Nurse practitioner led implementation of huddles for staff in long term care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Staff working in long-term care (LTC) homes during COVID-19 frequently reported a lack of communication, collaboration, and teamwork, all of which are associated with staff dissatisfaction, health concerns, lack of support and moral distress. Our study introduced regular huddles to support LTC staff during COVID-19, led by a Nurse Practitioner (NP). The objectives were to evaluate the process of huddle implementation and to examine differences in outcomes between categories of staff (direct care staff, allied care and support staff, and management) who attended huddles and those who did not. METHODS: All staff and management at one LTC home (< 150 beds) in Ontario, Canada were included in this pre-experimental design study. The process evaluation used a huddle observation tool and focused on the dose (duration, frequency) and fidelity (NP's adherence to the huddle guide) of implementation. The staff attending and non-attending huddles were compared on outcomes measured at post-test: job satisfaction, physical and mental health, perception of support received, and levels of moral distress. The outcomes were assessed with validated measures and compared between categories of staff using Bayesian models. RESULTS: A total of 42 staff enrolled in the study (20 attending and 22 non-attending huddles). Forty-eight huddles were implemented by the NP over 15 weeks and lasted 15 min on average. Huddles were most commonly attended by direct care staff, followed by allied care/support, and management staff. All huddles adhered to the huddle guide as designed by the research team. Topics most often addressed during the huddles were related to resident care (46%) and staff well-being (34%). Differences were found between staff attending and non-attending huddles: direct care staff attending huddles reported lower levels of overall moral distress, and allied care and support staff attending huddles perceived higher levels of support from the NP. CONCLUSIONS: NP-led huddles in LTC homes may positively influence staff outcomes. The process evaluation provided some understanding of why the huddles may have been beneficial: the NP addressed resident care issues which were important to staff, encouraged a collaborative approach to solving issues on the unit, and discussed their well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05387213, registered on 24/05/2022.

Nurse practitioner/physician collaborative models of care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, many long-term care (LTC) homes experienced difficulties in providing residents with access to primary care, typically delivered by community-based family physicians or nurse practitioners (NPs). During the pandemic, legislative changes in Ontario, Canada enabled NPs to act in the role of Medical Directors thereby empowering NPs to work to their full scope of practice. Emerging from this new context, it remains unclear how NPs and physicians will best work together as primary care providers. NP/physician collaborative models appear key to achieving optimal resident outcomes. This scoping review aims to map available evidence on existing collaborative models of care between NPs and physicians within LTC homes. METHODS: The review will be guided by the research question, "What are the structures, processes and outcomes of collaborative models of care involving NPs and Physicians in LTC homes?" This scoping review will be conducted according to the methods framework for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac et al., Colquhoun et al., and Daudt et al., as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Statement. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase + Embase Classic, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, CINAHL, Ageline, and Scopus), grey literature, and reference lists of included articles will be searched. English language studies that describe NP and physician collaborative models within the LTC setting will be included. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will consolidate what is known about existing NP/physician collaborative models of care in LTC homes. Results will be used to inform the development of a collaborative practice framework for long-term care clinical leadership.

Assessing the implementation of nurse practitioner-led huddles in long-term care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created major challenges in long-term care (LTC) homes across Canada and globally. A nurse practitioner-led interdisciplinary huddle intervention was developed to support staff wellbeing in two LTC homes in Ontario, Canada. The objective of this study was to identify the constructs strongly influencing the process of implementation of huddles across both sites, capturing the overall barriers and facilitators and the intervention's intrinsic properties. METHODS: Nineteen participants were interviewed about their experiences, pre-, post-, and during huddle implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide data collection and analysis. CFIR rating rules and a cross-comparison analysis was used to identify differentiating factors between sites. A novel extension to the CFIR analysis process was designed to assess commonly influential factors across both sites. RESULTS: Nineteen of twenty selected CFIR constructs were coded in interviews from both sites. Five constructs were determined to be strongly influential across both implementation sites and a detailed description is provided: evidence strength and quality; needs and resources of those served by the organization; leadership engagement; relative priority; and champions. A summary of ratings and an illustrative quote are provided for each construct. CONCLUSION: Successful huddles require long-term care leaders to consider their involvement, the inclusion all team members to help build relationships and foster cohesion, and the integration of nurse practitioners as full-time staff members within LTC homes to support staff and facilitate initiatives for wellbeing. This research provides an example of a novel approach using the CFIR methodology, extending its use to identify significant factors for implementation when it is not possible to compare differences in success.

Systematic review of self-management interventions for older adults with cancer.

AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of self-management interventions for older adults with cancer and to determine the effective components of said interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of self-management interventions for older adults (65+) with cancer guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. We conducted an exhaustive search of the following databases: Ageline, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. We assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Down & Black for quasi-experimental studies, with data synthesized in a narrative and tabular format. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand nine hundred and eight-five titles and abstracts were screened, subsequently 452 full-text papers were reviewed by two independent reviewers, of which 13 full-text papers were included in the final review. All self-management interventions included in this review measured Quality of Life; other outcomes included mood, self-care activity, supportive care needs, self-advocacy, pain intensity, and analgesic intake; only one intervention measured frailty. Effective interventions were delivered by a multidisciplinary teams (n = 4), nurses (n = 3), and mental health professionals (n = 1). Self-management core skills most commonly targeted included: problem solving; behavioural self-monitoring and tailoring; and settings goals and action planning. CONCLUSIONS: Global calls to action argue for increased emphasize on self-management but presently, few interventions exist that explicitly target the self-management needs of older adults with cancer. Future work should focus on explicit pathways to support older adults and their caregivers to prepare for and engage in cancer self-management processes and behaviours.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside the 5C randomized controlled trial to compare GA and management (GAM) plus usual care (UC) against UC alone in older adults with cancer. METHODS: The economic evaluation, conducted from societal and health care payer perspectives, used a 12-month time horizon. The Canadian 5C study randomly assigned patients to receive GAM or UC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using the EuroQol five dimension-5L questionnaire and health care utilization using cost diaries and chart reviews. We evaluated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for the full sample and preselected subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included, of whom 173 received GAM and 177 UC. At 12 months, the average QALYs per patient were 0.728 and 0.751 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔQALY, -0.023 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.028]). Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) per patient were $46,739 and $45,177 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔCost, $1,563 [95% CI, -$6,583 to $10,403]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, GAM was not cost-effective compared with UC (INMB, -$2,713 [95% CI, -$11,767 to $5,801]). The INMB was positive ($2,984 [95% CI, -$7,050 to $14,179]; probability of being cost-effective, 72%) for patients treated with curative intent, but remained negative for patients treated with palliative intent (INMB, -$9,909 [95% CI, -$24,436 to $4,153]). Findings were similar considering a health care payer perspective. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-utility analysis of GAM in cancer. GAM was cost-effective for patients with cancer treated with curative but not with palliative intent. The study provides further considerations for future adoption of GAM in practice.

Development and Evaluation of a Nurse Practitioner Huddles Toolkit for Long Term Care Homes.

Long-term care homes (LTCHs) were disproportionately affected by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, creating stressful circumstances for LTCH employees, residents, and their care partners. Team huddles may improve staff outcomes and enable a supportive climate. Nurse practitioners (NPs) have a multifaceted role in LTCHs, including facilitating implementation of new practices. Informed by a community-based participatory approach to research, this mixed-methods study aimed to develop and evaluate a toolkit for implementing NP-led huddles in an LTCH. The toolkit consists of two sections. Section one describes the huddles' purpose and implementation strategies. Section two contains six scripts to guide huddle discussions. Acceptability of the intervention was evaluated using a quantitative measure (Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire) and through qualitative interviews with huddle participants. Descriptive statistics and manifest content analysis were used to analyse quantitative and qualitative data. The project team rated the toolkit as acceptable. Qualitative findings provided evidence on design quality, limitations, and recommendations for future huddles.

Impact of Geriatric Assessment and Management on Quality of Life, Unplanned Hospitalizations, Toxicity, and Survival for Older Adults With Cancer: The Randomized 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS: From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION: GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.

Care provided by older adults in active cancer treatment to a spouse: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults with cancer may be spousal caregivers for partners with one or more chronic conditions, and there has not been an overview of the needs of this population. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review to assess what is known about the type and amount of spousal care provided by older adults (≥65 years) with any type of cancer, in the active treatment phase. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search strategy was designed with a Health Sciences Librarian and performed using the following electronic databases from inception to January 2021: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycInfo. Two independent reviewers screened all abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion. RESULTS: Searches were run February 26, 2020, and re-run January 8, 2021. A total of 8887 titles and abstracts were screened and 32 selected for full text review, but only two case reports were included in this review. The two case reports discussed the experience of an older adult with cancer, in active treatment, as the caregiver to a spouse. However, the type and amount of care provided by the caregiver to the spouse was not specified in either report. In both reports, caregivers declined cancer therapy to focus on the needs of the care recipients. CONCLUSION: Only two case reports were identified that examined the experiences of older adults with cancer acting as caregivers to a spouse. It is important for future studies to address this gap to better understand the needs of this population and develop future supportive interventions.

Nurse Practitioners Navigating the Consequences of Directives, Policies, and Recommendations Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Long-Term Care Homes.

OBJECTIVES: New models for the workforce are required in long-term care (LTC) homes, as was made evident during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Nurse Practitioner (NP)-led models of care represent an effective solution. This study explored NPs' roles in supporting LTC homes as changes in directives, policies, and recommendations related to COVID-19 were introduced. DESIGN: Qualitative exploratory study. CONTEXT: Thirteen NPs working in LTC homes in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in March/April 2021. A five-step inductive thematic analysis was applied. FINDINGS: Analysis generated four themes: leading the COVID-19 vaccine rollout; promoting staff wellbeing related to COVID-19 fatigue; addressing complexities of new admissions; and negotiating evolving collaborative relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioners were instrumental in supporting LTC homes through COVID-19 regulatory changes producing unintended consequences. The NPs' leadership in transforming care is equally essential in LTC homes as in other established healthcare settings, such as primary and acute care.

Self-management interventions for issues identified in a geriatric assessment: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the development of electronic geriatric assessment (GA), recommendations for self-management can be provided to patients without the presence of health care providers. Our research question was to identify what self-management interventions can be used by patients to address issues identified in GA and to determine their effect on patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life, health, mood, cognition, and functional status. METHODS: Searches were conducted on July 13, 2021, by a health sciences librarian in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library. A combination of database-specific subject headings and text word searches was used such as self-management, a key word for each of the geriatric assessment domains and older adults. Two independent reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts for inclusion and abstracted data. Narrative synthesis was used to summarize findings. RESULTS: Among 28,520 abstracts reviewed, 34 randomized controlled trials were included. The most frequently studied geriatric domains were mood (n = 13 studies), mobility/falls (n = 12), quality of life (n = 11), and functional status (n = 7). The majority of studies demonstrated positive effects on mobility/falls (9 of 12), pain (3 of 5), comorbidity (4 of 4), and medication management (4 of 4). Most studies were of low to moderate quality. All geriatric domains were targeted in at least one study. CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-quality studies show a variety of effective self-efficacy-targeted interventions exist for older adults to improve several important geriatric domains and related outcomes. However, long-term effects, validation, and scalability of these interventions remain largely unknown.

Protocol for a systematic review of self-management interventions for older adults living with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer predominates in adults over age 65. Cancer treatments are known to create physical and psychosocial challenges, which may be amplified for older adults with cancer. Learning and applying self-management behaviours and skills during treatment with cancer can help to manage/recover health and improve quality of life. In many other chronic illnesses, self-management interventions are known to improve health outcomes and lower healthcare costs. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of self-management interventions for older adults with cancer on physical, psychosocial, and health system-related outcomes. METHODS: We are conducting a systematic review of self-management interventions for older adults (65+) diagnosed with cancer (solid tumour or haematological) in the active treatment phase of cancer. This systematic review is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Studies are limited to experimental or quasi-experimental methods published in English, French, German, or Dutch. A search strategy was designed with a Health Sciences librarian and performed using the following electronic databases: Ageline, AMED, ASSIA, Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. Approximately 14,000 titles and abstracts are being electronically screened by a minimum of 2 reviewers, with relevant studies to be screened for full text. The final sample of included studies will be assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Down and Black for quasi-experimental studies, with data synthesized in a narrative and tabular format. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will expand the knowledge base of interventions supporting self-management for older adults with cancer. This study will inform future intervention development by identifying gaps and strengths in effective self-management interventions targeting the needs of older adults receiving active treatment for cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROPERO registry ID# CRD42019134113.