nine nursing homes from different Netherlands regions were randomized into an intervention (n = 168) or control (n = 129) group. The TENSE program consisted of a three-day training course and two follow-up sessions after three and six months, respectively. The primary outcome was stress experienced by nursing staff measured with the Utrecht Burnout Scale - C. Secondary outcomes were work contentment and stress reactions at work. Furthermore, process evaluation data on the reach of and compliance with the program and the program's feasibility and relevance were collected. Data were collected between November 2012 and November 2014.

RESULTS

In general, the participants appreciated the quality and relevance of the TENSE training and evaluated the content of the training as beneficial. The TENSE training had no effect on the components of experienced stress, i.e., emotional exhaustion (p = 0.751), depersonalization (p = 0.701), and personal accomplishment (p = 0.182). Furthermore, no statistically significant effects of the intervention on work contentment and stress reactions at work were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The TENSE training program did not have an effect on experienced stress, work contentment, nor stress reactions at work of nursing staff working in dementia special care units. In future studies, more focus on practicing new skills seems needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR (Dutch Trial Registration) number NTR3620.

The influence of supervisory support, work effectiveness, work empowerment and stress secondary to residents' responsive behaviours on job satisfaction of nursing staff: A multisite cross-sectional study

AIM

To examine the association between stress secondary to residents' responsive behaviours and job satisfaction of nurses and nursing assistants working in nursing homes. To test whether supervisory support, work effectiveness and work empowerment confound this relationship.

BACKGROUND

Understanding how the stress secondary to residents' responsive behaviours influences job satisfaction for staff and determining the factors influencing this relationship are important for retention of staff in nursing homes. The term 'responsive behaviours' refers to the subset of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.

METHODS

Survey responses from 191 nursing assistants and 81 nurses in five nursing homes in Ontario were analysed.

RESULTS

Staff's stress attributed to residents' responsive behaviours was negatively associated with job satisfaction. This direct effect was weakened by more than a third through the confounding net effects of supervisory support, work effectiveness and work empowerment.

CONCLUSION

The work environment created by leaders in nursing homes can lessen the influence of stress secondary to residents' responsive behaviours on staffs' job satisfaction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Supervisors need training and education to support and mentor their staff effectively, and to guide their use of evidence-based practices that integrate the patient-centred care approach in order to effectively respond and minimize responsive behaviours.

Specific components of a complex depression care program can affect staff outcomes differently: post-hoc analyses of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in nursing homes

OBJECTIVE

The Act in case of Depression program showed effects on the quality of life and depression in nursing home (NH) residents. We aimed to explore the effects of this complex multidisciplinary program on job satisfaction, job demands, and autonomy in nursing home staff.

DESIGN

Four data points from a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial on patient outcomes were used for secondary analyses on staff outcomes.

SETTING

Sixteen dementia special care and 17 somatic care units in Dutch NHs.Participants were 717 (90.1%) care staff or trainees, 34 (4.3%) paramedical staff, and 45 (5.7%) other staff members.Intervention describes procedures for nursing staff, activity therapists, psychologists, and physicians. It contains evidence-based pathways for depression assessment, treatment, and monitoring treatment results.

RESULTS

Mixed models for intention-to-treat analyses showed no significant changes in job demands, job satisfaction, or autonomy. Models corrected for the ratio of unit residents who received, when indicated, a specific program component revealed reduced job demands and improved job satisfaction and autonomy when treatment procedures were used. A better use of assessment procedures was associated with increased job demands, while conducting monitoring procedures was associated with increased job demands and decreased autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Components of complex care programs may affect the staff outcomes in opposite directions and, taken together, produce a zero-sum or a statistically insignificant effect. While implementing treatment protocols affecting patients directly can also improve job outcomes such as satisfaction and autonomy and decrease job demands, it is possible that other procedures of complex programs may have unfavorable effects on job outcomes. It is important to account for specific components of complex interventions when evaluating intervention effects.

Cost-consequence analysis of an intervention for the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in young-onset dementia: Results from the BEYOND-II study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-consequences of an intervention for the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in nursing home residents with young-onset dementia.

METHODS

A stepped wedge design was used. The intervention consisted of an educational program and a multidisciplinary care program and was implemented in 13 nursing homes from September 2015 to March 2017. Costs' outcomes included the time investment of the elderly care physician and health care psychologists regarding the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms, residents' psychotropic drug use, nursing staff absenteeism, and costs of the educational program. Composite cost measure contained the sum of costs of staff absenteeism, costs on psychotropic drugs, and costs of the educational program. Costs of time investment were investigated by comparing means. Costs of psychotropic drug use were analyzed with mixed models at resident level and as part of the composite cost measure on unit level. Staff absenteeism was also analyzed at unit level.

RESULTS

Compared with care as usual, the mean costs of time invested decreased with €36.79 for the elderly care physician but increased with €46.05 for the health care psychologist in the intervention condition. Mixed model analysis showed no effect of the intervention compared with care as usual on the costs of psychotropic drug use, staff absenteeism, and the composite cost measure. The costs of the educational program were on average €174.13 per resident.

CONCLUSION

The intervention did not result in increased costs compared with care as usual. Other aspects, such as the lack of a structured working method, should be taken into account when considering implementation of the intervention.