Exploring the implementation of national health and social care standards in Ireland: A qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: National health and social care standards are complex, quality improvement interventions. Standards typically describe a process and/or outcome of safe, quality, person-centred care according to best evidence. Currently, there are 11 national standards that apply to diverse services in Ireland including residential centres, acute hospitals and rehabilitation and community inpatient healthcare services. A better understanding of contextual factors influencing implementation will inform decision-making when selecting implementation strategies to enhance the implementation of standards. AIM: To explore experiences of implementing national health and social care standards and secondly, to identify enablers and barriers to implementation with stakeholders from across multiple levels of the health system. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups and eight individual interviews from October to November 2021 with stakeholders at system level (n = 14), organizational level (n = 14) and individual level (n = 10). Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six themes were generated; (1) Top-down, bottom-up, a team approach: everybody together, we are all involved, we are all responsible, (2) Support tools: accessible tools and bite-size material pertaining to standards will support us to implement standards, (3) Empower with knowledge: increase awareness and understanding of standards, make them relatable in practice so we can make sense of them, (4) A system-wide malaise: we do not have the bandwidth to implement standards, (5) Follow the leader: we need a lead person at every level to inspire implementation, (6) A bi-directional influence: we know inspections drive quality improvements but we still feel trepidation around inspection outcomes. CONCLUSION: Key enablers identified related to teamwork, support tools, leadership and inspections. Key barriers related to workforce issues, a lack of awareness of standards and fear of inspection outcomes. Our findings can be incorporated into strategies to support implementation of standards, ultimately for the benefit of service-users. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The enablers and barriers described in this study reflect the importance of organizational factors in the implementation of standards. Interdisciplinary teams can infer from these findings, which enablers and barriers apply to their own context. These findings can inform decision-making when selecting strategies that can be effective in supporting the implementation of standards. REPORTING METHOD: We have adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Contributing Factors to Adverse Events in Long-Term Care Facilities in Ireland, a Content Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There is substantial research on contributing factors to adverse events (AEs) in acute settings. Little is known about AEs in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Our aim was to identify contributing factors to AEs from LTCFs for older persons and people with disability to inform quality improvement. DESIGN: Content analysis of statutory notifications of AEs from LTCFs using a modified version of the Human Factors Analysis and Classifications System (HFACS) applied to health care. SETTING: A sample of high risk-rated notifications of AEs received by the regulator in 2018 and 2019 was drawn from the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland (n = 156). METHODS: Two researchers independently analyzed notifications to identify contributing factors using our modified HFACS. The number of factors identified in each level, subcategory, and nanocode of the HFACS was calculated along with percentage representation of factors within notifications and percentage contribution of individual factors to the total number of factors identified. The number and percentage contributions of factors were also calculated, disaggregated by notification type. RESULTS: Contributing factors from all levels of the HFACS were identified. The most common contributing factor was "Resident factors" followed by "Unsafe acts." No contributing factors were attributed to 68 notifications (43.6%). Multiple contributing factors were attributed to 45 notifications (28.8%). The largest percentage of factors was identified in notifications of serious injuries (27.4%). CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: It is the responsibility of LTCFs to account for "Resident factors" in system design, risk management, and care plans. Developing systems and processes that identify where residents have higher risk of harm may reduce the occurrence of high-risk events and thus improve resident safety. The large proportion of notifications where no contributing factors were identified suggests the need for improved reflection and reporting from LTCFs and for more specific questions on notification forms.

A Human Right-Based Approach to Dealing with Adverse Events in Residential Care Facilities.

Managing residential care facilities (RCFs) includes the ability to manage adverse events while maintaining a human rights-based approach to care and support. Literature investigating rights-based approaches in RCFs is scarce; therefore, an investigation of the current approach in RCFs will inform improvements. This study sought to identify whether RCFs in Ireland upheld a rights-based approach during the course of adverse events by analyzing notifications of adverse events from 2021 taken from the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland. Data analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. Notifications of adverse events were coded according to whether the human rights principles of fairness, respect, equality, dignity, and autonomy were upheld or violated during the adverse event and its subsequent management. There was some evidence of violations, including staff violations during adverse events and their management, as well as residents violating fellow residents' autonomy, respect, and dignity in notifications of "serious injury" and "allegations of abuse." However, overall, good practice was identified, with residents' human rights upheld by staff. Our findings indicate that a rights-based approach to care and support is being upheld during adverse events and their management, which may indicate that such an approach to care and support has been adopted.

Definitions of serious injury in long-term residential care: a systematic review protocol.

Background: Evidence indicates that the reporting of serious injury in long-term residential care has increased substantially over the past decade. However, what constitutes a serious injury in residential care is poorly and inconsistently defined. This may result in incidences being unnecessarily reported as a serious injury. It is therefore, crucial to develop a consistent definition of serious injury to reduce reporting burden and to facilitate comparison between different residential care settings and across jurisdictions. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic review of existing definitions from the literature to inform the development of a consistent definition of serious injury in long-term residential care. Methods: A wide range of published peer-reviewed and grey literature will be sought for this review, including guidance and policy documents. Searches will be conducted of databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, SocINDEX, Academic Search Ultimate, and Westlaw International. Grey literature database searches will include Trip and Social Care Online. Country specific searches of government and health and social care websites will be conducted. Quality appraisal will be facilitated using the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool and Tyndall's checklist. The level of confidence in the findings will be assessed using the GRADE CERQual approach. A customised data extraction form will be used to extract data to reduce the risk of bias. Conceptual content analysis of data will facilitate identification of definitions of serious injury and their frequency within texts. Conclusions: The findings will inform the development of a consistent definition of serious injury in long-term residential care that will reduce reporting burden, facilitate the accuracy of data collected and allow for comparison across jurisdictions. A more universal and consistent definition will enable regulators, policy makers, service providers and researchers to develop policy and practical interventions to prevent the occurrence of serious injury in long-term residential care.