Browsing by Author "Doupe, Malcolm"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Correction to: SCOPE: safer care for older persons (in residential) environments—a pilot study to enhance care aide-led quality improvement in nursing homes
    (2022-03-01) Doupe, Malcolm; Brunkert, Thekla; Wagg, Adrian; Ginsburg, Liane; Norton, Peter; Berta, Whitney; Knopp-Sihota, Jennifer; Estabrooks, Carole
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Reporting unit context data to stakeholders in long-term care: a practical approach
    (2022-11-21) Cranley, Lisa A.; Lo, T K. T.; Weeks, Lori E.; Hoben, Matthias; Ginsburg, Liane R.; Doupe, Malcolm; Anderson, Ruth A.; Wagg, Adrian; Boström, Anne-Marie; Estabrooks, Carole A.; Norton, Peter G.
    Abstract Background The importance of reporting research evidence to stakeholders in ways that balance complexity and usability is well-documented. However, guidance for how to accomplish this is less clear. We describe a method of developing and visualising dimension-specific scores for organisational context (context rank method). We explore perspectives of leaders in long-term care nursing homes (NHs) on two methods for reporting organisational context data: context rank method and our traditionally presented binary method—more/less favourable context. Methods We used a multimethod design. First, we used survey data from 4065 healthcare aides on 290 care units from 91 NHs to calculate quartiles for each of the 10 Alberta Context Tool (ACT) dimension scores, aggregated at the care unit level based on the overall sample distribution of these scores. This ordinal variable was then summed across ACT scores. Context rank scores were assessed for associations with outcomes for NH staff and for quality of care (healthcare aides’ instrumental and conceptual research use, job satisfaction, rushed care, care left undone) using regression analyses. Second, we used a qualitative descriptive approach to elicit NH leaders’ perspectives on whether the methods were understandable, meaningful, relevant, and useful. With 16 leaders, we conducted focus groups between December 2017 and June 2018: one in Nova Scotia, one in Prince Edward Island, and one in Ontario, Canada. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results Composite scores generated using the context rank method had positive associations with healthcare aides’ instrumental research use (p < .0067) and conceptual research use and job satisfaction (p < .0001). Associations were negative between context rank summary scores and rushed care and care left undone (p < .0001). Overall, leaders indicated that data presented by both methods had value. They liked the binary method as a starting point but appreciated the greater level of detail in the context rank method. Conclusions We recommend careful selection of either the binary or context rank method based on purpose and audience. If a simple, high-level overview is the goal, the binary method has value. If improvement is the goal, the context rank method will give leaders more actionable details.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE): a pragmatic controlled trial of a care aide-led quality improvement intervention
    (2023-03-29) Wagg, Adrian; Hoben, Matthias; Ginsburg, Liane; Doupe, Malcolm; Berta, Whitney; Song, Yuting; Norton, Peter; Knopp-Sihota, Jennifer; Estabrooks, Carole
    Abstract Background The increased complexity of residents and increased needs for care in long-term care (LTC) have not been met with increased staffing. There remains a need to improve the quality of care for residents. Care aides, providers of the bulk of direct care, are well placed to contribute to quality improvement efforts but are often excluded from so doing. This study examined the effect of a facilitation intervention enabling care aides to lead quality improvement efforts and improve the use of evidence-informed best practices. The eventual goal was to improve both the quality of care for older residents in LTC homes and the engagement and empowerment of care aides in leading quality improvement efforts. Methods Intervention teams participated in a year-long facilitative intervention which supported care aide-led teams to test changes in care provision to residents using a combination of networking and QI education meetings, and quality advisor and senior leader support. This was a controlled trial with random selection of intervention clinical care units matched 1:1 post hoc with control units. The primary outcome, between group change in conceptual research use (CRU), was supplemented by secondary staff- and resident-level outcome measures. A power calculation based upon pilot data effect sizes resulted in a sample size of 25 intervention sites. Results The final sample included 32 intervention care units matched to 32 units in the control group. In an adjusted model, there was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control units for CRU or in secondary staff outcomes. Compared to baseline, resident-adjusted pain scores were statistically significantly reduced (less pain) in the intervention group (p=0.02). The level of resident dependency significantly decreased statistically for residents whose teams addressed mobility (p<0.0001) compared to baseline. Conclusions The Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE) intervention resulted in a smaller change in its primary outcome than initially expected resulting in a study underpowered to detect a difference. These findings should inform sample size calculations of future studies of this nature if using similar outcome measures. This study highlights the problem with measures drawn from current LTC databases to capture change in this population. Importantly, findings from the trial’s concurrent process evaluation provide important insights into interpretation of main trial data, highlight the need for such evaluations of complex trials, and suggest the need to consider more broadly what constitutes “success” in complex interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03426072, registered August 02, 2018, first participant site April, 05, 2018.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    SCOPE: safer care for older persons (in residential) environments—a pilot study to enhance care aide-led quality improvement in nursing homes
    (2022-02-03) Doupe, Malcolm; Brunkert, Thekla; Wagg, Adrian; Ginsburg, Liane; Norton, Peter; Berta, Whitney; Knopp-Sihota, Jennifer; Estabrooks, Carole
    Abstract Background Nursing home residents require daily support. While care aides provide most of this support they are rarely empowered to lead quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Researchers have shown that care aide-led teams can successfully participate in a QI intervention called Safer Care for Older Persons in Residential Care Environments (SCOPE). In preparation for a large-scale study, we conducted a 1-year pilot to evaluate how well coaching strategies helped teams to enact this intervention. Secondarily, we measured if improvements in team cohesion and communication, and resident quality of care, occurred. Methods This study was conducted using a prospective single-arm study design, on 7 nursing homes in Winnipeg Manitoba belonging to the Translating Research in Elder Care research program. One QI team was selected per site, led by care aides who partnered with other front-line staff. Each team received facilitated coaching to enact SCOPE during three learning sessions, and additional support from quality advisors between these sessions. Researchers developed a rubric to evaluate how well teams enacted their interventions (i.e., created actionable aim statements, implemented interventions using plan-do-study-act cycles, and used measurement to guide decision-making). Team cohesion and communication were measured using surveys, and changes in unit-level quality indicators were measured using Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set data. Results Most teams successfully enacted their interventions. Five of 7 teams created adequate-to-excellent aim statements. While 6 of 7 teams successfully implemented plan-do-study-act cycles, only 2 reported spreading their change ideas to other residents and staff on their unit. Three of 7 teams explicitly stated how measurement was used to guide intervention decisions. Teams scored high in cohesion and communication at baseline, and hence improved minimally. Indicators of resident quality care improved in 4 nursing home units; teams at 3 of these sites were scored as ‘excellent’ in two or more enactment areas, versus 1 of the 3 remaining teams. Conclusions Our coaching strategies helped most care aide-led teams to enact SCOPE. Coaching modifications are needed to help teams more effectively use measurement. Refinements to our evaluation rubric are also recommended.