Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study.

Background: Quality of life and care varies between and within the care homes in which almost half a million older people live and over half a million direct care staff (registered nurses and care assistants) work. The reasons are complex, understudied and sometimes oversimplified, but staff and their work are a significant influence. Objective(s): To explore variations in the care home nursing and support workforce; how resident and relatives' needs in care homes are linked to care home staffing; how different staffing models impact on care quality, outcomes and costs; how workforce numbers, skill mix and stability meet residents' needs; the contributions of the care home workforce to enhancing quality of care; staff relationships as a platform for implementation by providers. Design: Mixed-method (QUAL-QUANT) parallel design with five work packages. WP1 - two evidence syntheses (one realist); WP2 - cross-sectional survey of routine staffing and rated quality from care home regulator; WP3 - analysis of longitudinal data from a corporate provider of staffing characteristics and quality indicators, including safety; WP4 - secondary analysis of care home regulator reports; WP5 - social network analysis of networks likely to influence quality innovation. We expressed our synthesised findings as a logic model. Setting: English care homes, with and without nursing, with various ownership structures, size and location, with varying quality ratings. Participants: Managers, residents, families and care home staff. Findings: Staffing's contribution to quality and personalised care requires: managerial and staff stability and consistency; sufficient staff to develop 'familial' relationships between staff and residents, and staff-staff reciprocity, 'knowing' residents, and skills and competence training beyond induction; supported, well-led staff seeing modelled behaviours from supervisors; autonomy to act. Outcome measures that capture the relationship between staffing and quality include: the extent to which resident needs and preferences are met and culturally appropriate; resident and family satisfaction; extent of residents living with purpose; safe care (including clinical outcomes); staff well-being and job satisfaction were important, but underacknowledged. Limitations: Many of our findings stem from self-reported and routine data with known biases - such as under reporting of adverse incidents; our analysis may reflect these biases. COVID-19 required adapting our original protocol to make it feasible. Consequently, the effects of the pandemic are reflected in our research methods and findings. Our findings are based on data from a single care home operator and so may not be generalised to the wider population of care homes. Conclusions: Innovative and multiple methods and theory can successfully highlight the nuanced relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Modifiable characteristics such as visible philosophies of care and high-quality training, reinforced by behavioural and relational role modelling by leaders can make the difference when sufficient amounts of consistent staff are employed. Greater staffing capacity alone is unlikely to enhance quality in a cost-effective manner. Social network analysis can help identify the right people to aid adoption and spread of quality and innovation. Future research should focus on richer, iterative, evaluative testing and development of our logic model using theoretically and empirically defensible - rather than available - inputs and outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021241066 and Research Registry registration: 1062. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/144/29) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

This study was about the relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Almost half a million older people live in care homes in England. Why quality of care and quality of life for residents vary so much between and within homes is unknown, but staff and the ways they work are likely to be important. Researching staffing and quality is difficult: quality means different things to different people and a lot of things shape how quality feels to residents, families and staff. In the past, researchers have oversimplified the problem to study it and may have missed important influences. We took a more complex view. In five interlinked work packages, we collected and analysed: (1) research journal articles; (2) national data from different care homes; (3) data from a large care organisation to look at what it is about staffing that influences quality; (4) reports and ratings of homes from the Care Quality Commission; and (5) we looked at the networks between staff in homes that shape how quality improvement techniques might spread. We used theories about how our findings might be linked to plan for this data collection and analysis. The results were combined into something called a 'logic model' ­ a diagram and explanation that make it easier for managers, researchers and people interested in care homes to see how staffing influences quality. Staffing considerations that might improve quality include: not swapping managers too much; having sufficient and consistent staff for family-like relationships in homes and putting residents' needs first; supporting staff and giving them freedom to act; and key staff leading by example. Research examining care home quality should capture those aspects that mean the most to residents, their families and staff.

Understanding the staff behaviours that promote quality for older people living in long term care facilities: A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the workforce influences quality in long term care facilities for older people. Staff numbers are important but do not fully explain this relationship. OBJECTIVES: To develop theoretical explanations for the relationship between long-term care facility staffing and quality of care as experienced by residents. DESIGN: A realist evidence synthesis to understand staff behaviours that promote quality of care for older people living in long-term care facilities. SETTING: Long-term residential care facilities PARTICIPANTS: Long-term care facility staff, residents, and relatives METHODS: The realist review, (i) was co-developed with stakeholders to determine initial programme theories, (ii) systematically searched the evidence to test and develop theoretical propositions, and (iii) validated and refined emergent theory with stakeholder groups. RESULTS: 66 research papers were included in the review. Three key findings explain the relationship between staffing and quality: (i) quality is influenced by staff behaviours; (ii) behaviours are contingent on relationships nurtured by long-term care facility environment and culture; and (iii) leadership has an important influence on how organisational resources (sufficient staff effectively deployed, with the knowledge, expertise and skills required to meet residents' needs) are used to generate and sustain quality-promoting relationships. Six theoretical propositions explain these findings. CONCLUSION: Leaders (at all levels) through their role-modelling behaviours can use organisational resources to endorse and encourage relationships (at all levels) between staff, residents, co-workers and family (relationship centred care) that constitute learning opportunities for staff, and encourage quality as experienced by residents and families.

Privileges and penalties in the legal profession: an intersectional analysis of career progression.

Intersectionality theory is concerned with integrating social characteristics to better understanding complex human relations and inequalities in organizations and societies (McCall 2005). Recently, intersectionality research has taken a categorical and quantitative turn as scholars critically adopt but retain existing social categories to explain differences in labour market outcomes. A key contention is that social categories carry penalties or privileges and their intersection promotes or hinders the life chances of particular groups and individuals. An emergent debate is whether the intersection of disadvantaged characteristics (such as female gender or minority ethnic status) produce penalties that are additive, multiplicative or ameliorative. Research is inconclusive and as yet pays little attention to moderating factors such as employer type, size, geographic location or work profile. Drawing on administrative records for individuals qualified as solicitors in England and Wales, collected by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), combined with aggregated workforce data and firm characteristics of their law firms, we undertake a statistical analysis of the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the profession with a degree of precision and nuance not previously possible. In response to calls to broaden studies of inequalities and intersectionality beyond their effect on pay or income (Castilla 2008) we focus on career progression to partnership as our key measure of success. The original contribution of our study is twofold. First, we establish statistically different profiles of law firms, showing how the solicitors' profession is stratified by gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background, as well as the type of legal work undertaken by developing a model of socio-economic stratification in the profession. Second, we demonstrate that while penalties tend to be additive (i.e. the sum of the individual ethnic and gender penalties) this varies significantly by law firm profile and in some situations the effect is ameliorative.

Long working hours and physical activity.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that persons employed in jobs demanding long working hours are at greater risk of physical inactivity than other workers, primarily because they have less leisure time available to undertake physical activity. The aim of this study was to test this hypothesis using prospective data obtained from a nationally representative sample of employed persons. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (93,367 observations from 17,893 individuals) were used to estimate conditional fixed effects logistic regression models of the likelihood of moderate or vigorous physical exercise for at least 30 min, at least four times a week. RESULTS: No significant associations between long working hours and the incidence of healthy levels of physical activity were uncovered once other exogenous influences on activity levels were controlled for. The odds of men or women who usually work 60 or more hours per week exercising at healthy levels were 6% and 11% less, respectively, than those of comparable persons working a more standard 35-40 h/week; however, neither estimate was significantly different from 0 at 95% CI. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there is no trade-off between long working hours and physical activity in Australia. It is argued that these findings are broadly consistent with previous research studies from Anglo-Saxon countries (where long working hours are pervasive) that employed large nationally representative samples.

Working time and cigarette smoking: evidence from Australia and the United Kingdom.

Cigarette smoking is a risk factor in a range of serious diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, stroke and type II diabetes. Theory suggests that working long hours will increase smoking propensities among workers. Consequently there is a significant body of evidence on the relationship between working time and smoking. Results, however, are inconsistent and therefore inconclusive. This paper provides new evidence on how working time affects smoking behaviour using nationally representative panel data from Australia (from 2002 to 2011) and the United Kingdom (from 1992 to 2011). We exploit the panel design of the surveys to look at within-person changes in smoking behaviour over time as working time changes. In contrast to most previous studies, this means we control for time invariant aspects of personality and genetic inheritance that may affect both smoking propensities and choice of working hours. We find that working long hours tends to increase the chances that former smokers will relapse, reduce the chances that smokers will quit and increase cigarette consumption among regular smokers, and that these effects tend to become more pronounced for workers who usually work very long hours (50 or more hours a week) compared to those who work moderately long hours (40-49 h a week).