Tuesday February 8, 2022

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: When staff experience responsive behaviors from residents, this can lead to decreased quality of work-life and lower quality of care in long-term care homes. We synthesised research on factors associated with resident responsive behaviours directed towards care staff and characteristics of interventions to reduce the behaviours. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review with quantitative and qualitative research. We searched 12 bibliographic databases and “grey” literature, using two keywords (long-term care, responsive behaviours) and their synonyms. Pairs of reviewers independently completed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We developed a coding scheme using the ecological model as an organising structure and prepared narrative summaries for each factor. RESULTS: From 86 included studies (57 quantitative, 28 qualitative, 1 mixed methods), multiple factors emerged, such as staff training background (individual level); staff approaches to care (interpersonal level); leadership and staffing resources (institutional level); and racism and patriarchy (societal level). Quantitative and qualitative results each provided key insights, such as qualitative results pertaining to leadership responses to reports of behaviours, and quantitative findings on the impact of staff approaches to care on behaviours. Effects of interventions (n=14) to reduce the behaviours were inconclusive. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We identified the need for enhanced understanding of the interrelationships among factors associated with resident responsive behaviours towards staff and processes leading to the behaviours. To address these gaps and to inform theory-based effective interventions for preventing or mitigating responsive behaviours, we suggest intervention studies with systematic process evaluations.

The 2021 annual report to Parliament on Canada’s national dementia strategy, A Dementia Strategy for Canada: Together We Aspire, shares with Canadians a variety of dementia-related efforts conducted by many different organizations across the country. Some of these initiatives focus on furthering dementia prevention through risk reduction by supporting healthy aging and built environments that encourage social contact and physical activity. Other initiatives emphasize the need to advance alternative dementia therapies to support quality of life, including through the use of innovative technologies, while work continues to find a cure. Efforts to promote the quality of life and wellbeing of people living with dementia and caregivers include those that highlight the importance of supporting intergenerational connections, improving navigation of community supports and the health care system, and promoting continued education for health and care providers.

Health Standards Organization (HSO) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Group) are collaborating on the development of two new national standards for LTC that are being shaped by the needs and voices of Canada’s LTC home residents, workforce, local communities, as well as members of the public.
HSO’s National Long-Term Care Services standard will address the delivery of safe, reliable, and high-quality long-term care services. CSA Group’s National Standard for Operation and Infection Prevention and Control of Long-Term Care Homes will address the design, operation and infection prevention and control practices in long-term care homes.
Join Dr. Samir Sinha and Professor Alex Mihailidis as they discuss the draft LTC standards, open for public review in January to April 2022.
Simultaneous French interpretation will be available.
Public reviews are an opportunity for anyone to review and provide feedback on a draft standard before it is finalized and published. The public review for HSO’s LTC Services standard is open from January 27th to March 27th.

The catastrophe that occurred in Quebec’s Centres d’hébergement de soins de longue durée (CHSLDs) during the pandemic should have come as no surprise. The problems facing these facilities have long been known, and the pandemic highlighted the extent to which prior health care reforms failed to resolve them. The Quebec government should make urgent reforms to improve the quality of elder care by adopting a three-pronged approach: it should reassess the needs of older adults across the full continuum of care and invest accordingly; review the governance and organization of CHSLDs and bring them up to modern standards; and create a “Qualité Québec” agency to enhance the learning capacity of the province’s health care system and promote the ongoing evaluation of policies and practices.

The care of older people living in residential care facilities (RCFs) should promote dignity and well-being, but research shows that these aspects are lacking in such facilities. To promote dignity and well-being, it is important to understand which associated factors to target. The aim of this study was to examine the associations between perceived dignity and well-being and factors related to the attitudes of staff, the care environment and individual issues among older people living in RCFs. A national retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in all RCFs for older people within 290 municipalities in Sweden. All older people 65 years and older (n = 71,696) living in RCFs in 2018 were invited to respond to the survey. The response rate was 49%. The survey included the following areas: self-rated health, indoor-outdoor-mealtime environment, performance of care, attitudes of staff, safety, social activities, availability of staff and care in its entirety. Data were supplemented with additional data from two national databases regarding age, sex and diagnosed dementia. Descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression models were used to analyse the data. Respondents who had experienced disrespectful treatment, those who did not thrive in the indoor-outdoor-mealtime environment, those who rated their health as poor and those with dementia had higher odds of being dissatisfied with dignity and well-being. To promote dignity and well-being, there is a need to improve the prerequisites of staff regarding respectful attitudes and to improve the care environment. The person-centred practice framework can be used as a theoretical framework for improvements, as it targets the prerequisites of staff and the care environment. As dignity and well-being are central values in the care of older people worldwide, the results of this study can be generalised to other care settings for older people in countries outside of Sweden.

Cambridge University Press journals include Ageing & Society and Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement.

BACKGROUND: Implementation research may play an important role in reducing research waste by identifying strategies that support translation of evidence into practice. Implementation of healthcare interventions is influenced by multiple factors including the organisational context, implementation strategies and features of the intervention as perceived by people delivering and receiving the intervention. Recently, concepts relating to perceived features of interventions have been gaining traction in published literature, namely, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, scalability and sustainability. These concepts may influence uptake of healthcare interventions, yet there seems to be little consensus about their nature and impact. The aim of this paper is to develop a testable conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions that includes these five concepts. METHODS: A multifaceted approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions. An overview of reviews identified reviews published between January 2000 and March 2021 that focused on at least one of the five concepts in relation to a healthcare intervention. These findings informed the development of a preliminary framework of implementability of healthcare interventions which was presented to a panel of experts. A nominal group process was used to critique, refine and agree on a final framework. RESULTS: A total of 252 publications were included in the overview of reviews. Of these, 32% were found to be feasible, 4% reported sustainable changes in practice and 9% were scaled up to other populations and/or settings. The expert panel proposed that scalability and sustainability of a healthcare intervention are dependent on its acceptability, fidelity and feasibility. Furthermore, acceptability, fidelity and feasibility require re-evaluation over time and as the intervention is developed and then implemented in different settings or with different populations. The final agreed framework of implementability provides the basis for a chronological, iterative approach to planning for wide-scale, long-term implementation of healthcare interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that researchers consider the factors acceptability, fidelity and feasibility (proposed to influence sustainability and scalability) during the preliminary phases of intervention development, evaluation and implementation, and iteratively check these factors in different settings and over time.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely (CW) is an international movement comprised of campaigns in more than 20 countries to reduce low-value care (LVC). De-implementation, the reduction or removal of a healthcare practice that offers little to no benefit or causes harm, is an emerging field of research. Little is known about the factors which (i) sustain LVC; and (ii) the magnitude of the problem of LVC. In addition, little is known about the processes of de-implementation, and if and how these processes differ from implementation endeavours. The objective of this study was to explicate the myriad factors which impact the processes and outcomes of de-implementation initiatives that are designed to address national Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals implementing Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations in healthcare settings in four provinces. The interview guide was developed using concepts from the literature and the Implementation Process Model (IPM) as a framework. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Seventeen Choosing Wisely team members were interviewed. Participants identified numerous provider factors, most notably habit, which sustain LVC. Contrary to reporting in recent studies, the majority of LVC in the sample was not ‘patient facing’; therefore, patients were not a significant driver for the LVC, nor a barrier to reducing it. Participants detailed aspects of the magnitude of the problems of LVC, providing insight into the complexities and nuances of harm, resources and prevalence. Harm from potential or common infections, reactions, or overtreatment was viewed as the most significant types of harm. Unique factors influencing the processes of de-implementation reported were: influence of Choosing Wisely campaigns, availability of data, lack of targets and hard-coded interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This study explicates factors ranging from those which impact the maintenance of LVC to factors that impact the success of de-implementation interventions intended to reduce them. The findings draw attention to the significance of unintentional factors, highlight the importance of understanding the impact of harm and resources to reduce LVC and illuminate the overstated impact of patients in de-implementation literature. These findings illustrate the complexities of de-implementation.

BACKGROUND: There is recognition that the overuse of procedures, testing, and medications constitutes low-value care which strains the healthcare system and, in some circumstances, can cause unnecessary stress and harm for patients. Initiatives across dozens of countries have raised awareness about the harms of low-value care but have had mixed success and the levels of reductions realized have been modest. Similar to the complex drivers of implementation processes, there is a limited understanding of the individual and social behavioral aspects of de-implementation. While researchers have begun to use theory to elucidate the dynamics of de-implementation, the research remains largely atheoretical. The use of theory supports the understanding of how and why interventions succeed or fail and what key factors predict success. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and characterize the use of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what influences efforts to reduce low-value care. METHODS: We conducted a review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2021. Building on previous research, 43 key terms were used to search the literature. The database searches identified 1998 unique articles for which titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion; 232 items were selected for full-text review. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Over half of the included articles were published in the last 2 years. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was the most commonly used determinant framework (n = 22). Of studies that used classic theories, the majority used the Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 6). For implementation theories, Normalization Process Theory and COM-B were used (n = 7). Theories or frameworks were used primarily to identify determinants (n = 37) and inform data analysis (n = 31). Eleven types of low-value care were examined in the included studies, with prescribing practices (e.g., overuse, polypharmacy, and appropriate prescribing) targeted most frequently. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a rigorous, comprehensive, and extensive synthesis of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what factors influence efforts to reduce low-value care. The results of this review can provide direction and insight for future primary research to support de-implementation and the reduction of low-value care.