Supporting safe swallowing of care home residents with dysphagia: How does the care delivered compare with guidance from speech and language therapists?

INTRODUCTION: Dysphagia affects up to 70% of care home residents, increasing morbidity and hospital admissions. Speech and language therapists make recommendations to support safe nutrition but have limited capacity to offer ongoing guidance. This study aimed to understand if recommendations made to support safe and effective care are implemented and how these relate to the actual care delivered. METHODS: Eleven mealtimes with residents with dysphagia were observed during 2020 using a tool capturing 12 elements of expected practice. Staff actions during mealtimes were compared with adherence to residents' care plans and speech and language therapist recommendations. RESULTS: Written recommendations predominantly focused on food and fluid modification. Observations (n = 66) revealed food texture, posture, and alertness were adhered to on 90% of occasions, but alternating food and drink, prompting and ensuring swallow completed adherence was less than 60%. Thickened fluids frequently did not align with required International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative levels. Nutrition care provided in the dining room was less safe due to a lack of designated supervision. CONCLUSION: Care homes need to be supported to establish a safe swallowing culture to improve residents' safety and care experience. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject? Dysphagia is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and has been identified as an independent risk factor for mortality in nursing home residents. There is evidence that compensatory swallowing strategies, safe feeding advice and dietary modifications can reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonia. Care for nursing home residents at mealtimes is often task-centred and delegated to those with limited training and who lack knowledge of useful strategies to support the nutrition and hydration needs of residents with dysphagia. What this study adds? Written advice from speech and language therapists on safe nutrition and hydration for residents with dysphagia is focused mainly on food and fluid modification. Nurses and healthcare assistants have limited understanding of International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative levels or safe swallowing strategies and recommended practices to support safe nutrition care for residents with dysphagia are inconsistently applied especially when residents are eating in dining areas. Care homes are not aware of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists guidance on how safe nutrition care of residents with dysphagia should be supported. What are the clinical implications of this work? Care homes need to prioritise a safe swallowing culture that ensures that residents with swallowing difficulties are assisted to eat and drink in a way that enhances their mealtime experience and minimises adverse events that may result in hospital admission. Speech and language therapists could play an important role in training and supporting care home staff to understand and use safe swallowing strategies with residents with dysphagia. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists could provide more assistance to care homes to support and guide them in how to implement safe feeding routines. Care home staff have limited knowledge about how to implement safe feeding routines and need more guidance from speech and language specialists on how they can support residents with dysphagia to eat safely. Creating a safe swallowing culture within care homes could help to improve nutrition care and enhance patient safety.

Realist synthesis protocol for understanding which strategies are effective to prevent urinary tract infection in older people in care homes.

AIM: To identify and characterize strategies, which contribute to the prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI) in older people living in care homes. DESIGN: The realist synthesis has four iterative stages to (1) develop initial programme theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) test and refine theory supported by relevant evidence and (4) formulate recommendations. Data from research articles and other sources will be used to explore the connection between interventions and the context in which they are applied in order to understand the mechanisms, which influence the outcomes to prevent UTI. METHODS: A scoping search of the literature and workshops with stakeholders will identify initial programme theories. These theories will be tested and refined through a systematic search for evidence relating to mechanisms that trigger prevention and recognition of UTI in older people in care homes. Interviews with key stakeholders will establish practical relevance of the theories and their potential for implementation. DISCUSSION: UTI is the most commonly diagnosed infection in care home residents. Evidence on the effectiveness of strategies to prevent UTI in long-term care facilities does not address the practicality of implementing these approaches in UK care homes. The realist synthesis is designed to examine this important gap in evidence. IMPACT: Our evidence-informed programme theory will help inform programmes to improve practice to reduce the incidence of UTI in older people living in care homes and related research. Patient and public involvement will be crucial to ensuring that our findings reach carers and the public. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Involvement of patient and public representatives is embedded throughout the study to ensure it is underpinned by multiple perspectives of importance to care home residents. Our co-investigator representing patient and public involvement is a lay member of the team and will chair the Project Advisory Group, which has two additional lay members. This will help to ensure that our findings and resources reach carers and the public and represent their voice in our publications and presentations to professional and lay audiences.

Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews: lessons learned.

OBJECTIVES: Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) combine quantitative and qualitative evidence within a single review. Since the revision of the JBI methodology for MMSRs in 2020, there has been an increasing number of reviews published that claim to follow this approach. A preliminary examination of these indicated that authors frequently deviated from the methodology. This article outlines five common 'pitfalls' associated with undertaking MMSR and provides direction for future reviewers attempting MMSR. METHODS: Forward citation tracking identified 17 reviews published since the revision of the JBI mixed methods methodological guidance. Methods used in these reviews were then examined against the JBI methodology to identify deviations. RESULTS: The issues identified related to the rationale for choosing the methodological approach, an incorrect synthesis and integration approach chosen to answer the review question/s posed, the exclusion of primary mixed methods studies in the review, the lack of detail regarding the process of data transformation, and a lack of 'mixing' of the quantitative and qualitative components. CONCLUSION: This exercise was undertaken to assist systematic reviewers considering conducting an MMSR and MMSR users to identify potential areas where authors tend to deviate from the methodological approach. Based on these findings a series of recommendations are provided.

Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI mixed methods systematic review with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. INTRODUCTION: Mixed methods systematic reviews provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although mixed methods systematic reviews are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance for mixed methods systematic reviews; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field, and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. RESULTS: The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a mixed methods systematic review recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of questions that are posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski's typology on mixed methods systematic reviews. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. CONCLUSIONS: The updated guidance on JBI mixed methods systematic reviews provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods reviews offer an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with health care quality and safety.

A comparison of the nationally important infection prevention and control documents in NHS England and NHS Scotland.

BACKGROUND: The devolution of health to Scotland in 1999, led for the first time in the NHS, to different priorities and success indicators for infection prevention and control (IPC). This project sought to understand, compare and evaluate the national IPC priorities and available indicators of success. AIM: To identify the national IPC priorities alongside national indicators of success. METHODS: Critical analysis of nationally produced documents and publicly available infection-related data up to March 2018. FINDINGS: For both NHS Scotland and England the local and national IPC priorities are evidenced by: (1) people being cared for in an IPC-safe environment; (2) staff following IPC-safe procedures; and (3) organisations continuously striving not just to attain standards, but to improve on them. If national agencies that produce data were also charged with using a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) model, then there would be further opportunities to detect and improve on successes.

Using a multimodal strategy to improve patient hand hygiene.

OBJECTIVE: The role of health care worker hand hygiene in preventing health care associated infections (HCAI) is well-established. There is less emphasis on the hand hygiene (HH) of hospitalized patients; in the context of COVID-19 mechanisms to support it are particularly important. The purpose of this study was to establish if providing patient hand wipes, and a defined protocol for encouraging their use, was effective in improving the frequency of patient HH (PHH). DESIGN: Before and after study. SETTIN: General Hospital, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients admitted to 6 acute elderly care/rehabilitation hospital wards between July and October 2018. METHODS: Baseline audit of PHH opportunities conducted over 6 weeks. Focus group with staff and survey of the public informed the development of a PHH bundle. Effect of bundle on PHH monitored by structured observation of HH opportunities over 12 weeks. RESULTS: During baseline 303 opportunities for PHH were observed; compliance with PHH was 13.2% (40/303; 95% confidence interval 9.9-7.5). In the evaluation of PHH bundle, 526 PHH opportunities were observed with HH occurring in 58.9% (310/526); an increase of 45.7% versus baseline (95% confidence interval 39.7%-51.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Providing patients with multiwipe packs of handwipes is a simple, cost-effective approach to increasing PHH and reducing the risk of HCAI in hospital. Health care workers play an essential role in encouraging PHH.

Impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care. INTRODUCTION: Canine-assisted interventions are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being, and are often implemented in long-term care facilities. The number of studies undertaken in this area has increased substantially over the previous five years; therefore, an update of two previous systematic reviews is warranted. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider older people who reside in long-term care facilities and who receive canine-assisted interventions. For the quantitative component, canine-assisted interventions will be compared to usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions, or no interventions, and outcomes will be grouped under the following headings: biological, psychological, and social. For the qualitative component, the experiences of older people receiving canine-assisted interventions, as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering canine-assisted interventions, will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 2009 to the present will be considered. METHODS: A search of 10 bibliographic databases and other resources for published and unpublished English language studies will be undertaken. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be undertaken by two independent reviewers following the segregated JBI approach to mixed methods reviews. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020161235.

Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI mixed methods systematic review with a focus on data synthesis; specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. INTRODUCTION: Mixed methods systematic reviews provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although mixed methods systematic reviews are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance for mixed methods systematic reviews; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology METHODS:: Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field, and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. RESULTS: The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a mixed methods systematic review recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of questions that are posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski's typology on mixed methods systematic reviews. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. CONCLUSIONS: The updated guidance on JBI mixed methods systematic reviews provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods reviews offer an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with health care quality and safety.

Barriers and enablers to implementation of pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the proposed systematic review is to determine the barriers and enablers (or facilitators) to the implementation of pressure injury prevention among adults receiving care in the hospital setting. INTRODUCTION: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are preventable; however, they remain an ongoing safety and quality health care concern in many countries. There are various evidence-based preventative interventions for pressure injuries, but their implementation in clinical practice is limited. An understanding of the different factors that support (enablers or facilitators) and inhibit (barriers) the implementation of these interventions from different perspectives is important, so that targeted strategies can be incorporated into implementation plans. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that investigate barriers and/or enablers in relation to hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults. Only English publications will be considered, with no publication date restrictions. METHODS: The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic review. Published studies will be searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus. Gray literature will also be considered. Critical appraisal and data extraction will be performed using standardized tools, followed by data transformation. Data synthesis will follow the convergent integrated approach.

A prevalence survey of patients with indwelling urinary catheters on district nursing caseloads in the United Kingdom: The Community Urinary Catheter Management (CCaMa) Study.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is common in both hospitals and the community. AIM: To investigate the prevalence of indwelling urinary catheters on district nursing caseloads in the UK. METHODS: Participants were recruited through the Infection Prevention Society (IPS). An electronic survey was undertaken on a single day between November 2017 and January 2018. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. FINDINGS: A total of 49,575 patients were included in the survey, of whom 5352 had an indwelling urinary catheter. This gave a point prevalence of 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.53-11.07), which varied between organisations, ranging from 2.36% (95% CI = 2.05-2.73) to 22.02% (95% CI = 20.12-24.05). Of catheters, 5% were newly placed (within four weeks). Of these, most (77%) had a documented indication for insertion. Only half of patients with a newly placed catheter had a plan for its removal. This varied between organisations in the range of 20%-96%. Only 13% of patients had a patient-held management plan or 'catheter passport' but these patients were significantly more likely to also have an active removal plan (28/36 [78%] vs. 106/231 [46%]; P < 0.0001). Alternative bladder management strategies had been considered for 70/267 (26%) patients. DISCUSSION: The management of patients with an indwelling urinary catheter represents a significant component of district nursing caseloads. Given the high proportion of newly catheterised patients without an active management plan for removal of the catheter, the establishment of an optimal management pathway should be the focus of future prevention efforts.

The evidence for infection prevention and control: problems of design and implementation.

The article discusses the methodological and socioadaptive issues that impact on the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections.

Improving hydration of care home residents by increasing choice and opportunity to drink: A quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dehydration is recognised as an important problem among care home residents and can be associated with severe consequences. Insufficient provision of fluids to meet resident preferences and lack of assistance to drink have been identified as key factors driving under-hydration of care home residents. Using targeted interventions, this study aimed to optimise hydration care for frail older people in a care home setting. METHODS: The study used quality improvement methods to develop and test interventions to extend drinking opportunities and choice in two care homes. Changes were made and evaluated using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Data were captured on the amount of fluids served and consumed, and staff and resident feedback. The long-term impact of the interventions was assessed by measuring daily laxative and antibiotic consumption, weekly incidence of adverse health events, and average fluid intake of a random sample of six residents captured monthly. RESULTS: The interventions were associated with an increase in the amount and range of fluids consumed, in one home mean fluid intakes exceeded 1500 ml for three consecutive months. Laxative use decreased significantly in both homes. A number of practical and organisational barriers affected the sustainability of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to optimise the hydration of care home residents can be effective. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles provide an effective methodology to implement new interventions into existing practice in care homes. Sustainable change requires strong leadership, organisational support and teamwork.