May 3, 2022

BACKGROUND: People who live in aged care homes have high rates of illness and frailty. Providing evidence-based care to this population is vital to ensure the highest possible quality of life. This study (CareTrack Aged, CT Aged) aimed to develop a comprehensive set of clinical indicators for guideline-adherent, appropriate care of commonly managed conditions and processes of care in aged care. METHODS: Indicators were formulated from recommendations found through systematic searches of Australian and international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Experts reviewed the indicators using a multi-round modified Delphi process to develop consensus on what constitutes appropriate care. RESULTS: From 139 CPGs, 5,609 recommendations were used to draft 630 indicators. Clinical experts (n=41) reviewed the indicators over two rounds. A final set of 236 indicators resulted, mapped to 16 conditions and processes of care. The conditions and processes were admission assessment; bladder and bowel problems; cognitive impairment; depression; dysphagia and aspiration; end of life/palliative care; hearing and vision; infection; medication; mobility and falls; nutrition and hydration; oral and dental care; pain; restraint use; skin integrity; and sleep. CONCLUSIONS: The suite of CT Aged clinical indicators can be used for research, assessment of quality of care in individual facilities and across organisations to guide improvement, and to supplement regulation or accreditation of the aged care sector. They are a step forward for Australian and international aged care sectors, helping to improve transparency, so that the level of care delivered to aged care consumers can be rigorously monitored and continuously improved.

Many inquiries, reports, and legislative reforms have been released in response to multiple waves of the COVID-19 pandemic nationally and provincially. The volume of analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on LTC presents a challenge to decision-makers to identify and prioritize key areas for improvement and action. This brief consolidates recommendations and offers evidence-supported lessons learned and opportunities for change. Questions What are the Federal and Ontario reports that address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LTC that align with five key recommendations of focus: enhancing staffing, reducing crowding, ensuring connections, incorporating palliative care and optimizing IPAC? How could these recommendations be strengthened to guide care for LTC home residents? What have we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on care in LTC homes? Findings
From these reports, we summarized key recommendations in five areas of focus: enhancing staffing, reducing crowding, ensuring connections among residents, friends, their families, and essential caregivers, incorporating palliative care and optimizing IPAC. These five areas were derived from a list of eight measures that were identified as potentially being effective in preventing COVID-19 outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths in Ontario LTC homes that were published in an earlier Science Advisory Table brief “COVID-19 and Ontario’s Long-Term Care Homes”. Focusing on areas identified as being of continued importance beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, recommendations in each were synthesized, strengthened and enhanced by leveraging data from Ontario and identifying policy opportunities. Interpretation Many lessons have been learned through the devastation that the COVID-19 pandemic caused in LTC homes that should be used as the guiding principle for driving sustained change. Care for residents of LTC homes needs to be reformed and reimagined with the core theme of providing care that is person-centered and delivers the best quality of life for residents. Building on the lessons learned during the is pandemic in each of the five identified areas of focus (enhancing staffing, reducing crowding, ensuring connections, incorporating palliative care and optimizing IPAC) is critical to creating sustained and meaningful change. Having high-quality and current data is important across all five areas of focus. Decision-makers can improve the quality of care for residents in LTC homes by enhancing existing directives, standards, and legislation.

BACKGROUND: Evidence, in multiple forms, is a foundation of implementation science. For public health and clinical practice, evidence includes the following: type 1 evidence on etiology and burden; type 2 evidence on effectiveness of interventions; and type 3: evidence on dissemination and implementation (D&I) within context. To support a vision for development and use of evidence in D&I science that is more comprehensive and equitable (particularly for type 3 evidence), this article aims to clarify concepts of evidence, summarize ongoing debates about evidence, and provide a set of recommendations and tools/resources for addressing the “how-to” in filling evidence gaps most critical to advancing implementation science. MAIN TEXT: Because current conceptualizations of evidence have been relatively narrow and insufficiently characterized in our opinion, we identify and discuss challenges and debates about the uses, usefulness, and gaps in evidence for implementation science. A set of questions is proposed to assist in determining when evidence is sufficient for dissemination and implementation. Intersecting gaps include the need to (1) reconsider how the evidence base is determined, (2) improve understanding of contextual effects on implementation, (3) sharpen the focus on health equity in how we approach and build the evidence-base, (4) conduct more policy implementation research and evaluation, and (5) learn from audience and stakeholder perspectives. We offer 15 recommendations to assist in filling these gaps and describe a set of tools for enhancing the evidence most needed in implementation science. CONCLUSIONS: To address our recommendations, we see capacity as a necessary ingredient to shift the field’s approach to evidence. Capacity includes the “push” for implementation science where researchers are trained to develop and evaluate evidence which should be useful and feasible for implementers and reflect community or stakeholder priorities. Equally important, there has been inadequate training and too little emphasis on the “pull” for implementation science (e.g., training implementers, practice-based research). We suggest that funders and reviewers of research should adopt and support a more robust definition of evidence. By critically examining the evolving nature of evidence, implementation science can better fulfill its vision of facilitating widespread and equitable adoption, delivery, and sustainment of scientific advances.

BACKGROUND: Most hospitals use physiological signs to trigger an urgent clinical review. We investigated whether facilitation could improve nurses’ vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for deteriorating patients. METHODS: In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomised 36 inpatient wards at four acute hospitals to receive standard clinical practice guideline (CPG) dissemination to ward staff (n=18) or facilitated implementation for 6 months following standard dissemination (n=18). Expert, hospital and ward facilitators tailored facilitation techniques to promote nurses’ CPG adherence. Patient records were audited pre-intervention, 6 and 12 months post-intervention on randomly selected days. Escalation of care as per hospital policy was the primary outcome at 6 and 12 months after implementation. Patients, nurses and assessors were blinded to group assignment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: From 10 383 audits, improved escalation as per hospital policy was evident in the intervention group at 6 months (OR 1.47, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.04)) with a complete set of vital sign measurements sustained at 12 months (OR 1.22, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.47)). There were no significant differences in escalation of care as per hospital policy between study groups at 6 or 12 months post-intervention. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, a significant change from T0 in mean length of stay between groups at 12 months favoured the intervention group (-2.18 days, 95% CI (-3.53 to -0.82)). CONCLUSION: Multi-level facilitation significantly improved escalation as per hospital policy at 6 months in the intervention group that was not sustained at 12 months. The intervention group had increased vital sign measurement by nurses, as well as shorter lengths of stay for patients at 12 months. Further research is required to understand the dose of facilitation required to impact clinical practice behaviours and patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616000544471p.

The phrase ‘person-centred care’ (PCC) reminds us that the fundamental philosophical goal of caring for people is to uphold or promote their personhood. However, such an idea has translated into promoting individualist notions of autonomy, empowerment and personal responsibility in the context of consumerism and neoliberalism, which is problematic both conceptually and practically. From a conceptual standpoint, it ignores the fact that humans are social, historical and biographical beings, and instead assumes an essentialist or idealized concept of personhood in which a person is viewed as an individual static object. From a practical standpoint, the application of such a concept of personhood can lead to neglect of a person’s fundamental care needs and exacerbate the problems of social inequity, in particular for older people and people with dementia. Therefore, we argue that our understanding of PCC must instead be based on a dynamic concept of personhood that integrates the relevant social, relational, temporal and biographical dimensions. We propose that the correct concept of personhood in PCC is one in which persons are understood as socially embedded, relational and temporally extended subjects rather than merely individual, autonomous, asocial and atemporal objects. We then present a reconceptualization of the fundamental philosophical goal of PCC as promoting selfhood rather than personhood. Such a reconceptualization avoids the problems that beset the concept of personhood and its application in PCC, while also providing a philosophical foundation for the growing body of empirical literature that emphasizes the psychosocial, relational, subjective and biographical dimensions of PCC.