September 15, 2020

“This induction into the Royal Society carries a great deal of meaning for me, as it is recognition of my life’s work and a new opportunity to engage with a society of similarly honoured scholars, which can only enrich my scholarly life.”

Health care aides represent up to 90% of the direct care workforce in LTC, and they are generally middle-aged women, with a high school diploma, and speak English as their second language. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed significant demands on care aides because of increased complexity of care and adjustment to unprecedented changes in care practices and regulations as well as a significant risk for being infected. Here we comment on implications of the single-site order issued to control the COVID-19 spread. We used data from our Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program that surveyed 3765 care aides from 94 randomly selected and stratified LTC sites in western Canada between September 2019 and February 2020.6 Several questions specifically focus on work arrangements.

The Royal Society of Canada Task Force on COVID-19 was formed in April 2020 to provide evidence-informed perspectives on major societal challenges in response to and recovery from COVID-19. The Task Force established a series of working groups to rapidly develop policy briefings, with the objective of supporting policy makers with evidence to inform their decisions. This paper reports the findings of the COVID-19 Long-Term Care (LTC) working group addressing a preferred future for LTC in Canada, with a specific focus on COVID-19 and the LTC workforce. First, the report addresses the research context and policy environment in Canada’s LTC sector before COVID-19 and then summarizes the existing knowledge base for integrated solutions to challenges that exist in the LTC sector. Second, the report outlines vulnerabilities exposed because of COVID-19, including deficiencies in the LTC sector that contributed to the magnitude of the COVID-19 crisis. This section focuses especially on the characteristics of older adults living in nursing homes, their caregivers, and the physical environment of nursing homes as important contributors to the COVID-19 crisis. Finally, the report articulates principles for action and nine recommendations for action to help solve the workforce crisis in nursing homes.

This brief presents emerging evidence on the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on the care economy. Complementing a separate UN Women brief on COVID-19 and economic recovery, this brief highlights key measures needed to address the increase in unpaid care work as a result of the pandemic, ensure adequate compensation and decent working conditions for paid care workers, and enable the participation of paid and unpaid caregivers in the policy decisions that affect them. It makes recommendations to be considered by all stakeholders, from governments to international organizations and the private sector, with examples of actions already taken.

In addition to considering the immediate impacts of the pandemic on care systems, it shines a light on the opportunity to “build back better” through sustained investments in gender-responsive social protection and care systems.

The academy is the first pan-Canadian organization dedicated to identifying, educating, supporting and celebrating nursing leaders across all the regulated categories and domains of practice. The Fellowship program recognizes and celebrates the most accomplished nurses in Canada and represents the highest honour for Canada’s nursing leaders. – See more at: https://cna-aiic.ca/en/news-room/news-releases/2020/stellar-group-of-nurses-named-the-first-fellows-of-canadian-academy-of-nursing#sthash.0PQ3WWJc.dpuf

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.

We conducted a scoping review of quality improvement in care homes. We aimed to identify participating occupational groups and methods for evaluation. Secondly, we aimed to describe resident-level interventions and which outcomes were measured. METHODS: Following extended PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews, we conducted systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and ASSIA (2000-2019). Furthermore, we searched systematic reviews databases including Cochrane Library and JBI, and the grey literature database, Greylit. Four co-authors contributed to selection and data extraction. RESULTS: Sixty five studies were included, 6 of which had multiple publications (75 articles overall). A range of quality improvement strategies were implemented, including audit feedback and quality improvement collaboratives. Methods consisted of controlled trials, quantitative time series and qualitative interview and observational studies. Process evaluations, involving staff of various occupational groups, described experiences and implementation measures. Many studies measured resident-level outputs and health outcomes. 14 studies reported improvements to a clinical measure; however, four of these articles were of low quality. Larger randomised controlled studies did not show statistically significant benefits to resident health outcomes. CONCLUSION: In care homes, quality improvement has been applied with several different strategies, being evaluated by a variety of measures. In terms of measuring benefits to residents, process outputs and health outcomes have been reported. There was no pattern of which quality improvement strategy was used for which clinical problem. Further development of reporting of quality improvement projects and outcomes could facilitate implementation.

A qualitative, interview-based study was embedded in a randomized intervention trial, the Older People Exercise and Nutrition (OPEN) study. Participants in the OPEN study were encouraged to conduct sessions of sit-to-stand (STS) exercises combined with Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS) intake. The aim was to describe the older persons’ perceptions and experiences of being given the daily opportunity to perform the STS exercise and drink ONS. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted in six nursing homes with the participants using a semi-structured interview guide. One or two individual interviews were performed with each included participant. Twenty-three NH residents (16 women and 7 men) participated in the qualitative study. Their ages ranged between 76 and 96 years, and their Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scored between 8 and 29. The transcribed interviews and field notes written during the visits were analyzed inductively following a constant comparative method described in Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The exercise and nutritional intervention was described as highly practical by the NH residents, who claimed it also had a social aspect as they felt acknowledged and empowered to engage others in the combined intervention. Experiences of the intervention ranged from neutral to mainly positive and could be sorted into 5 categories: 1. Perceived hopes and expectations, 2. Health-related driving forces, 3. Appreciated daily activities, 4. A concept easy to perform and integrate into daily life, 5. A beneficial health concept for all. The intervention created perceived benefits on various health aspects due to participants feeling energized and stronger. An overall theme was identified as A health concept with a social potential, as participants feel acknowledged and strong enough to help others. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was described by participants as a health concept that could potentially be beneficial for a broader spectrum of NH residents. The findings indicate that health concepts, such as STS/ONS, might contribute to a more meaningful day for older people, even vulnerable NH residents approaching the end of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT02702037 . Date of trial registration February 26, 2016.

To determine if protein and energy intake is significantly associated with a family member providing eating assistance to residents in long-term care homes as compared with staff providing this assistance, when adjusting for other covariates. BACKGROUND: Who provides eating support has the potential to improve resident food intake. Little is known about family eating assistance and if this is associated with resident food intake in long-term care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, secondary data analysis. METHODS: Between October and January 2016, multilevel data were collected from 32 long-term care homes across four Canadian provinces. Data included 3-day weighed/observed food intake, mealtime observations, physical dining room assessments, health record review, and staff report of care needs. Residents where family provided eating assistance were compared with residents who received staff-only assistance. Regression analysis determined the association of energy and protein intake with family eating assistance versus staff assistance while adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Of those residents who required any physical eating assistance (N = 147), 38% (N = 56) had family assistance during at least one of nine meals observed. Residents who received family assistance (N = 56) and those who did not (N = 91) were statistically different in several of their physiological eating abilities. When adjusting for covariates, family assistance was associated with significantly higher consumption of protein and energy intake. CONCLUSION: Energy and protein intake is significantly higher when family provides eating assistance. Family are encouraged to provide this direct care if it is required. IMPACT: Residents who struggle with independent eating can benefit from dedicated support during mealtimes. Findings from this study provide empirical evidence that family eating assistance is associated with improved resident food intake and provides strong justification to encourage families to be active partners in the care and well-being of their relatives. Home administrators and nursing staff should support the specialized care that families can provide at mealtimes.

In the present article, we highlight three new directions for scholars interested in diffusion research. While other scholars are actively pursuing diffusion research with different emphases including large-scale randomized trials in international development, policy diffusion, and the diffusion of beliefs through social media, here we focus on dissemination science, implementation science, and positive deviance research. Each of these new directions fills a void in the traditional diffusion of innovation research and practice paradigm, while sharing a focus on improving public health and healthcare.