Contextual factors influencing complex intervention research processes in care homes: a systematic review and framework synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are complex settings to undertake intervention research. Barriers to research implementation processes can threaten studies' validity, reducing the value to residents, staff, researchers and funders. We aimed to (i) identify and categorise contextual factors that may mediate outcomes of complex intervention studies in care homes and (ii) provide recommendations to minimise the risk of expensive research implementation failures. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using a framework synthesis approach viewed through a complex adaptive systems lens. We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ASSIA databases and grey literature. We sought process evaluations of care home complex interventions published in English. Narrative data were indexed under 28 context domains. We performed an inductive thematic analysis across the context domains. RESULTS: We included 33 process evaluations conducted in high-income countries, published between 2005 and 2019. Framework synthesis identified barriers to implementation that were more common at the task and organisational level. Inductive thematic analysis identified (i) avoiding procedural drift and (ii) participatory action and learning as key priorities for research teams. Research team recommendations include advice for protocol design and care home engagement. Care home team recommendations focus on internal resources and team dynamics. Collaborative recommendations apply to care homes' individual context and the importance of maintaining positive working relationships. DISCUSSION: Researchers planning and undertaking research with care homes need a sensitive appreciation of the complex care home context. Study implementation is most effective where an intervention is co-produced, with agreed purpose and adequate resources to incorporate within existing routines and care practices.

The uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Care homes provide long term care for older people. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (known as minimum data sets (MDS)) use the aggregate data to guide resource allocation, monitor quality, and for research. Less is known about how an MDS affects how staff assess, provide and review residents' everyday care. The review aimed to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff can effectively implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care for residents. METHODS: The realist review was organised according to RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: and Evolving Standards) guidelines. There were three overlapping stages: 1) defining the scope of the review and theory development on the use of minimum data set 2) testing and refining candidate programme theories through iterative literature searches and stakeholders' consultations as well as discussion among the research team; and 3) data synthesis from stages 1 and 2. The following databases were used MEDLINE via OVID, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ASSIA [Applied Social Sciences Citation Index and Abstracts]) and sources of grey literature. RESULTS: Fifty-one papers informed the development of three key interlinked theoretical propositions: motivation (mandates and incentives for Minimum Data Set completion); frontline staff monitoring (when Minimum Data Set completion is built into the working practices of the care home); and embedded recording systems (Minimum Data Set recording system is integral to collecting residents' data). By valuing the contributions of staff and building on existing ways of working, the uptake and use of an MDS could enable all staff to learn with and from each other about what is important for residents' care CONCLUSIONS: Minimum Data Sets provides commissioners service providers and researchers with standardised information useful for commissioning planning and analysis. For it to be equally useful for care home staff it requires key activities that address the staff experiences of care, their work with others and the use of digital technology. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020171323.

Uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes in England: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Care homes provide nursing and social care for older people who can no longer live independently at home. In the UK, there is no consistent approach to how information about residents' medical history, care needs and preferences are collected and shared. This limits opportunities to understand the care home population, have a systematic approach to assessment and documentation of care, identifiy care home residents at risk of deterioration and review care. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (eg, minimum data sets (MDS)) use the data to understand the care home population, guide resource allocation, monitor services delivery and for research. The aim of this realist review is to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care of individual residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review will be conducted in three research stages.Stage 1 will scope the literature and develop candidate programme theories of what ensures effective uptake and sustained implementation of an MDS.Stage2 will test and refine these theories through further iterative searches of the evidence from the literature to establish how effective uptake of an MDS can be achieved.Stage 3 will consult with relevant stakeholders to test or refine the programme theory (theories) of how an MDS works at the resident level of care for different stakeholders and in what circumstances. Data synthesis will use realist logic to align data from each eligible article with possible context-mechanism-outcome configurations or specific elements that answer the research questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Hertfordshire Ethics Committee has approved this study (HSK/SF/UH/04169). Findings will be disseminated through briefings with stakeholders, conference presentations, a national consultation on the use of an MDS in UK long-term care settings, publications in peer-reviewed journals and in print and social media publications accessible to residents, relatives and care home staff. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020171323; this review protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

The Prevalence, Incidence, and Correlates of Fecal Incontinence Among Older People Residing in Care Homes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Older people resident in care homes often rely on staff for support relating to their activities of daily living, including intimate care such as continence care. Managing fecal incontinence can be challenging for both residents and care staff. We conducted this review to describe the prevalence, incidence, and correlates of fecal incontinence among care home residents. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Older care home residents (both nursing and residential care) aged 60 years and older. MEASURES: We defined double incontinence as the presence of fecal plus urinary incontinence, isolated fecal incontinence as fecal incontinence with no urinary incontinence, and all fecal incontinence as anyone with fecal incontinence (whether isolated or double). The CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched up to December 31, 2017, to retrieve all studies reporting the prevalence and/or incidence and correlates of fecal incontinence. RESULTS: We identified 278 citations after removing duplicates, and 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. There were 12 high-quality studies, 5 medium-quality studies, and 6 low-quality studies. The medians for prevalence (as reported by the studies) of isolated fecal incontinence, double incontinence, and all fecal incontinence were 3.5% [interquartile range (IQR) = 2.8%], 47.1% (IQR = 32.1%), and 42.8% (IQR = 21.1%), respectively. The most frequently reported correlates of fecal incontinence were cognitive impairment, limited functional capacity, urinary incontinence, reduced mobility, advanced age, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Fecal incontinence is prevalent among older people living in care homes. Correlates included impaired ability to undertake activities of daily living, reduced mobility, laxative use, and altered stool consistency (eg, constipation or diarrhea) which are potentially amenable to interventions to improve fecal incontinence.