The Association of Organizational, Environmental, and Staffing Characteristics of Residential Care Facilities and the Risk Rating of Statutory Notifications: A Cross-Sectional Study in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: Safety incidents (SIs) are an indicator of quality in health and social care services. Safety incident research has largely focused on acute health care settings. We aimed to examine the association of organizational, environmental, and staffing characteristics of residential care facilities (RCFs) and severity of regulatory SI notifications. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of SI notifications to the regulator for social care in Ireland received in 2018 and 2019. The mean risk rating of SI notifications for each RCF was used as the outcome. Regression analysis was conducted for the association of RCF characteristics (beds, staff to bed ratio, staff full-time equivalent (FTE), nurse to bed ratio, nurse FTE, number of RCF operated by the service provider, non-statutory or statutory provider) and the outcome, separately for nursing homes and residential disability services. RESULTS: A total of 53,268 SI notifications were received. One thousand nine hundred RCFs were operational during the period: 594 (31.3%) for RCF-Nursing home and 1304 (68.7%) for RCF-Disability. For nursing homes, in the most adjusted model, the number of RCF operated by a provider ( ß coefficient [95% confidence interval] = 0.508 [0.223-0.793]) was positively associated with mean risk rating of SI. For disability services, the following characteristics were positively associated in the most adjusted model: beds (0.081; 0.060-0.101), staff to bed ratio (0.068; 0.017-0.120), nurse to bed ratio (0.356; 0.044-0.667), staff FTE (0.029; 0.015-0.042), and number of RCF operated by a provider (0.067; 0.050-0.084). CONCLUSIONS: Various modifiable organizational, environmental, and staffing characteristics and severity of SI notifications were associated in this study, most of which were related to RCF-Disability. Policymakers and providers of social care services should be cognizant of the relationship of these characteristics and severity of SI, when designing and planning residential care.

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.

Mortality in residential care facilities for people with disability: a descriptive cross-sectional analysis of statutory notifications in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: To determine incidence of death in residential care facilities for people with disability in Ireland, primary cause of death, associations of facility characteristics and deaths, and to compare characteristics of deaths reported as expected and unexpected. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: All residential care facilities for people with disability operational in Ireland in 2019 and 2020 (n=1356). PARTICIPANTS: n=9483 beds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All expected and unexpected deaths notified to the social services regulator. Cause of death as reported by the facility. RESULTS: 395 death notifications were received in 2019 (n=189) and 2020 (n=206). 45% (n=178) were for unexpected deaths. Incidence of death per 1000 beds per year was 20.83 for all, 11.44 for expected and 9.39 for unexpected deaths. Respiratory disease was the most common cause of death, accounting for 38% (n=151) of all deaths. In adjusted negative binomial regression analysis, congregated settings versus non-congregated (incidence rate ratio (95% CI): 2.59 (1.80 to 3.73)) and higher bed numbers (highest vs lowest quartile) (4.02 (2.19 to 7.40)) were positively associated with mortality. There was also a positive n-shaped association with category of nursing staff-to-resident ratio when compared with zero nurses. Emergency services were contacted for 6% of expected deaths. Of the deaths reported as unexpected, 29% were receiving palliative care and 10.8% had a terminal illness. CONCLUSION: Although incidence of death was low, residents of congregated and larger settings had higher incidence of death than residents of other settings. This should be a consideration for practice and policy. Given the high contribution of respiratory diseases to deaths and the potential avoidability of these, there is a need for improved respiratory health management in this population. Nearly half of all deaths were reported as unexpected; however, overlap in the characteristics of expected and unexpected deaths highlights the need for clearer definitions.

To summarise the approach to and findings of the PPIE undertaken as part of a programme of secondary research with a vulnerable, hard to reach population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Public and patient involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an important part of research. The inclusion of PPIE in research is becoming more widespread, however, there are some areas where it is still uncommon. For example, undertaking PPIE in secondary analysis projects is uncommon and PPIE with difficult to reach populations and vulnerable groups can be seen as being too difficult to facilitate. The aim was to summarise the approach to and findings of the PPIE undertaken as part of a programme of secondary analysis with a vulnerable, hard to reach population; residents of residential care facilities (RCFs), during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: As part of a project to develop a publically available database of statutory notifications of adverse events from RCFs in Ireland, residents (n = 9) from RCFs for older people and people with disability were telephone interviewed. Residents were engaged through gatekeepers and posted participant information and consent forms. Themes were identified using content analyses of interview notes. RESULTS: Three parent themes were identified, each with two subthemes: privacy concerns, enthusiasm and dissemination of research findings. Residents highlighted the importance that no personal information be shared in the database. Once data were anonymized, residents thought that the database should be published and shared. Residents reported being happy about research being undertaken using the data and thought that publishing the database would help inform the public about RCFs. Completing a PPIE project with a vulnerable group during the global COVID-19 pandemic required planning and resources. Resources included finances, time and expertise. CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of residents informed the data inclusion in the published database and the approach taken in the protection of personal data. Enthusiasm for publication and research using the database by residents encouraged the developers as it was considered something that was wanted by residents. The benefits of PPIE can be achieved with vulnerable groups during unprecedented times with the appropriate planning. It requires dedication of time, finances and expertise. Overcoming the obstacles was achievable and worthwhile. The approach outlined can be used as an example to support PPIE in secondary analysis projects and or with vulnerable groups.

When doing research, it is important to involve the people that the research is going to impact. Research projects are increasingly including this involvement, however, there are some areas of research where it is not yet commonplace. For example, when undertaking projects with existing data or when the people of interest are considered a difficult to reach or vulnerable group. The LENS project (LEarning from Notifications in Social care) is a research project that developed and published a database using existing data on safety incidents in care homes. We carried out a consultation with people living in care homes as part of this project. People were asked for their input on the development of the database and the research that was being carried out on it. This work was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic and, as such, the people giving input were considered a vulnerable group. The people living in care homes were concerned about personal details being included in the database. Once they were reassured that no personal information would be included they were supportive of the database being made public. They also offered ideas about how the research that used the database could teach people working and living in care homes. The article describes how the researchers engaged the people and what was needed to achieve this. The article shows that involving people from vulnerable groups and in research relating to existing data, adds value even though there are obstacles to overcome. It is summarised here as an example for researchers undertaking similar work.

Determinants of regulatory compliance in health and social care services: A systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of high quality care is a fundamental goal for health systems worldwide. One policy tool to ensure quality is the regulation of services by an independent public authority. This systematic review seeks to identify determinants of compliance with such regulation in health and social care services. METHODS: Searches were carried out on five electronic databases and grey literature sources. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies were eligible for inclusion. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers independently. Determinants were identified from the included studies, extracted and allocated to constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The quality of included studies was appraised by two reviewers independently. The results were synthesised in a narrative review using the constructs of the CFIR as grouping themes. RESULTS: The search yielded 7,500 articles for screening, of which 157 were included. Most studies were quantitative designs in nursing home settings and were conducted in the United States. Determinants were largely structural in nature and allocated most frequently to the inner and outer setting domains of the CFIR. The following structural characteristics and compliance were found to be positively associated: smaller facilities (measured by bed capacity); higher nurse-staffing levels; and lower staff turnover. A facility's geographic location and compliance was also associated. It was difficult to make findings in respect of process determinants as qualitative studies were sparse, limiting investigation of the processes underlying regulatory compliance. CONCLUSION: The literature in this field has focused to date on structural attributes of compliant providers, perhaps because these are easier to measure, and has neglected more complex processes around the implementation of regulatory standards. A number of gaps, particularly in terms of qualitative work, are evident in the literature and further research in this area is needed to provide a clearer picture.

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.

Incidence and type of restrictive practice use in nursing homes in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Use of restrictive practices (RP) in care settings may sometimes be warranted but can also conflict with human rights. Research to date has focused primarily on physical and chemical RP, however other forms are also used. Better understanding of practice can inform RP reduction. This study describes the incidence of all types of RP use reported from nursing homes in Ireland. METHODS: RP notifications from nursing homes reported in 2020 were extracted from the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland. The primary outcome measurement was the national incidence of use (frequency of RP/occupancy per 1000 residents) of categories and types of RP. Secondary outcome measurements such as percentage of facilities reporting use and quarterly median incidence of use in these facilities were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy thousand six hundred sixty-three RP uses were notified from 608 facilities (33,219 beds). National incidence of RP use per 1000 residents was, all categories: 2465.1, environmental: 1324.5, physical: 922.5, chemical: 141.1; 'other': 77.0. The most frequently used RPs per category were, environmental: door locks; physical: bedrails; chemical (where drug specified): antipsychotics; 'other': privacy. 90.5% of nursing homes reported using at least one type of RP in the 12-month period. Quarterly incidence of any RP use in these facilities was median 1.642 (IQR: 0.018 to 18.608) per bed. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing homes in Ireland regularly use RP; only 9.5% reported no RP use in the 12-month period. A wide variety of types of RP were reported. Environmental and 'other' (largely psychosocial) RP contributed notably to total RP use and warrant attention alongside the traditional focus on physical and chemical RP. Policy implications include the need for more comprehensive RP definitions.

Incidence and type of restrictive practice use in residential disability facilities in Ireland, a cross-sectional study.

Restrictive practices (RPs) are a contentious issue in health and social care services. While use may be warranted in some instances, there are risks and concerns around human rights infringements. There are limited data available on the types and incidences of RPs used in health and social care services internationally. The objective of this study is to describe the type of RPs and incidence of use in disability residential care facilities (RCFs) in Ireland. RP notifications from disability RCFs reported from November 2019 to October 2020 were extracted from the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland. National frequency and incidence of use of categories and type of RPs were calculated. The number and percentage of disability RCFs reporting RP use, along with the mean annual incidence of use, were also calculated. A total of 48,877 uses of RPs were notified from 1387 disability RCFs (9487 beds) during the 12-month period. The national incidence of RPs use per 1000 beds was as follows: all categories: 5152.0, environmental: 2988.2, physical: 1403.0, other: 527.0 and chemical: 233.8. The most frequently used RPs for each category was as follows: environmental: door locks, physical: other physical, other: liberty and autonomy and chemical: anxiolytics. Most RCFs (81.7%) reported at least one RPs use. The median incidence of any RPs per 1000 beds in these RCFs was 4.75 (IQR: 2.00 to 51.66). Usage of RPs was generally low, although some RCFs reported relatively high usage. Nationally, on average, five RPs were applied per resident over 12 months; environmental contributing to more than half. These findings can be used to inform policy, measure progress in reducing RPs use and for cross-jurisdiction comparisons.