Importance of clinical educators to research use and suggestions for better efficiency and effectiveness: results of a cross-sectional survey of care aides in Canadian long-term care facilities

How context links to best practice use in long-term care homes: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Context (work environment) plays a crucial role in implementing evidence-based best practices within health care settings. Context is multi-faceted and its complex relationship with best practice use by care aides in long-term care (LTC) homes are understudied. This study used an innovative approach to investigate how context elements interrelate and influence best practice use by LTC care aides.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis study, we combined coincidence analysis (a configurational comparative method) and qualitative analysis to examine data collected through the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program. Coincidence analysis of clinical microsystem (care unit)-level data aggregated from a survey of 1,506 care aides across 36 Canadian LTC homes identified configurations (paths) of context elements linked consistently to care aides' best practices use, measured with a scale of conceptual research use (CRU). Qualitative analysis of ethnographic case study data from 3 LTC homes (co-occurring with the survey) further informed interpretation of the configurations.

RESULTS

Three paths led to very high CRU at the care unit level: very high leadership; frequent use of educational materials; or a combination of very high social capital (teamwork) and frequent communication between care aides and clinical educators or specialists. Conversely, 2 paths led to very low CRU, consisting of 3 context elements related to unfavorable conditions in relationships, resources, and formal learning opportunities. Our qualitative analysis provided insights into how specific context elements served as facilitators or barriers for best practices. This qualitative exploration was especially helpful in understanding 2 of the paths, illustrating the pivotal role of leadership and the function of teamwork in mitigating the negative impact of time constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study deepens understanding of the complex interrelationships between context elements and their impact on the implementation of best practices in LTC homes. The findings underscore that there is no singular, universal bundle of context-related elements that enhance or hinder best practice use in LTC homes.

Characterizing worker compensation claims in long-term care and examining the association between facility characteristics and severe injury: a repeated cross-sectional study from Alberta, Canada

BACKGROUND

Despite the physical demands and risks inherent to working in long-term care (LTC), little is known about workplace injuries and worker compensation claims in this setting. The purpose of this study was to characterize workplace injuries in LTC and to estimate the association between worker and organizational factors on severe injury.

METHODS

We used a repeated cross-sectional design to examine worker compensation claims between September 1, 2014 and September 30, 2018 from 25 LTC homes. Worker compensation claim data came from The Workers Compensation Board of Alberta. LTC facility data came from the Translating Research in Elder Care program. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the sample and multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between staff, organizational, and resident characteristics and severe injury, measured as 31+ days of disability.

RESULTS

We examined 3337 compensation claims from 25 LTC facilities. Less than 10% of claims (5.1%, n = 170) resulted in severe injury and most claims did not result in any days of disability (70.9%, n = 2367). Most of the sample were women and over 40 years of age. Care aides were the largest occupational group (62.1%, n = 2072). The highest proportion of claims were made from staff working in voluntary not for profit facilities (41.9%, n = 1398) followed by public not for profit (32.9%, n = 1098), and private for profit (n = 25.2%, n = 841). Most claims identified the nature of injury as traumatic injuries to muscles, tendons, ligaments, or joints. In the multivariable logistic regression, higher staff age (50-59, aOR: 2.26, 95% CI 1.06-4.83; 60+, aOR: 2.70, 95% CI 1.20-6.08) was associated with more severe injury, controlling for resident acuity and other organizational staffing factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most claims were made by care aides and were due to musculoskeletal injuries. In LTC, few worker compensation claims were due to severe injury. More research is needed to delve into the specific features of the LTC setting that are related to worker injury.

Conceptual and relational advances of the PARIHS and i-PARIHS frameworks over the last decade: a critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND

The number of research publications reporting the use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework and the integrated PARIHS (i-PARIHS) framework has grown steadily. We asked how the last decade of implementation research, predicated on the (i-)PARIHS framework (referring to the PARIHS or i-PARIHS framework), has contributed to our understanding of the conceptualizations of, relationships between, and dynamics among the core framework elements/sub-elements. Building on the Helfrich et al. (2010) review of research on the PARIHS framework, we undertook a critical interpretive synthesis to: (1) identify conceptual and relational advances in the (i-)PARIHS framework and (2) identify conceptual and relational aspects of the (i-)PARIHS framework that warrant further work.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in PubMed/PubMed Central, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, JSTOR, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycInfo. Articles were eligible for synthesis if they (a) were peer-reviewed articles, written in English, and published between January 2009 and December 2021, (b) applied the (i-)PARIHS framework explicitly to guide implementation research, and (c) made conceptual (expanding the conceptualization of core elements) and/or relational contributions (elaborating relationships among elements/sub-elements, or theorizing the relationships using empirical data). We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to synthesize conceptual-relational advances of the (i-)PARIHS framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles were eligible for synthesis. Twenty-four offered conceptual contributions, and 18 offered relational contributions (5 articles contributed in both ways). We found conceptual expansion of all core (i-)PARIHS elements, with most emphasis on context (particularly outer context and leadership), facilitation, and implementation success. Articles also gave insights into the complex relationships and relational dynamism among these elements, characterized as contingent, interactive, multilevel, and temporal effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed developmental advances of the (i-)PARIHS framework and proposed several directions to further advance the framework. Conceptualization of (i-)PARIHS elements (particularly evidence/innovation and recipients) need to be further developed by specifying conceptual and operational definitions of underlying sub-elements. Relationships among (i-)PARIHS elements/sub-elements need to be further elaborated through empirical studies that consider situational contingencies and causal complexities. This will require examining necessity and sufficiency of (i-)PARIHS elements/sub-elements in relation to implementation outcomes, interactions among elements, and mechanism-based explanations.

Reporting unit context data to stakeholders in long-term care: a practical approach

Background

The importance of reporting research evidence to stakeholders in ways that balance complexity and usability is well-documented. However, guidance for how to accomplish this is less clear. We describe a method of developing and visualising dimension-specific scores for organisational context (context rank method). We explore perspectives of leaders in long-term care nursing homes (NHs) on two methods for reporting organisational context data: context rank method and our traditionally presented binary method—more/less favourable context.

Methods

We used a multimethod design. First, we used survey data from 4065 healthcare aides on 290 care units from 91 NHs to calculate quartiles for each of the 10 Alberta Context Tool (ACT) dimension scores, aggregated at the care unit level based on the overall sample distribution of these scores. This ordinal variable was then summed across ACT scores. Context rank scores were assessed for associations with outcomes for NH staff and for quality of care (healthcare aides’ instrumental and conceptual research use, job satisfaction, rushed care, care left undone) using regression analyses. Second, we used a qualitative descriptive approach to elicit NH leaders’ perspectives on whether the methods were understandable, meaningful, relevant, and useful. With 16 leaders, we conducted focus groups between December 2017 and June 2018: one in Nova Scotia, one in Prince Edward Island, and one in Ontario, Canada. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results

Composite scores generated using the context rank method had positive associations with healthcare aides’ instrumental research use (p < .0067) and conceptual research use and job satisfaction (p < .0001). Associations were negative between context rank summary scores and rushed care and care left undone (p < .0001). Overall, leaders indicated that data presented by both methods had value. They liked the binary method as a starting point but appreciated the greater level of detail in the context rank method.

Conclusions

We recommend careful selection of either the binary or context rank method based on purpose and audience. If a simple, high-level overview is the goal, the binary method has value. If improvement is the goal, the context rank method will give leaders more actionable details.

The Influence of Context on Implementation and Improvement: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Secondary Analyses Study

Background

Caring for the well-being of older adults is one of the greatest challenges in modern societies. Improving the quality of care and life for older adults and the work lives of their care providers calls for effective knowledge translation of evidence-based best practices.

Objective

This study’s purpose is to contribute to knowledge translation by better understanding the roles of organizational context (workplace environment) and facilitation (process or role) in implementation and improvement success. Our study has 2 goals: (1) to advance knowledge translation science by further developing and testing the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework (which outlines how implementation relies on the interplay of context, facilitation, and evidence) and (2) to advance research by optimizing implementation success via tailoring of modifiable elements of organizational context and facilitation.

Methods

This is secondary analyses of 15 years of longitudinal data from the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program’s multiple data sources. This research is ongoing in long-term care (LTC) homes in western Canada. TREC data include the following: 5 waves of survey collection, 2 clinical trials, and regular ongoing outcome data for LTC residents. We will use a sequential exploratory and confirmatory mixed methods design. We will analyze qualitative and quantitative data holdings in an iterative process: (1) comprehensive reanalysis of qualitative data to derive hypotheses, (2) quantitative modeling to test hypotheses, and (3) action cycles to further refine and integrate qualitative and quantitative analyses. The research team includes 4 stakeholder panels: (1) system decision- and policy makers, (2) care home managers, (3) direct care staff, and (4) a citizen engagement group of people living with dementia and family members of LTC residents. A fifth group is our panel of external scientific advisors. Each panel will engage periodically, providing their perspectives on project direction and findings.

Results

This study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Alberta (Pro00096541). The results of the secondary analyses are expected by the end of 2023.

Conclusions

The project will advance knowledge translation science by deepening our understanding of the roles of context, the interactions between context and facilitation, and their influence on resident and staff quality outcomes. Importantly, findings will inform understanding of the mechanisms by which context and facilitation affect the success of implementation and offer insights into factors that influence the implementation success of interventions in nursing homes.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/40611

Translation and validation of the Alberta Context Tool for use in Norwegian nursing homes

PURPOSE

Organizational context is recognized as important for facilitating evidence-based practice and improving patient outcomes. Organizational context is a complex construct to measure and appropriate instruments that can quantify and measure context are needed. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Alberta Context Tool (ACT) to Norwegian, and to test the reliability and structural validity among registered nurses (RNs) and licenced practice nurses (LPNs) working in nursing homes.

METHODS

This study was a validation study utilizing a cross-sectional design. The sample consisted of n = 956 healthcare personnel from 28 nursing homes from a municipality in Norway. In the first stage, the ACT was translated before being administered in 28 nursing homes. In the second stage, internal consistency and structural validity were explored using Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis.

RESULTS

A rigorous forward-and-back translation process was performed including a team of academics, experts, professional translators and the copyright holders, before an acceptable version of the ACT was piloted and finalized. The Norwegian version of the ACT showed good internal consistency with Chronbachs alpha above .75 for all concepts except for Formal interactions where the alpha was .69. Structural validity was acceptable for both RNs and LPNs with factors loadings more than .4 for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

The Norwegian version of the ACT is a valid measure of organizational context in Norwegian nursing homes among RNs and LPNs.

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.

METHODS

This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.

RESULTS

The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.