Enabling research in care homes: an evaluation of a national network of research ready care homes

Using Palliative Care Needs Rounds in the UK for care home staff and residents: an implementation science study

Background

Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this.

Objective

To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds.

Design

A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.

Setting

Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, n = 4, and Scotland, n = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each.

Participants

Phase 1: interviews (n = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops (n = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews (n = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire (n = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire (n = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire (n = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews (n = 11); fidelity assessment (n = 14 Needs Rounds recordings).

Interventions

(1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents' physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings.

Main outcome measures

A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement.

Data sources

Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members.

Results

The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents' last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services' complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality.

Limitations

COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care.

Conclusions

Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff.

Future work

Conduct analysis of costs-benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care.

Study registration

This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Systematic review of research barriers, facilitators, and stakeholders in long-term care and geriatric settings, and a conceptual mapping framework to build research capacity

BACKGROUND

Older adults are underrepresented in research. Heterogeneity of research processes in this population, specifically in long-term care (LTC) and geriatric acute care (GAC), is not well described and may impede the design, planning, and conduct of research. In this study, we identified, quantified, and mapped stakeholders, research stages, and transversal themes of research processes, to develop a mapping framework to improve research capacity by better characterizing this heterogeneity.

METHODS

Multicomponent mixed methods study. An environmental scan was used to initiate a preliminary framework. We conducted a systematic literature search on processes, barriers, and methods for clinical research in GAC and LTC to extract and update stakeholders, research stages, and themes. Importance and interactions of elements were synthesized via heatmaps by number of articles, mentions, and content intersections.

RESULTS

For our initial framework and environmental scan, we surveyed 24 stakeholders. Of 9277 records, 68 articles were included in our systematic review and allowed us to identify 12 stakeholders, 13 research stages, 17 transversal themes (either barriers, facilitators, general themes, or recommendations), and 1868 intersections. Differences in relative importance between LTC and GAC emerged for stakeholders (staff, managers vs. caregivers, ethics committees), and for research stages (funding, facility recruitment vs. ethics, individual recruitment). Crucial themes according to specific stakeholders were collaboration for the research team; communication, trust, and human resources for managers; heterogeneity for patients and residents. A heatmap framework synthesizing vital stakeholders and themes per research stage was generated.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified and quantified the interactions between stakeholders, stages, and themes to characterize heterogeneity in LTC and GAC research. Our framework may serve as a blueprint to co-construct and improve each stage of the research process.

An ethnography study exploring factors that influence social isolation in care home residents living with dementia and hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss and dementia are highly prevalent conditions amongst older adults living in residential care. The consequences of living with these conditions may include social withdrawal and reduced communication opportunities. We sought to examine patterns of communication and interaction in residential care and explore resident, staff, and relative perspectives within two care homes located in Birmingham, UK. This enabled an understanding of how communication environments contributed to social isolation.

METHODS

This work used ethnography methodology to explore mechanisms that created and maintained social isolation in older adults living with dementia and hearing loss. A planning and engagement phase took place in four care homes. This was followed by an environmental audit, observations, and interviews. Data generated were analysed using Grounded Theory methods.

RESULTS

There were 33 participants (16 residents, 11 care staff, and six relatives) who took part in the observations and interviews. Residents experienced social isolation through lack of meaningful conversation with others and being misunderstood. Additionally, observations of residents' interactions informed the overall findings. A Grounded Theory model was employed to explain the core phenomenon of social isolation. The main contributors were internal and external barriers to communication, and reduced opportunities for meaningful conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide range of social isolation that care home residents experience. This was not always associated with the severity of hearing loss but rather communication ability. Simple interventions such as staff dining with residents and focussing on improving communication could reduce social isolation within residential care settings.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to the inclusion of older adults living in UK care homes in research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

With an ageing population, older adults will have more complex health and social care needs and many of these older adults will be living in care homes. Despite the growth in care home populations, care home residents are often excluded from research that could potentially benefit their care. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore resident-related barriers and facilitators to including older people living in UK care homes in research and to identify potential approaches to modify such barriers.

METHOD

The 6-stage scoping review methodology framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley guided this review. Five electronic databases (MedLine, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL) and grey literature were searched. Identified articles went through two levels of screening, and those deemed relevant were collated, summarised and reported using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

90 reports were eligible for inclusion and were synthesised into 7 themes and related subthemes: (1) research design; (2) understanding and beliefs about research (resident and care home staff); (3) communication; (4) relationships; (5) eligibility criteria (resident and care home); (6) preference-based decisions; and (7) care home staff and environment. Given the complex interplay of the factors identified, both direct and indirect factors were included.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of recurring barriers and facilitators to the inclusion of care home residents in research are reported. However, isolating resident-related barriers was complex as both direct and indirect factors must be considered as influential. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to inclusion will enable these factors to be addressed and increase the evidence-base for care provided to older people living in care homes.

Why the trial researcher matters: Day-to-day work viewed through the lens of normalization process theory

Researchers working in the field, the places where research-relevant activity happens, are essential to recruitment and data collection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to understand the nature of this often invisible work. Data were generated through an RCT of a pharmacist-led medication management service for older people in care homes. The study was conducted over three years and employed seven Research Associates (RA) working in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. Weekly research team meetings and Programme Management Group meetings naturally generated 129 sets of minutes. This documentary data was supplemented with two end-of-study RA debriefing meetings. Data were coded to sort the work being done in the field, then deductively explored through the lens of Normalization Process Theory to enable a greater understanding of the depth, breadth and complexity of work carried out by these trial delivery RAs. Results indicate RAs helped stakeholders and participants make sense of the research, they built relationships with participants to support retention, operationalised complex data collection procedures and reflected on their own work contexts to reach agreement on changes to trial procedures. The debrief discussions enabled RAs to explore and reflect on experiences from the field which had affected their day-to-day work. The learning from the challenges faced in facilitating care home research may be useful to inform future research team preparation for complex interventions. Scrutinising these data sources through the lens of NPT enabled us to identify RAs as linchpins in the successful conduct of a complex RCT study.

Methodology and outcome of trials involving older adults in UK care homes: A rapid review

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom (UK) has a well-developed health and social care system, and strong research governance. However, there is limited evidence to guide best research practice among vulnerable older people in care homes and there is no consensus on clinical trial methodology that is deliverable in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature on trials conducted among older adults residing in care homes within the UK and collate evidence on their methodological characteristics and outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic rapid review methodology was employed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in two incremental stages: stage 1 searched for oral health-related trials conducted within the UK care homes up to July 2021, whereas stage 2 sought for general health-related trials in the same setting from 2011 to 2021. The quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Findings were summarised descriptively.

RESULTS

Five oral health and 33 general health-related trials involving care home residents were included for analysis. The most common trial design was parallel group with two arms (n = 25) involving individual randomisation (n = 21). Consent was mainly obtained from residents and/or their proxies (n = 24), followed by residents only (n = 13) and care homes only (n = 1). Based on available data, the number needed to screen to recruit one participant ranged from 2 to 40 (median: 3; Q1-Q3: 2-9). Attrition rates ranged from 0% to 73% (median: 21%; Q1-Q3: 13%-32%) for follow-up periods between 1 and 52 weeks. The studies were of mixed methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

This rapid review outlines the methodological characteristics and outcomes of trials conducted among older adults in UK care homes. The findings of this review provide valuable information to assist in navigating and designing future research in this complex setting.

Advance planning for research participation: Time to translate this innovation into practice

OBJECTIVES

Advance planning for research is a process that involves thinking about, discussing and expressing preferences for taking part in research during future periods of incapacity. The process may include making an advance research directive and naming trusted people to be involved in decisions about research participation. Advance research planning could help to overcome barriers to including people with dementia in research. To encourage innovation in this area, this article presents recommendations informed by a stakeholder workshop that brought together consumer representatives and representatives active in dementia, ageing and health-related research, policy-making, advocacy and service delivery in health and aged care.

METHODS

An online workshop where 15 stakeholders shared perspectives and suggestions for implementing advance research planning, with a focus on research involving people with dementia.

RESULTS

Raising awareness of advance research planning requires multi-faceted strategies. Training and resources are needed for researchers, ethics committees and organisations regarding this form of advance planning and the use of research directives. Like any form of advance planning, planning ahead for research must be a voluntary, informed and person-centred process. There is a lack of uniform legal rules on research involving people who lack the capacity to consent; however, advance research directives could, in principle, inform decisions about research participation.

CONCLUSIONS

As a matter of law, policy and practice, people are encouraged to plan ahead in many areas of their life. Research planning has been relatively neglected, and the recommendations offered here aim to encourage innovation in research and implementation in this area.

Theory-based evaluation of three research-practice partnerships designed to deliver novel, sustainable collaborations between adult social care research and practice in the UK: a research protocol for a 'layered' contributions analysis and realist evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are long-term collaborations between research and practice that aim to conduct research that can be used to make practice-based improvements. They intentionally bring together diverse experience in decision making and seek to shift power dynamics so that all partners have a say. The Creating Care Partnerships project aims to explore whether the RPP approach developed within the US educational context can be successfully applied to the English care home context. The project involves a programme of codesign, implementation and evaluation within three case study sites. This protocol set outs the aims, research design and governance of the evaluation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The evaluation takes a theory-based approach to explore how, why and in what circumstances RPPs in the care home context contribute to enhancing research and research use in local care homes and informing wider improvement efforts. A mixed-methods design will be used for each case study, including semistructured interviews, observations of RPP events and meetings, an online survey, activity diary and review of local data and documents. Data collection will proceed in waves, with the theory of change (ToC) being continually refined and used to guide further data collection and analysis. Insights will be drawn using Contribution Analysis, Realist Evaluation and systems perspectives to assess the contribution made by the case study sites to achieving outcomes and the influence of contextual factors. Economic consequences will be identified through the ToC, using a narrative economic analysis to assess costs, consequences and value for money.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has undergone ethics review by HRA Research Ethics Committee. It does not pose major ethical issues. A final report will be published and articles will be submitted to international journals.

An exploration of the challenges of providing person-centred care for older care home residents with obesity

The aim of this study was to explore care home staff's views on the prevalence of obesity in older people and how well prepared they were for any rise in applications for placements. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group interview data collected from seven care homes/33 participants in N.E. England. Findings revealed rises in demand by older people with obesity for care home admittance, consistent with rising prevalence of obesity in this demographic nationally. Findings also highlight implications of rising prevalence of obesity in older people, particularly care home staff's ability to deliver person-centred care (PCC) and the importance of appropriate support/recognition of this as an emergent issue to be addressed at a higher executive level and by health/social care authorities. Ways of ensuring PCC are discussed. Given continuing trends towards rising prevalence of obesity in this population, the findings possess broader translational potential.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to invest in care home research infrastructure

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in catastrophic levels of morbidity and mortality for care home residents. Despite this, research platforms for COVID-19 in care homes arrived late in the pandemic compared with other care settings. The Prophylactic Therapy in Care Homes Trial (PROTECT-CH) was established to provide a platform to deliver multi-centre cluster-randomized clinical trials of investigational medicinal products for COVID-19 prophylaxis in UK care homes. Commencing set-up in January 2021, this involved the design and development of novel infrastructure for contracting and recruitment, remote consent, staff training, research insurance, eligibility screening, prescribing, dispensing, and adverse event reporting; such infrastructure being previously absent. By the time this infrastructure was in place, the widespread uptake of vaccination in care homes had changed the epidemiology of COVID-19 rendering the trial unfeasible. Whilst some of the resources developed through PROTECT-CH will enable the future establishment of care home platform research, the near absence of care home trial infrastructure and nationally-linked databases involving the care home sector will continue to significantly hamper progress. These issues are replicated in most other countries. Beyond COVID-19, there are many other research questions that require addressing to provide better care to people living in care homes. PROTECT-CH has exposed a clear need for research funders to invest in, and legislate for, an effective care home research infrastructure as part of national pandemic preparedness planning. Doing so would also invigorate care home research in the interim, leading to improved healthcare delivery specific to those living in this sector.

Dietary nitrate supplementation for preventing and reducing the severity of winter infections, including COVID-19, in care homes (BEET-Winter): a randomised placebo-controlled feasibility trial

PURPOSE

Infections cause considerable care home morbidity and mortality. Nitric oxide (NO) has broad-spectrum anti-viral, bacterial and yeast activity in vitro. We assessed the feasibility of supplementing dietary nitrate (NO substrate) intake in care home residents.

METHODS

We performed a cluster-randomised placebo-controlled trial in UK residential and nursing care home residents and compared nitrate containing (400 mg) versus free (0 mg daily) beetroot juice given for 60 days. Outcomes comprised feasibility of recruitment, adherence, salivary and urinary nitrate, and ordinal infection/clinical events.

RESULTS

Of 30 targeted care homes in late 2020, 16 expressed interest and only 6 participated. 49 residents were recruited (median 8 [interquartile range 7-12] per home), mean (standard deviation) age 82 (8) years, with proxy consent 41 (84%), advance directive for hospital non-admission 8 (16%) and ≥ 1 doses of COVID-19 vaccine 37 (82%). Background dietary nitrate was < 30% of acceptable daily intake. 34 (76%) residents received > 50% of juice. Residents randomised to nitrate vs placebo had higher urinary nitrate levels, median 50 [18-175] v 18 [10-50] mg/L, difference 25 [0-90]. Data paucity precluded clinical between-group comparisons; the outcome distribution was as follows: no infection 32 (67%), uncomplicated infection 0, infection requiring healthcare support 11 (23%), all-cause hospitalisation 5 (10%), all-cause mortality 0. Urinary tract infections were most common.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruiting UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic was partially successful. Supplemented dietary nitrate was tolerated and elevated urinary nitrate. Together, infections, hospitalisations and deaths occurred in 33% of residents over 60 days. A larger trial is now required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN51124684. Application date 7/12/2020; assignment date 13/1/2021.

Protecting older people living in care homes from COVID-19: a protocol for a mixed-methods study to understand the challenges and solutions to implementing social distancing and isolation

INTRODUCTION

Older people living in residential and nursing care homes often have complex needs and are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality, especially if they contract COVID-19. Care homes use infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing and isolating residents to protect them from COVID-19. The care home sector has stated that implementing social distancing and isolation when caring for residents is a significant challenge. This paper presents the protocol of a mixed-methods study to explore and understand the real-life experiences of implementing social distancing and isolation of residents in care homes for older people from the perspective of residents, families/friends and staff working in and with care homes. The study aims to develop a toolkit of resources for health and care delivery now and for future outbreaks of infectious diseases.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be conducted in three phases. Phase 1 is a rapid review of evidence to collate knowledge on the mechanisms and measures used by care homes and long-term facilities to socially distance and isolate older people or control the spread of other infectious and contagious diseases. The review results will contribute to participant interviews in phase 2 and toolkit development in phase 3. Phase 2 will involve case studies with six care homes in England, involving the conduct of individual interviews with residents, families and friends, and staff, collection of care home policies and protocols related to social distancing and isolation for residents, and routinely collected care home data. A focus group with a purposive sample of external key informants will also be conducted. Phase 3, synthesising findings from phases 1 and 2, will inform the codesign of a toolkit of resources for residents, families/friends and care homes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (20/WM/0318). To maximise impact, we will work closely with the Study Committees and the Patient and Public Involvement group to ensure the findings reach key stakeholders, including residents, families/friends, care homes, commissioners and organisations representing care home providers. We will disseminate the study outputs in peer-reviewed and professional journals, at professional conferences and via other knowledge transfer activities with the care home sector, and resident and carer organisations. The toolkit comprising evidence-informed guidance and resources and a mosaic film will be hosted on a project webpage.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (Project reference NIHR132541). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021226734.

Strategies to enhance routine physical activity in care home residents: the REACH research programme including a cluster feasibility RCT

Background

Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity.

Objectives

The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams.

Design

This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5).

Setting

The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK.

Participants

The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes.

Intervention

The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5).

Results

Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green).

Limitations

Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial.

Conclusions

A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting.

Future work

The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ADVANCE: Methodology of a qualitative study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Quantitative studies have documented persistent regional, facility, and racial differences in the intensity of care provided to nursing home (NH) residents with advanced dementia including, greater intensity in the Southeastern United States, among black residents, and wide variation among NHs in the same hospital referral region (HRR). The reasons for these differences are poorly understood, and the appropriate way to study them is poorly described.

DESIGN

Assessment of Disparities and Variation for Alzheimer's disease Nursing home Care at End of life (ADVANCE) is a large qualitative study to elucidate factors related to NH organizational culture and proxy perspectives contributing to differences in the intensity of advanced dementia care. Using nationwide 2016-2017 Minimum DataSet information, four HRRs were identified in which the relative intensity of advanced dementia care was high (N = 2 HRRs) and low (N = 2 HRRs) based on hospital transfer and tube-feeding rates among residents with this condition. Within those HRRs, we identified facilities providing high (N = 2 NHs) and low (N = 2 NHs) intensity care relative to all NHs in that HRR (N = 16 total facilities; 4 facilities/HRR).

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

To date, the research team conducted 275 h of observation in 13 NHs and interviewed 158 NH providers from varied disciplines to assess physical environment, care processes, decision-making processes, and values. We interviewed 44 proxies (black, N = 19; white, N = 25) about their perceptions of advance care planning, decision-making, values, communication, support, trust, literacy, beliefs about death, and spirituality. This report describes ADVANCE study design and the facilitators and challenges of its implementation, providing a template for the successful application of large qualitative studies focused on quality care in NHs.

How nurses can support the inclusion in research of older people who lack capacity to consent

Research is important because it underpins evidence-based care. However, people who lack capacity to consent are often excluded from research, due partly to ethical concerns and practical challenges, and partly to a lack of awareness among professionals of the legal framework that supports their inclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has extensively affected care home residents, has reinforced the importance of including older people with cognitive impairment in research. Nurses who care for older people with impaired cognition have an important role in ensuring these people have the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from research. This article discusses some of the challenges associated with the inclusion in research of older people who lack capacity to consent, including the involvement of relatives and friends in decision-making. The article describes the findings of recent research and shares resources with the aim of supporting nurses to ensure that older people in their care who lack capacity can participate in research.

Building relational research capacity in care homes in the COVID-19 era: applying recognition theory to the research agenda

Purpose

Research can be an influential driver in raising care home standards and the well-being and human rights of residents. This paper aims to present a case for how a relational research capacity building programme could advance this agenda.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses Axel Honneth’s Recognition Theory as a lens through which to explore organisational and institutional factors (such as research capacity and investment) that can either enable or limit “recognition” in the context of research in care homes. This paper draws on recent evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and worldwide, to argue that such a relational capacity building agenda is even more pressing in the current context, and that it resonates with evidence from existing relational capacity building initiatives.

Findings

A lack of relevant research arguably contributed to the crisis experienced by the care home sector early in the pandemic, and there are only tentative signs that residents, care home providers and staff are now informing the COVID-19 research agenda. Evidence from pre COVID-19 and insights from Honneth’s Recognition Theory suggest that relational approaches to building research capacity within the care home sector can better generate evidence to inform practice.

Originality/value

This is a novel application of recognition theory to research in the care home sector. Drawing on theory, as well as evidence, has enabled the authors to provide a rationale as to why relationship-based research capacity building in care homes warrants further investment.

Self-reported needs and experiences of people with dementia living in nursing homes: a scoping review

Objectives: With rates of dementia continuing to rise, the impetus on improving care for people with dementia is growing. Unmet needs of people with dementia living in nursing homes have been linked with worsening neuropsychiatric symptoms, higher levels of depression, and reduced quality of life. Furthermore, proxy accounts exploring the needs of people with dementia have frequently been shown to be unreliable. Therefore, this literature review aims to explore the self-reported needs and experiences of people with dementia in nursing homes.Method: A scoping review of the literature was carried out using the databases PubMed and PsycINFO to search for relevant articles according to PRISMA guidelines. Search terms were designed to include both quantitative and qualitative study designs. Thematic synthesis was used to categorise findings into themes related to self-reported needs and experiences.Results: A total of 41 articles met the eligibility criteria. An analysis of study characteristics revealed more than half of studies used a qualitative design. Thematic synthesis resulted in eight themes: activities, maintaining previous roles, reminiscence, freedom and choice, appropriate environment, meaningful relationships, support with grief and loss, end-of-life care.Conclusion: Whilst the voice of people with dementia has previously been neglected in research, this review has shown that people with dementia in nursing homes are able to describe their experiences and communicate their needs. The findings in this review have provided a contribution towards guiding evidence-based practice that is tailored to the needs of nursing home residents with dementia.

Mission (im)possible: Engaging care homes, staff and residents in research studies

OBJECTIVES

With increasing age the risk of institutionalization increases. To address the problem of underrepresentation of care homes and their residents in future research studies, we aimed to explore care home staff members' thoughts on barriers, challenges, facilitators and key aspects of engaging in research studies.

METHODS

Five staff members from four care homes in Glasgow and Barcelona were interviewed. Transcription of the interviews was completed verbatim and an inductive thematic analysis was conducted to understand the difficulties and challenges they perceive for engaging in research studies.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged that encapsulated the staff members' perspectives. 'Too much to deal with' included two subthemes; 'interested but with support' encapsulated four subthemes; and 'on the residents' terms' highlighted three subthemes. Staff members showed interest in engaging in research studies if a clear management support accompanied by a whole team approach was evident. The involvement of the resident's relatives was seen as essential if residents were to be supported to be engaged.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the small sample size, the perspectives of staff members, irrespective of country, provided valuable insights for informing researchers on best approaches to maximize care home and resident engagement in research.

Exploring the role of external experts in supporting staff to implement psychosocial interventions in care home settings: results from the process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial interventions offer opportunities to improve care for people with dementia in care homes. However, implementation is often led by staff who are not well prepared for the role. Some interventions use external experts to support staff. However little is known about external expert, care home staff and manager perceptions of such support. This paper addresses this gap.

METHODS

Multi-methods study within a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM). Interviews were conducted with six external experts who also completed questionnaires, 17 care home managers and 25 care home staff responsible for DCM implementation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and template analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: the need for expert support, practicalities of support and broader impacts of providing support. Expert support was vital for successful DCM implementation, although the five-days provided was felt to be insufficient. Some homes felt the support was inflexible and did not consider their individual needs. Practical challenges of experts being located at a geographical distance from the care homes, limited when and how support was available. Experts gained knowledge they were able to then apply in delivering DCM training. Experts were not able to accurately predict which homes would be able to implement DCM independently in future cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

An external expert may form a key component of successful implementation of psychosocial interventions in care home settings. Future research should explore optimal use of the expert role.

Research, recruitment and observational data collection in care homes: lessons from the PACE study

Objective

Care homes are a common place of death for older adults, especially those with complex health needs or dementia. Representative, internationally comparable data on care home facilities and their residents is needed to monitor health and wellbeing in this population. Identification and collection of data from care homes can be challenging and often underreported. This paper draws on the experiences of the PACE study, a cross sectional mortality follow back study conducted in six European countries.

Results

Multiple challenges were encountered in creating a sampling framework and contacting, recruiting and retaining care homes in the PACE study. Recruiting a randomly identified, representative cohort from a stratified sampling framework was problematic, as was engaging with care homes to ensure high response rates. Variation in the funding of care homes across the six countries involved in the study may explain the additional challenges encountered in England. Awareness of the challenges encountered in England in implementing an international study in care homes can inform the design and implementation of future studies within care homes. Further discussion is needed to determine the barriers and facilitators to conducting research in care homes, and how this is shaped by the focus of the study.

Research reported in the AJA: Who does it and where do they do it?

OBJECTIVE

To review research published in the AJA in terms of authors' positions and disciplinary backgrounds, and the settings in which research was done.

METHODS

Eighty two papers by 373 authors, in Vol. 35 No 1, March 2016, to Vol 37 No 2, June 2018, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Different clusters of authorship were found for research using surveys or database analyses, research in hospitals and aged care settings. Two out of three authors held academic positions, and professional practitioners in hospitals were much more likely to have academic affiliations than in aged care settings. Differing research cultures are seen to contribute to these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Editorial policies have been central to maintaining publication standards. The Journal's publication partners could take a number of actions to advance recognition of professionals in different roles as authors and to expand the range of research published, especially nursing and social science research.

Challenges of conducting research in long-term care facilities: a systematic review

Background

The aim of this review is to describe the challenges and barriers to conducting research in long-term care facilities.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Keywords used included “long term care”, “nursing home”, “research”, “trial”, “challenge” and “barrier”, etc. Resulting references were screened in order to identify relevant studies that reported on challenges derived from first-hand experience of empirical research studies. Challenges were summarized and synthesized.

Results

Of 1723 references, 39 articles were selected for inclusion. To facilitate understanding we proposed a classification framework of 8 main themes to categorize the research challenges presented in the 39 studies, relating to the characteristics of facility/owner/administrator, resident, staff caregiver, family caregiver, investigator, ethical or legal concerns, methodology, and budgetary considerations.

Conclusions

Conducting research in long-term care facilities is full of challenges which can be categorized into 8 main themes. Investigators should be aware of all these challenges and specifically address them when planning their studies. Stakeholders should be involved from an early stage and flexibility should be built into both the methodology and research budget.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0934-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recruiting care homes to a randomised controlled trial

Background

There are more than a quarter of a million individuals aged ≥ 65 years who are resident in care homes in England and Wales. Care home residents have high levels of cognitive impairment, physical disability, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Research is needed to ensure there are robust, evidence-based interventions to improve the quality of life of this frail group. However, there is a paucity of research studies in this area. Recruiting care homes and their residents to research is challenging.

A feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial was undertaken as part of a research programme to identify ways to develop and test methods to enhance the physical activity of care home residents. This paper describes two methods of recruiting care homes to the trial and draws out learning to inform future studies.

Methods

Eligible care homes met the following criteria: they were within a defined geographical area in the north of England; provided residential care for adults ≥ 65 years of age; had not previously been involved in the research programme; were not taking part in a conflicting study; were not recorded on the Care Quality Commission website as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requiring improvements’ in any area; and had ≥ 10 beds. Care homes were identified by a ‘systematic approach’ using the Care Quality Commission website database of care homes or a ‘targeted approach’ via a network of research-ready care homes. A standardised method was used to recruit care homes including eligibility screening; invitation letters; telephone contact; visits; formal letter of agreement.

Results

In the systematic approach, 377 care homes were screened, 230 (61%) were initially eligible and invited to participate, 11 were recruited (recruitment rate (RR) 4.8%). In the targeted approach, 15 care homes were invited to participate, two were recruited (RR 13.3%). Overall, 245 care homes were approached and 13 recruited (RR 5.3%). A variety of care homes were recruited to the trial in terms of size, location, ownership and care provision.

Conclusions

Systematic recruitment of care homes to the study was time-consuming and resource-heavy but led to a variety of care homes being recruited. The targeted approach led to a higher recruitment rate.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16076575. Registered on 25 June 2015.

Teaching nursing homes: the Norwegian experience 20 years on

Background

The Norwegian teaching nursing home (TNH) programme was launched in 1997 to address the continued challenges and threats to quality in long-term care. They included high turnover, inadequate recruitment of qualified staff, poor image and inadequate learning opportunities in long-term care for students, and lack of opportunities for knowledge and skill development for staff. Research into the particular challenges and needs in long-term care was very limited. The aim of the programmes was to establish partnerships between selected nursing homes, universities and university colleges. Together the institutions would address the challenges by developing quality development programmes, initiating research and improving teaching in collaboration. During the first project period (1997-2003), the TNHs proved to be efficient in launching quality-improvement programmes, improving teaching of students and staff and supporting relevant research. Following a formal evaluation, the programme was established on a permanent basis in 2004. Since then the programme has gone through a number of changes, including growing in numbers, being widened to include home care services, and changing focus from local developments to also being vehicles for national quality initiatives.

Aim

This paper describes the current programme of teaching nursing homes in relation to its goals, organisation and responsibilities.

Results

The strong learning network among the institutions contributes to the robustness of the programme which focuses on developing and implementing evidence-based care and creative learning environments for students and staff.

Conclusions

The programme has altered since its inception to ensure it remains a sustainable innovation for improving the care of older people.

Optimal NHS service delivery to care homes: a realist evaluation of the features and mechanisms that support effective working for the continuing care of older people in residential settings

Background

Care homes are the institutional providers of long-term care for older people. The OPTIMAL study argued that it is probable that there are key activities within different models of health-care provision that are important for residents’ health care.

Objectives

To understand ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. Study questions focused on how different mechanisms within the various models of service delivery act as the ‘active ingredients’ associated with positive health-related outcomes for care home residents.

Methods

Using realist methods we focused on five outcomes: (1) medication use and review; (2) use of out-of-hours services; (3) hospital admissions, including emergency department attendances and length of hospital stay; (4) resource use; and (5) user satisfaction. Phase 1: interviewed stakeholders and reviewed the evidence to develop an explanatory theory of what supported good health-care provision for further testing in phase 2. Phase 2 developed a minimum data set of resident characteristics and tracked their care for 12 months. We also interviewed residents, family and staff receiving and providing health care to residents. The 12 study care homes were located on the south coast, the Midlands and the east of England. Health-care provision to care homes was distinctive in each site.

Findings

Phase 1 found that health-care provision to care homes is reactive and inequitable. The realist review argued that incentives or sanctions, agreed protocols, clinical expertise and structured approaches to assessment and care planning could support improved health-related outcomes; however, to achieve change NHS professionals and care home staff needed to work together from the outset to identify, co-design and implement agreed approaches to health care. Phase 2 tested this further and found that, although there were few differences between the sites in residents’ use of resources, the differences in service integration between the NHS and care homes did reflect how these institutions approached activities that supported relational working. Key to this was how much time NHS staff and care home staff had had to learn how to work together and if the work was seen as legitimate, requiring ongoing investment by commissioners and engagement from practitioners. Residents appreciated the general practitioner (GP) input and, when supported by other care home-specific NHS services, GPs reported that it was sustainable and valued work. Access to dementia expertise, ongoing training and support was essential to ensure that both NHS and care home staff were equipped to provide appropriate care.

Limitations

Findings were constrained by the numbers of residents recruited and retained in phase 2 for the 12 months of data collection.

Conclusions

NHS services work well with care homes when payments and role specification endorse the importance of this work at an institutional level as well as with individual residents. GP involvement is important but needs additional support from other services to be sustainable. A focus on strategies that promote co-design-based approaches between the NHS and care homes has the potential to improve residents’ access to and experience of health care.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Establishing a set of research priorities in care homes for older people in the UK: a modified Delphi consensus study with care home staff

Background

currently, there is little evidence base for much of the care provided for older people in care homes. Given the wide range of topics that require further investigation, and limited resources, one solution is to identify the priorities for future research.

Methods

a modified Delphi technique was used to identify research topics and develop consensus among care home staff participants. The survey was conducted across three rounds. Firstly to elicit topics that were considered by participants to require further research, secondly to prioritise the long list of research questions, followed by a third round to reach a consensus on the highest ranked 15 questions.

Results

eighty-three participants responded to the initial survey, providing 144 questions. Following analysis and review against existing evidence, 76 research questions remained. Of note, 40/83 participants responded to the interim prioritisation round and 43/83 participants responded to the final round, which ranked the top 15 research questions by importance. Two other groups of health and social care professionals also participated in the final ranking. The results from these groups had a similar ordering to those of the original cohort of participants.

Conclusion

this is the first study to establish a set of research priorities for older people in the UK care homes. It is hoped that sharing these results with clinicians, researchers and funding bodies will help to begin the process of ensuring that the future research agenda can be focused on the areas of greatest need. Further work to identify the priorities of other key stakeholders is required.

Improving care for people with dementia: development and initial feasibility study for evaluation of life story work in dementia care

Background

Improving dementia care quality is an urgent priority nationally and internationally. Life story work (LSW) is an intervention that aims to improve individual outcomes and care for people with dementia and their carers. LSW gathers information and artefacts about the person, their history and interests, and produces a tangible output: the ‘life story’.

Objective

To establish whether or not full evaluation of LSW was feasible.

Design

Mixed-methods feasibility study.

Methods

In-depth interviews and focus groups explored experiences of LSW and best practice with people with dementia, family members and dementia care staff. A systematic review explored best practice and theories of change for LSW. These stages helped to identify the outcomes and resources to explore in the feasibility study. A representative sample survey of health and social care dementia care providers in England established LSW practice in different settings. A survey of a self-selected sample of family members of people with dementia explored how LSW is experienced. Two small outcome studies (stepped-wedge study in six care homes and pre-test post-test study in inpatient specialist dementia care wards) explored the feasibility of full evaluation of LSW in these settings.

Settings

Survey: generalist and specialist care homes; NHS dementia care settings; and community dementia services. Feasibility study: care homes and NHS inpatient dementia care wards.

Participants

NHS and social care services, people with dementia, family carers, care home staff and NHS staff.

Interventions

LSW.

Main outcome measures

Spread of LSW and good practice, quality of life (QoL) for the person with dementia and carers, relationships between people with dementia and family carers, staff attitudes about dementia, staff burnout, resource use and costs.

Review methods

Narrative review and synthesis, following Centre for Review and Dissemination guidelines.

Results

Good practice in LSW is identifiable, as are theories of change about how it might affect given outcomes. Indicators of best practice were produced. LSW is spreading but practice and use vary between care settings and are not always in line with identified good practice. Two different models of LSW are evident; these are likely to be appropriate at different stages of the dementia journey. The feasibility study showed some positive changes in staff attitudes towards dementia and, for some people with dementia, improvements in QoL. These may be attributable to LSW but these potential benefits require full evaluation. The feasibility work established the likely costs of LSW and highlighted the challenges of future evaluation in care homes and inpatient dementia care settings.

Limitations

There was insufficient evidence in the literature to allow estimation of outcome size. We did not carry out planned Markov chain modelling to inform decisions about carrying out future evaluation because of the dearth of outcome data in the literature; low levels of data return for people with dementia in the hospital settings; lack of detected effect for most people with dementia; and questions about implementation in the research settings.

Conclusions

LSW is used across different health and social care settings in England, but in different ways, not all of which reflect ‘good practice’. This large, complex study identified a wide range of challenges for future research, but also the possibility that LSW may help to improve care staff attitudes towards dementia and QoL for some people with dementia.

Future work

Full evaluation of LSW as an intervention to improve staff attitudes and care is feasible with researchers based in or very close to care settings to ensure high-quality data collection.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Older care-home residents as collaborators or advisors in research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

patient and public involvement (PPI) in research can enhance its relevance. Older care-home residents are often not involved in research processes even when studies are care-home focused.

OBJECTIVE

to conduct a systematic review to find out to what extent and how older care-home residents have been involved in research as collaborators or advisors.

METHODS

a systematic literature search of 12 databases, covering the period from 1990 to September 2014 was conducted. A lateral search was also carried out. Standardised inclusion criteria were used and checked independently by two researchers.

RESULTS

nineteen reports and papers were identified relating to 11 different studies. Care-home residents had been involved in the research process in multiple ways. Two key themes were identified: (i) the differences in residents' involvement in small-scale and large-scale studies and (ii) the barriers to and facilitators of involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

small-scale studies involved residents as collaborators in participatory action research, whereas larger studies involved residents as consultants in advisory roles. There are multiple facilitators of and barriers to involving residents as PPI members. The reporting of PPI varies. While it is difficult to evaluate the impact of involving care-home residents on the research outcomes, impact has been demonstrated from more inclusive research processes with care-home residents. The review shows that older care-home residents can be successfully involved in the research process.

Spreading and sustaining best practices for home care of older adults: a grounded theory study

BACKGROUND

Improving health care quality requires effective and timely spread of innovations that support evidence-based practices. However, there is limited rigorous research on the process of spread, factors influencing spread, and models of spread. It is particularly important to study spread within the home care sector given the aging of the population, expansion of home care services internationally, the high proportion of older adult users of home care services, and the vulnerability of this group who are frail and live with multiple chronic conditions. The purpose of this study was to understand how best practices related to older adults are spread within home care organizations.

METHODS

Four home care organizations in Ontario, Canada that had implemented best practices related to older adults (falls prevention, pain management, management of venous leg ulcers) participated. Using a qualitative grounded theory design, interviews were conducted with frontline providers, managers, and directors at baseline (n = 44) and 1 year later (n = 40). Open, axial, and selective coding and constant comparison analysis were used.

RESULTS

A model of the process of spread of best practices within home care organizations was developed. The phases of spread included (1) committing to change, (2) implementing on a small scale, (3) adapting locally, (4) spreading internally to multiple users and sites, and (5) disseminating externally. Factors that facilitated progression through these phases were (1) leading with passion and commitment, (2) sustaining strategies, and (3) seeing the benefits. Project leads, champions, managers, and steering committees played vital roles in leading the spread process. Strategies such as educating/coaching and evaluating and feedback were key to sustaining the change. Spread occurred within the home care context of high staff and manager turnover and time and resource constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Spread of best practices is optimized through the application of the phases of spread, allocation of resources to support spread, and implementing strategies for ongoing sustainability that address potential barriers. Further research will help to understand how best practices are spread externally to other organizations.