The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study).

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS: Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators. RESULTS: Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

How and where does "care" fit within seminal life-course approaches? A narrative review and critical analysis.

AIMS: To map the concepts of the caring life-course theory that are used in life-course approaches from different disciplines; establish whether there is a common recognition of, or language used, to describe care in those life-course approaches; and identify the role and contribution of care to the life-course literature. DESIGN: This discursive paper uses a narrative review process to explore points of convergence and divergence between life-course approaches and the caring life-course theory. METHODS: Categories for analysis were developed deductively and inductively, focusing on the constructs of fundamental care, capacity and capability, care network, care transition, care trajectory and care biography. RESULTS: We identified four disciplinary perspectives: (1) life-course sociology; (2) life-course epidemiology; (3) lifespan developmental psychology; and (4) life-course health development. While six core constructs of the caring life-course theory were described, either explicitly or implicitly, in existing life-course approaches, no single approach fully describes the role and contribution of care across the lifespan. CONCLUSION: Life-course approaches have largely neglected the contribution and role of care in informing the life-course discourse. This review highlights the significance of care beyond traditional healthcare settings and recognizes it as a fundamental human need for well-being and development, which can contribute to existing life-course literature. IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: There is a need to understand care as a complex system and embrace a whole-system, life-course approach to enable nurses and other healthcare professionals to provide high-quality, patient-centred care. IMPACT: Incorporating care within a life-course approach provides opportunities to integrate and deliver care centred around the person, their life transitions, trajectories and care networks, including informal carers and healthcare professionals. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients or members of the public were not involved in this study as it is a discursive paper based on the relevant literature.

The ILC Maine statement: Time for the fundamental care [r]evolution.

AIM: The aim of this study was to present the third position statement from the International Learning Collaborative (ILC). The ILC is the foremost global organization dedicated to transforming fundamental care. Internationally, fundamental care is reported to be poorly delivered, delayed or missed, negatively impacting patients, their families/carers and healthcare staff and systems. Overcoming this global challenge requires profound transformation in how our healthcare systems value, deliver and evaluate fundamental care. This transformation will take both evolutionary and revolutionary guises. In this position statement, we argue how this [r]evolutionary transformation for fundamental care can and must be created within clinical practice. DESIGN: Position paper. METHODS: This position statement stems from the ILC's annual conference and Leadership Program held in Portland, Maine, USA, in June 2023. The statement draws on the discussions between participants and the authors' subsequent reflections and synthesis of these discussions and ideas. The conference and Leadership Program involved participants (n = 209) from 13 countries working primarily within clinical practice. RESULTS: The statement focuses on what must occur to transform how fundamental care is valued, prioritized and delivered within clinical practice settings globally. To ensure demonstrable change, the statement comprises four action-oriented strategies that must be systematically owned by healthcare staff and leaders and embedded in our healthcare organizations and systems: Address non-nursing tasks: reclaim and protect time to provide high-value fundamental care. Accentuate the positive: change from deficit-based to affirmative language when describing fundamental care. Access evidence and assess impact: demonstrate transformation in fundamental care by generating relevant indicators and impact measures and rigorously synthesizing existing research. Advocate for interprofessional collaboration: support high-quality, transdisciplinary fundamental care delivery via strong nursing leadership. CONCLUSION: The ILC Maine Statement calls for ongoing action - [r]evolution - from healthcare leaders and staff within clinical practice to prioritize fundamental care throughout healthcare systems globally. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We outline four action-oriented strategies that can be embedded within clinical practice to substantially transform how fundamental care is delivered. Specific actions to support these strategies are outlined, providing healthcare leaders and staff a road map to continue the transformation of fundamental care within our healthcare systems. IMPACT: Fundamental care affects everyone across their life course, regardless of care context, clinical condition, age and/or the presence of disability. This position statement represents a call to action to healthcare leaders and staff working specifically in clinical practice, urging them to take up the leadership challenge of transforming how fundamental care is delivered and experience globally. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, service users and caregivers were involved in the ILC annual conference, thus contributing to the discussions that shaped this position statement. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: The strategies and actions outlined in this position statement are relevant to all clinical settings globally, providing practical strategies and actions that can be employed to enhance fundamental care for all patients and their families/carers. By outlining the importance of both evolutionary and revolutionary change, we identify ways in which healthcare systems globally can begin making the necessary steps towards radical fundamental care transformation, regardless of where they are in the change journey.

REDUCE missed oral healthcare: The outcomes of and learnings from an implementation project in an acute geriatric unit.

Oral healthcare is one of the most missed aspects of fundamental care. Failure to provide reliable and effective daily oral healthcare for older patients can lead to hospital-acquired pneumonias, longer hospital stays, increased health costs, and poor patient experience. The objective of this study was to codesign, implement, and evaluate an oral healthcare intervention for older adults in a geriatric unit. This mixed methods implementation project combined the hospital's quality improvement processes with the i-PARIHS knowledge translation framework. Multilevel facilitation guided the development of multidisciplinary implementation strategies, which were co-designed, tailored, and implemented at the ward and organizational level, targeting: awareness/engagement; clinical guideline development; building workforce capacity; access to appropriate products; patient awareness and support; utilization of multidisciplinary/dental referral pathways; and systematizing oral healthcare documentation. Gaps between evidence-based and current oral healthcare practice were identified through audits of practice and interviews with patients. Interviews and surveys with staff evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of the oral healthcare intervention and the success of implementation strategies. At the conclusion of the project, awareness, attitudes, and capacity of staff had increased, however, we could not demonstrate change in multidisciplinary oral healthcare practices or improvements for individual patients. Despite mixed success, the project informed discussions about including oral healthcare as a national healthcare standard for the acute care sector in Australia. Attempts to address oral healthcare may have started locally, but its impact was through policy change, which will empower health practitioners and managers to support practice change more widely.

From Promise to Practice: How Health Researchers Understand and Promote Transdisciplinary Collaboration.

There is an increasing emphasis on transdisciplinary research to address the complex challenges faced by health systems. However, research has not adequately explored how members of transdisciplinary research teams perceive, understand, and promote transdisciplinary collaboration. As such, there is a need to investigate collaborative behaviors, knowledge, and the impacts of transdisciplinary research. To address this gap, we conducted a longitudinal realist evaluation of transdisciplinary collaboration within a 5-year National Health and Medical Research Council-funded Center of Research Excellence in Transdisciplinary Frailty Research. The current study aimed to explore researchers' perceptions and promotion of transdisciplinary research specifically within the context of frailty research using qualitative methods. Participants described transdisciplinary research as a collaborative and integrative approach that involves individuals from various disciplines working together to tackle complex research problems. However, participants often used terms like interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary interchangeably, indicating that a shared understanding of transdisciplinary research is needed. Barriers to transdisciplinary collaboration included time constraints, geographical distance, and entrenched collaboration patterns. To overcome these challenges, participants suggested implementing strategies such as creating a shared vision and goals, establishing appropriate collaboration systems and structures, and role modeling collaborative behaviors, values, and attitudes. Our findings underscore the need for practical knowledge in developing transdisciplinary collaboration and leadership skills across different career stages. In the absence of formal training, sustained and immersive programs that connect researchers with peers, educators, and role models from various disciplines and provide experiential learning opportunities, may be valuable in fostering successful transdisciplinary collaboration.

'I wasn't made to feel like a nut case after all': A qualitative story completion study exploring healthcare recipient and carer perceptions of good professional caregiving relationships.

BACKGROUND: Professional caregiving relationships are central to quality healthcare but are not always developed to a consistently high standard in clinical practice. Existing literature on what constitutes high-quality relationships and how they should be developed is plagued by dyadic conceptualisations; discipline, context and condition-specific research; and the absence of healthcare recipient and informal carer voices. This study aimed to address these issues by exploring how healthcare recipients and carers conceptualise good professional caregiving relationships regardless of discipline, care setting and clinical condition. DESIGN: A qualitative story completion approach was used. Participants completed a story in response to a hypothetical stem that described a healthcare recipient (and, in some instances, carer) developing a good relationship with a new healthcare provider. Stories were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 35 healthcare recipients and 37 carers (n = 72 total). RESULTS: Participants' stories were shaped by an overarching discourse that seeking help from new providers can elicit a range of unwanted emotions for both recipients and carers (e.g., anxiety, fear, dread). These unwanted emotions were experienced in relation to recipients' presenting health problems as well as their anticipated interactions with providers. Specifically, recipient and carer characters were fearful that providers would dismiss their concerns and judge them for deciding to seek help. Good relationships were seen to develop when healthcare providers worked to relieve or minimise these unwanted emotions, ensuring healthcare recipients and carers felt comfortable and at ease with the provider and the encounter. Participants positioned healthcare providers as primarily responsible for relieving recipients' and carers' unwanted emotions, which was achieved via four approaches: (1) easing into the encounter, (2) demonstrating interest in and understanding of recipients' presenting problems, (3) validating recipients' presenting problems and (4) enabling and respecting recipient choice. Participants' stories also routinely oriented to temporality, positioning relationships within recipients' and carers' wider care networks and biographical and temporal contexts. CONCLUSION: The findings expand our understanding of professional caregiving relationships beyond dyadic, static conceptualisations. Specifically, the findings suggest that high-quality relationships might be achieved via a set of core healthcare provider behaviours that can be employed across disciplinary, context and condition-specific boundaries. In turn, this provides a basis to support interprofessional education and multidisciplinary healthcare delivery, enabling different healthcare disciplines, specialties, and teams to work from the same understanding of what is required to develop high-quality relationships. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The findings are based on stories from 72 healthcare recipient and carer participants, providing rich insight into their conceptualisations of high-quality professional caregiving relationships.

My Wellbeing Journal: Development of a communication and goal-setting tool to improve care for older adults with chronic conditions and multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Chronic conditions and multimorbidity, the presence of two or more chronic conditions, are increasingly common in older adults. Effective management of chronic conditions and multimorbidity in older adults requires a collaborative and person-centred approach that considers the individual's goals, preferences and priorities. However, ensuring high-quality personalised care for older adults with multimorbidity can be challenging due to the complexity of their care needs, limited time and a lack of patient preparation to discuss their personal goals and preferences with their healthcare team. OBJECTIVE: To codesign a communication and goal-setting tool, My Wellbeing Journal, to support personalised care planning for older adults with chronic conditions and multimorbidity. DESIGN: We drew on an experience-based codesign approach to develop My Wellbeing Journal. This article reports on the final end-user feedback, which was collected via an online survey with older adults and their carers. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with chronic conditions, multimorbidity and informal carers living in Australia. Personalised care planning was considered in the context of primary care. RESULTS: A total of 88 participants completed the online survey. The survey focused on participants' feedback on the tool in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction and errors encountered. This feedback resulted in modifications to My Wellbeing Journal, which can be used during clinical encounters to facilitate communication, goal setting and progress tracking. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and carers can use the tool to guide discussions with older adults about their care planning and help them set realistic goals that are meaningful to them. The findings of this study could be used to inform the development of recommendations for healthcare providers to implement person-centred, goal-oriented care for older adults with chronic conditions and multimorbidity. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Older adults living with chronic conditions and multimorbidity and their carers have contributed to the development of a tool that has the potential to significantly enhance the experience of personalised care planning. Their direct involvement as collaborators has ensured that the tool is optimised to meet the standards of effectiveness and usability.

Unsafe care in residential settings for older adults: a content analysis of accreditation reports.

Residents of aged care services can experience safety incidents resulting in preventable serious harm. Accreditation is a commonly used strategy to improve the quality of care; however, narrative information within accreditation reports is not generally analysed as a source of safety information to inform learning. In Australia, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (ACQSC), the sector regulator, undertakes over 500 accreditation assessments of residential aged care services against eight national standards every year. From these assessments, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission generates detailed Site Audit Reports. In over one-third (37%) of Site Audit Reports, standards relating to Personal and Clinical Care (Standard 3) are not being met. The aim of this study was to identify the types of resident Safety Risks that relate to Personal and Clinical Care Standards not being met during accreditation or re-accreditation. These data could inform priority setting at policy, regulatory, and service levels. An analytical framework was developed based on the World Health Organization's International Classification for Patient Safety and other fields including Clinical Issue (the issue related to the incident impacting the resident, e.g. wound/skin or pain). Information relating to safety incidents in the Site Audit Reports was extracted, and a content analysis undertaken using the analytical framework. Clinical Issue and the International Classification for Patient Safety-based classification were combined to describe a clinically intuitive category ('Safety Risks') to describe ways in which residents could experience unsafe care, e.g. diagnosis/assessment of pain. The resulting data were descriptively analysed. The analysis included 65 Site Audit Reports that were undertaken between September 2020 and March 2021. There were 2267 incidents identified and classified into 274 types of resident Safety Risks. The 12 most frequently occurring Safety Risks account for only 32.3% of all incidents. Relatively frequently occurring Safety Risks were organisation management of infection control; diagnosis/assessment of pain, restraint, resident behaviours, and falls; and multiple stages of wounds/skin management, e.g. diagnosis/assessment, documentation, treatment, and deterioration. The analysis has shown that accreditation reports contain valuable data that may inform prioritization of resident Safety Risks in the Australian residential aged care sector. A large number of low-frequency resident Safety Risks were detected in the accreditation reports. To address these, organizations may use implementation science approaches to facilitate evidence-based strategies to improve the quality of care delivered to residents. Improving the aged care workforces' clinical skills base may address some of the Safety Risks associated with diagnosis/assessment and wound management.

How transdisciplinary research teams learn to do knowledge translation (KT), and how KT in turn impacts transdisciplinary research: a realist evaluation and longitudinal case study.

BACKGROUND: Transdisciplinary research and knowledge translation are increasingly regarded as key concepts underpinning applied research across the health and social sciences, due to their presumed potential in addressing complex, "wicked" problems and improving the use of research in practice and policy, respectively. Despite sharing an impact mandate, the relationship between transdisciplinary research collaboration and knowledge translation remains unclear. In response, we examined the relationship between transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge translation to generate these understandings with a view towards maximizing the impact of collaborative efforts. METHODS: We undertook a realist evaluation and longitudinal case study of a 5-year National Health and Medical Research Council-funded Centre of Research Excellence in Transdisciplinary Frailty Research. Data were collected between February 2017 and March 2020 over three rounds of theory development, refinement and testing using interviews, observation, document review and visual elicitation as data sources. The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Adelaide approved this study. RESULTS: Iterative analysis of narrative interviews and visual data led to the development of three overarching programme theories explicating the reciprocal relationship between KT understandings and transdisciplinary team process. These programme theories revolve around the concept of a network, which we define in alignment with extant theoretical literature on network mechanisms and complex networks as graphically representable networks of agents/people (nodes) joined by social relationships (links). Our findings demonstrate that under the right contextual conditions, transdisciplinary team members respond through an improved ability to (1) navigate the network, (2) negotiate the network and (3) mobilize the network. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrates the reciprocity and mutually supportive relationship between transdisciplinary research and knowledge translation. Our findings suggest that embedding a collaborative knowledge translation framework and providing resources such as facilitation and distributed leadership within a transdisciplinary team can improve collaboration and support transdisciplinary research objectives.

Measuring person-centred pain management: Development of a questionnaire using the fundamentals of care framework.

AIM: To develop and test a questionnaire using the Fundamentals of Care framework to measure person-centred pain management. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory descriptive design. METHODS: Development in three phases: (a) literature search for questionnaires measuring person-centred pain management, (b) seven-step process developing items using thematic analysis, (c) initial feasibility and validity testing. Theoretical and empirical evidence was used, including the 'Strategic and Clinical Quality Indicators in Postoperative Pain management' questionnaire, the Fundamentals of Care framework and person-centredness principles. Theoretical experts (n = 2) reviewed the questionnaire, further evaluated by providers (n = 5) and patients (n = 5) using a think-aloud process, and by additional questions in the questionnaire answered by n = 100 patients. The questionnaire was tested February to March 2021, at four surgical wards in a university hospital. RESULTS: The evaluation showed initial support for feasibility and validity, and the questionnaire was found to represent and be sensitive to capture the patients' experiences of person-centred pain management and being easy to answer. The 100 patients with acute abdominal pain who answered the questionnaire (aged 18-89 years, 46 women and 54 men), identified missing elements of fundamental care in their pain management, indicating that the questionnaire is sensitive to capture specific areas for improvement. CONCLUSION: This first attempt at transforming the essential components of person-centred pain management into measurable items in a questionnaire was found promising. The questionnaire is suggested to be further tested for psychometric properties and patient benefit to provide clinical guidance in acute surgical care to meet the patient care need of pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The developed questionnaire addresses the need of nurses and nursing leaders to evaluate the delivery of person-centred pain management in acute surgical care, to relieve the patient from pain. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and providers were involved in testing the questionnaire.

Nurse managers' support of fundamental care in the hospital setting. An interpretive description of nurse managers' experiences across Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand.

AIMS: To explore the role of ward-based nurse managers in supporting nurses to undertake high-quality fundamental care. DESIGN: A qualitative study guided by the principles of interpretive description. Reported in accordance with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). METHODS: Nurse managers in three urban, publicly funded hospitals in Australia, Denmark and New Zealand, were invited to participate in group interviews to discuss how they support fundamental care in their clinical areas. Six group interviews were conducted between February 2017 and March 2020 involving 31 participants. RESULTS: Six interrelated themes were identified: Difficulty expressing how to support the nurse-patient relationship; Establishing expectations for care delivery without clear strategies for how this can be achieved; Role modelling desired behaviours; Significance of being present to support care quality; The importance of engaging and supporting staff in their work; and Recognizing the challenges of prioritizing care needs. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that nurse managers are not universally clear in explaining how they support their staff to provide fundamental care. If fundamental care is not clearly understood and communicated in the nursing team, then there are risks that fundamental care will not be prioritized, with potential negative consequences for patient care. Nurse managers may benefit from additional resources and guidance to help them to support fundamental care delivery in their clinical areas. IMPACT: Previous research exploring fundamental care and missed care highlights the importance of the role of the nurse manager in influencing nursing care. This study demonstrates that though nurse managers have a passion for supporting their staff to deliver fundamental care, clear strategies to achieve this are not always evident. This study suggests that scholarship around leadership to promote and facilitate fundamental care is crucial to improving nursing practice and patient outcomes.

Why reducing avoidable hospital readmissions is a 'wicked' problem for leaders: A qualitative exploration of nursing and allied health perceptions.

AIMS: To investigate nursing and allied health professional perceptions of the interrelationship between avoidable hospital readmissions and fundamental care delivery. DESIGN: A qualitative, exploratory study using a critical realist approach. METHOD: One-to-one semi-structured interviews with 14 nursing and allied health professionals conducted between May and September 2019. RESULTS: Several tensions and contradictions were identified in the data, which demonstrated clinicians' perceptions about the priority of both fundamental care and two avoidable readmission conditions (aspiration pneumonia and constipation). These tensions are illustrated in two major themes: Avoidable versus inevitable; and everyone versus no one. The first theme demonstrates clinicians' perceptions that readmissions for aspiration pneumonia and constipation are not common, despite acknowledging that they generally lacked knowledge on readmission rates; and that these conditions may not be preventable in acute settings. The second theme demonstrates clinicians' perception that preventing readmissions is everyone's responsibility, however, this was coupled with a lack of articulation around how this multidisciplinary approach could be achieved, leading to a distinct lack of agency for care delivery. CONCLUSION: Articulating the tensions described in the results provides vital knowledge for understanding how clinicians may respond to initiatives designed to reduce avoidable readmissions. Avoidable hospital readmissions may be usefully understood as a wicked problem: one that is complex and requires adaptive, not linear, solutions. Wicked problems pose a challenge for leaders and managers in healthcare because top-down, hierarchical strategies are unlikely to be successful. Effective prevention of avoidable readmissions requires leaders to enable facilitator-led change through relational leadership strategies. IMPACT: Avoidable hospital readmissions are a global problem increasingly addressed via funding changes and the introduction of penalties to hospitals. This study provides insights on clinicians' perspectives of avoidable hospital readmissions and their prevention, demonstrating the complexity of this challenge and the need for healthcare leaders to enable individual and organizational readiness for change.

'No more heroes': The ILC Oxford Statement on fundamental care in times of crises.

AIM: To outline the International Learning Collaborative (ILC) Oxford Statement, explicating our commitment to ensuring health and care systems are equipped to meet patients' fundamental care needs during times of unprecedented crisis. DESIGN/METHOD: Discussion paper. The content was developed via a co-design process with participants during the ILC's international conference. KEY ARGUMENTS: We, the ILC, outline what we do and do not want to see within our health and care systems when faced with the challenges of caring for patients during global pandemics and other crises. Specifically, we want fundamental care delivery to be seen as the minimum standard rather than the exception across our health and care systems. We want nursing leaders to call out and stand up for the importance of building fundamental care into systems, processes and funding priorities. We do not want to see the voices of nursing leaders quashed or minimized in favour of other agendas. In turn, what we want to see is greater recognition of fundamental care work and greater respect for the people who do it. We expect nurses to have a 'seat at the table' where the key health and care decisions that impact patients and staff are made. CONCLUSION: To achieve our goals we must (1) ensure that fundamental care is embedded in all health and care systems, at all levels; (2) build on and strengthen the leadership skills of the nursing workforce by clearly advocating for person-centred fundamental care; (3) co-design systems that care for and support our staff's well-being and which foster collective resilience rather than overly rely on individual resilience; (4) improve the science and methodologies around reporting and measuring fundamental care to show the positive impact of this care delivery and (5) leverage the COVID pandemic crisis as an opportunity for transformational change in fundamental care delivery.

Testing a model for person-centred pain management: A systematic review and synthesis guided by the Fundamentals of Care framework.

AIMS: To test a model for person-centred pain management using qualitative evidence in the literature and refine it based on the results. DESIGN: A qualitative systematic review with thematic synthesis using the Fundamentals of Care framework. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: A literature search in February 2021 in six scientific databases: CINAHL, PsycInfo, Pubmed, Scopus, Social Science Premium Collection and Web of Science, reported using ENTREQ and PRISMA. Quality assessment was performed for the individual studies. Thematic analysis and the GRADE-CERQual approach were used in the synthesis including the assessment of confidence in the evidence. RESULTS: The model was tested against the evidence in 15 studies appraised with moderate or high quality and found represented in the literature but needed to be expanded. A refined model with a moderate/high confidence level of evidence presents elements to be used in a holistic care process; The nurse is guided to establish a trusting relationship with the patient and enable communication to identify and meet pain management needs using pharmacological and non-pharmacological management. Nurse leaders are guided to support this process by providing the right contextual conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The strengths of the confidence level in the refined model, and that it is represented from the nurse and patient perspectives in nursing research across countries and cultures, support our recommendation for empirical evaluation. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The model links the knowledge of pain management elements from individual studies together into actions to be performed in clinical practice. It also outlines the organizational support needed to make this happen. Nurses and nursing leaders are suggested to test the model to implement person-centred pain management in clinical practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. IMPACT: What Problem Did the Study Address? There is a need to transfer available evidence of person-centred pain management into practice to relieve the patient from pain. What Were the Main Findings? Person-centred pain management is of high priority for patients and nurses around the world and can be performed in a holistic care process including patient-nurse trust and communication, supported by contextual conditions to deliver timely pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain management addressing the patient's physical, psychosocial and relational care needs. Where and on Whom will the Research Have an Impact? The model is to be tested and evaluated in clinical practice to guide the providers to relieve the patient from pain. REPORTING METHOD: Relevant EQUATOR guidelines were used to report the study: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement.

Measuring fundamental care using complexity science: A descriptive case study of a methodological innovation.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper presents an exploratory account of an innovative methodology to record and evaluate fundamental care. Fundamental care is defined as the care required by everyone for survival, health and welfare. BACKGROUND: Fundamental care has been informed by the development and testing of the Fundamentals of Care Framework, which describes how fundamental care is complex and multidimensional, and consists of three interrelated dimensions and 38 elements. This accords with a broader re-examination of care provision as part of a complex adaptive system in which existing linear models of cause and effect are inadequate to describe the totality of activity. DESIGN: Informed by graph theory and complexity science, this paper presents a novel methodological innovation. It uses the Fundamentals of Care Framework to create a Matrix to quantify the relationships between different elements within the Framework. METHODS: We use a Matrix methodology to process care recipient narratives to generate three outputs: a heat map, a summary table and a network analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The three outputs serve to quantify and evaluate fundamental care in a multidimensional manner. They capture different perspectives (care recipients and their families, direct care providers and care managers) to improve care outcomes. The future aim is to advance this exploration into digitalising and operationalising the Matrix in a user-friendly manner for it to become a real-time mechanism to evaluate and potentially predict patterns of fundamental care.

Exploring the role of a facilitator in supporting family carers when embedding the iSupport for Dementia programme in care services: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore stakeholders' perceptions of a facilitator's role in supporting carers when embedding iSupport for Dementia psychoeducation program, in care services. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study design was applied. Data were collected from workshops and interviews with carers of people living with dementia (PLWD)and with health and social care professionals from two tertiary hospitals and two community aged care organisations across three Australian states between October 2021 and March 2022. A thematic analysis was used to analyse data. The COREQ guideline was followed to report our findings. RESULTS: A total of 30 family carers and 45 health and social care professionals participated in the study. Three main themes and seven subthemes were identified from the data. We described the main themes as (1) the facilitator's role at the time of dementia diagnosis, (2) the facilitator's role throughout the everyday dementia care journey and (3) the facilitator's role during transition moments. CONCLUSIONS: Caring for family members with dementia is demanding and stressful for carers. Embedding a facilitator-enabled iSupport for Dementia program in hospital and community aged care settings has the potential to mitigate sources of stress associated with care recipient factors, carer factors and care service factors, and improve the health and well-being of carers and those for whom they care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Our findings will inform the establishment of iSupport facilitators appointed by dementia care providers in hospital and community care settings and help determine their roles and responsibilities in delivering the iSupport program. Our findings relate to nurse-led and coordinated dementia care in hospital and community aged care settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was co-designed with stakeholders from two aged care organisations and two tertiary hospitals. The study participants were staff employed by these organisations and carers of PLWD who were service users.

Creating 'Partnership in iSupport program' to optimise family carers' impact on dementia care: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with dementia are cared for by their family members. However, family carers are often unprepared for their caring roles, receiving less education and support compared with professional carers. The consequences are their reduced mental and physical health and wellbeing, and that of care recipients. This study protocol introduces the 'Partnership in iSupport program' that includes five interventional components: managing transitions, managing dementia progression, psychoeducation, carer support group and feedback on services. This health services research is built on family carer and dementia care service provider partnerships. The aims of the study are to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and family carers' experiences in the program. METHODS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial will be conducted with family carers of people living with dementia from two tertiary hospitals and two community aged care providers across three Australian states. The estimated sample size is 185 family carers. They will be randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the usual care group. Outcomes are measurable improvements in quality of life for carers and people with dementia, caregiving self-efficacy, social support, dementia related symptoms, and health service use for carers and their care recipients. Data will be collected at three time points: baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-initiation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This is the first large randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention on health and social care services with carers of people living with dementia in real-world practice across hospital and community aged care settings in three Australian states to ascertain the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and carers' experiences of the innovative program. We expect that this study will address gaps in supporting dementia carers in health and social care systems while generating new knowledge of the mechanisms of change in the systems. Findings will strengthen proactive health management for both people living with dementia and their carers by embedding, scaling up and sustaining the 'Partnership in iSupport program' in the health and social care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12622000199718 . Registered February 4th, 2022.

Designing clinical indicators for common residential aged care conditions and processes of care: the CareTrack Aged development and validation study.

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. OBJECTIVE: In this study (CareTrack Aged, CT Aged), we aimed to develop a comprehensive set of clinical indicators for guideline-adherent, appropriate care of commonly managed conditions and processes 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 multiround modified Delphi process to develop a consensus on what constitutes appropriate care. RESULTS: From 139 CPGs, 5609 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 and assessment of the quality of care in individual facilities and across organizations 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.

Towards a unifying caring life-course theory for better self-care and caring solutions: A discussion paper.

AIM: To present the first iteration of the caring life-course theory. BACKGROUND: Despite requiring care from birth to death, a person's universal or fundamental care needs and the subsequent care provision, either by self or others, has yet to be presented within a life-course perspective. Accurately describing the care people require across their lifespan enables us to identify who, what type, how and where this care should be provided. This novel perspective can help to legitimise a person's care needs and the support they require from wider care systems and contexts. DESIGN: Discussion paper outlines theory development. We adopted an inductive approach to theory development, drawing upon existing literature and the team's diverse experiences. Our theoretical insights were refined through a series of collaborative meetings to define the theory's constructs, until theoretical saturation was reached. DISCUSSION: Fourteen constructs are identified as essential to the theory. We propose it is possible, using these constructs, to generate caring life-course trajectories and predict divergences in these trajectories. The novel contribution of the theory is the interplay between understanding a person's care needs and provision within the context of their lifespan and personal histories, termed their care biography, and understanding a person's care needs and provision at specific points in time within a given care network and socio-political context. IMPACT FOR NURSING: The caring life-course theory can provide a roadmap to inform nursing and other care industry sectors, providing opportunities to integrate and deliver care from the perspective of the person and their care history, trajectories and networks, with those of professional care teams. It can help to shape health, social and economic policy and involve individuals, families and communities in more constructive ways of talking about the importance of care for improved quality of life and healthy societies.

A Delphi study to identify content for a new questionnaire based on the 10 Principles of Dignity in Care.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To generate content for a new questionnaire, based on the 10 Principles of Dignity in Care. BACKGROUND: Older people in hospital are vulnerable and at risk of harm, including indignity. The 10 Principles of Dignity in Care, which undergird the United Kingdom's Dignity in Care Campaign, have been used to promote dignified care for older people in hospital. A 2006 recommendation of the campaign was to survey people on their experiences of dignity in care. To undertake such a survey, a questionnaire based on the 10 Principles of Dignity is required. DESIGN: Qualitative methods based on a modified Delphi technique, assessed against the CREDES checklist. METHODS: A Delphi panel of experts was convened that included: consumers, carers, clinicians, academics, policy experts and representatives from the National Dignity Council in the UK, Aboriginal people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. RESULTS: Fifty-seven experts consented to participate, over the three rounds of Delphi panel deliberations (response rate: R1 n = 49, R2 n = 47 and R3 n = 44). The Delphi panellists were asked to rank, rewrite, relocate or remove items and suggest additional items, under each of the 10 Principles of Dignity in Care. The initial list of 93 items, generated from a review of the literature, existing questionnaires and drafted by the authors, was reduced to 87 items in Round 2 and 69 items in Round 3. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of experts were able to determine, based on their own judgement, and through consensus, the 69-items and response categories to be included in the patient and carer versions of the Dignity in Care questionnaire, to progress to a pilot study.