The effectiveness of an aged care specific leadership and management program on workforce, work environment, and care quality outcomes: design of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions to Improve Health and Well-Being of Health and Social Service Workers: A Narrative Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Health and social service workers face high levels of workload and job stressors, which can affect their health and well-being. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions that aim to improve their mental and physical health outcomes. This review summarizes the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the impact of different types of workplace interventions on various health indicators among health and social service workers. The review searched the PubMed database from its inception to December 2022 and included RCTs that reported on the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions and qualitative studies that explored barriers and facilitators to participation in such interventions. A total of 108 RCTs were included in the review, covering job burnout (N = 56 RCTs), happiness or job satisfaction (N = 35), sickness absence (N = 18), psychosocial work stressors (N = 14), well-being (N = 13), work ability (N = 12), job performance or work engagement (N = 12), perceived general health (N = 9), and occupational injuries (N = 3). The review found that several workplace interventions were effective in improving work ability, well-being, perceived general health, work performance, and job satisfaction and in reducing psychosocial stressors, burnout, and sickness absence among healthcare workers. However, the effects were generally modest and short-lived. Some of the common barriers to participation in workplace interventions among healthcare workers were inadequate staff, high workload, time pressures, work constraints, lack of manager support, scheduling health programs outside work hours, and lack of motivation. This review suggests that workplace interventions have small short-term positive effects on health and well-being of healthcare workers. Workplace interventions should be implemented as routine programs with free work hours to encourage participation or integrate intervention activities into daily work routines.

Collective leadership to improve professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being

BACKGROUND

Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greater complexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall. Collective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.

More I than we - the effect of organisational identification in the Australian aged care workforce

PURPOSE

This paper aims to determine the effects of leadership style (LS) on organisational identification (OID) in aged care provider organisations to inform talent management strategies for the sector, which has quite severe workforce shortages.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This paper reports on a mixed-methods study. Study 1 was quantitative in approach that measured responses to an online questionnaire containing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and the Identification with a Psychological Group scale. The analytical strategy provided results that demonstrated the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample, the reliability and distributions of data and calculated the correlations between the factors of the deployed tools. The relationship between the factors that comprise both tools was measured, and any differences between the two natural groups were labelled leaders and raters. Study 2 was qualitative in approach, using interpretive phenomenological analysis to provide an in-depth analysis of phenomena.

FINDINGS

The results and findings of this study are that OID was not evident in the quantitative or qualitative samples. There are recommendations for future research relating to the social capital of organisations and the use of social media to determine how these could be harnessed in support of workforce recruitment and retention strategies.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

This research was conducted in Australia with participants from the workforces of aged care providers in three eastern states of Australia. The results and findings may be limited to the Australian aged care context. The researcher evaluated the limitations of this research relating to: Methodology: There may be an overstatement of the strength of the relationships between variables among those motivated to participate in the survey in the quantitative study; Transferability: The qualitative study required the researcher to be thorough in describing the research context, and it may be that those who wish to transfer the results of this study to a different context are responsible for making the judgement on the suitability of the transfer; Credibility: The qualitative analysis was not designed to directly reflect a relationship between each leader and their direct report raters' experiences; and Confirmability: The researcher maintained an awareness and openness to the dynamism of the results. Frequent reflection and self-criticism about preconceptions that may have affected the research were recorded in field notes after each interview.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Aged care providers who must compete in the labour market for staff may use the results and findings of this research to inform recruitment and retention strategies relating to brand recognition and loyalty and social capital strategies.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Providing an appropriate, skilled and well-led workforce will assist in providing the appropriate level of aged care service at a high standard of quality and safety that will benefit the community as a whole.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this paper reports on original research conducted following ethical clearance in part fulfilment of a successful conferral of a Doctor of Philosophy programme. After an extensive search of the literature, no research reports returned that examined LS and OID in the aged care service provision.

A qualitative study of senior management perspectives on the leadership skills required in regional and rural Australian residential aged care facilities

BACKGROUND

With increasing recognition of the quality and safety issues in residential aged care, there is an urgent need to better understand what skills senior managers require to deliver on the spectrum of leadership functions in residential aged care facilities. This qualitative study sought to explore the leadership skills that positively influence the quality of care within Australian residential aged care facilities and better understand the professional development needs of senior managers to positively influence care within these complex environments.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 senior managers purposively recruited from 14 high-performing non-government residential aged care facilities of varying geographical remoteness in northern Queensland, Australia. Participants held a range of professional roles, including Chief Executive Officer, Director of Nursing and Facility Manager, and had various professional qualifications. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify and categorise senior managers' perspectives on the leadership skills and related strategies to promote quality of care.

RESULTS

Senior managers reported leadership skills in five major domains: i) communication and relationship management, ii) stewardship, iii) professional development, iv) health care knowledge and v) information technology and finance. Most participants highlighted communication and relationship management skills and responding to regulatory change as influential to residential aged care quality performance. Participants with different professional backgrounds often emphasised different skills.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants identified a broad range of skills and strategies required by senior managers in Australian residential aged care facilities. Identifying different skills by differently trained individuals suggests more work is needed to understand and develop sector-specific professional development approaches to better prepare individuals to lead in this complex service environment.

Career mentoring in aged care: Not all it seems

Understanding the nature of career mentoring is important for improving the career experience of aged care workers. This study explores the career mentoring behaviours of sponsorship, coaching, advocacy, challenging assignments, exposure and visibility in the residential aged care context. Interviews were conducted with 32 aged workers from several occupations within the care context. It was found that career mentoring in the aged care context was limited. The mentor behaviours of coaching, sponsorship and advocacy were limited and there was no opportunity in aged care to provide challenging assignments or promote exposure and visibility. Organisations and managers can facilitate learning and personal development by providing inclusive training for all workers regardless of the need to meet professional registration requirements. Learning needs to be continuous as careers and clinical techniques evolve. Extension of existing mentoring programmes to include all care workers would improve overall quality of care in residential aged care facilities.

Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well-being of employees

BACKGROUND

Many workers suffer from work-related stress and are at increased risk of work-related cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, or mental disorders. In the European Union the prevalence of work-related stress was estimated at about 22%. There is consensus that stress, absenteeism, and well-being of employees can be influenced by leadership behaviour. Existing reviews predominantly included cross-sectional and non-experimental studies, which have limited informative value in deducing causal relationships between leadership interventions and health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of four types of human resource management (HRM) training for supervisors on employees' psychomental stress, absenteeism, and well-being. We included training aimed at improving supervisor-employee interaction, either off-the-job or on-the-job training, and training aimed at improving supervisors' capability of designing the work environment, either off-the-job or on-the-job training.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and most relevant trials registers (ICTRP, TroPHI, ClinicalTrials.gov). We did not impose any language restrictions on the searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCT), and controlled before-after studies (CBA) with at least two intervention and control sites, which examined the effects of supervisor training on psychomental stress, absenteeism, and well-being of employees within natural settings of organisations by means of validated measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed study data from intervention and control groups with respect to different comparisons, outcomes, follow-up time, study designs, and intervention types. We pooled study results by use of standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals when possible. We assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies of which 4 are awaiting assessment. The 21 studies that could be analysed were 1 RCT, 14 cRCTs and 6 CBAs with a total of at least 3479 employees in intervention and control groups. We judged 12 studies to have an unclear risk of bias and the remaining nine studies to have a high risk of bias. Sixteen studies focused on improving supervisor-employee interaction, whereas five studies aimed at improving the design of working environments by means of supervisor training.Training versus no interventionWe found very low-quality evidence that supervisor training does not reduce employees' stress levels (6 studies) or absenteeism (1 study) when compared to no intervention, regardless of intervention type or follow-up. We found inconsistent, very low-quality evidence that supervisor training aimed at employee interaction may (2 studies) or may not (7 studies) improve employees' well-being when compared to no intervention. Effects from two studies were not estimable due to missing data.Training versus placeboWe found moderate-quality evidence (2 studies) that supervisor training off the job aimed at employee interaction does not reduce employees' stress levels more than a placebo training at mid-term follow-up. We found low-quality evidence in one study that supervisor training on the job aimed at employee interaction does not reduce employees' absenteeism more than placebo training at long-term follow-up. Effects from one study were not estimable due to insufficient data.Training versus other trainingOne study compared the effects of supervisor training off the job aimed at employee interaction on employees' stress levels to training off the job aimed at working conditions at long-term follow-up but due to insufficient data, effects were not estimable.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a small and heterogeneous sample of controlled intervention studies and in contrast to prevailing consensus that supervisor behaviour influences employees' health and well-being, we found inconsistent evidence that supervisor training may or may not improve employees' well-being when compared to no intervention. For all other types of interventions and outcomes, there was no evidence of a considerable effect. However, due to the very low- to moderate-quality of the evidence base, clear conclusions are currently unwarranted. Well-designed studies are needed to clarify effects of supervisor training on employees' stress, absenteeism, and well-being.

PerCEN trial participant perspectives on the implementation and outcomes of person-centered dementia care and environments

BACKGROUND

Well-being and various forms of agitation in people with dementia can be improved in a person-centered long-term care setting. Data obtained during the Person-Centered Dementia Care and Environment (PerCEN) randomized controlled trial shed light on the factors that influenced the adoption and outcomes of person-centered interventions in long-term care from the perspective of study participants.

METHODS

Data were obtained from PerCEN participants: individual semi-structured interviews with care managers (29), nurses and care staff (70); telephone surveys with family members (73); staff reports of care approaches; and 131 field note entries recorded by the person-centered care and environment facilitators. Data were interpreted inductively using content analysis, code building, theme development, and synthesis of findings.

RESULTS

All data sources confirmed that, when adopted, the person-centered model increased the number and variety of opportunities for resident interaction, improved flexibility in care regimens, enhanced staff's attention to resident needs, reduced resident agitation, and improved their well-being. Barriers and enablers for the person-centered model related to leadership, manager, staff and family appreciation of the model, staff's capacity, effective communication and team work among direct care staff, care service flexibility, and staff education on how to focus care on the person's well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful knowledge translation of the person-centered model starts with managerial leadership and support; it is sustained when staff are educated and assisted to apply the model, and, along with families, come to appreciate the benefits of flexible care services and teamwork in achieving resident well-being. The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number is ACTRN 12608000095369.

Long-term care characteristics that influence the utility and effectiveness of nonpharmacological therapies for people with dementia

SUMMARY 

Political, economic and organizational factors shape requirements for long-term aged care (LTC) serving people with chronic conditions, including dementia. Organization size, ownership and human resources need to be considered when examining the use and effectiveness of nonpharmacological modalities for people with dementia in LTC. Since LTC facility size, ownership, managerial leadership and staff-to-resident ratio appear to consistently influence staff capability to give quality care, these structural factors will also likely enhance, or limit, the therapeutic benefits of nonpharmacological approaches in dementia care. This issues paper recommends further debate in establishing consensus on the necessary criteria for successful implementation and realistic evaluation of nonpharmacological approaches when caring for the person with dementia in LTC.