Browsing by Author "Weeks, Lori E"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Comparing effects of two higher intensity feedback interventions with simple feedback on improving staff communication in nursing homes—the INFORM cluster-randomized controlled trial
    (2020-09-10) Hoben, Matthias; Ginsburg, Liane R; Easterbrook, Adam; Norton, Peter G; Anderson, Ruth A; Andersen, Elizabeth A; Boström, Anne-Marie; Cranley, Lisa A; Lanham, Holly J; Weeks, Lori E; Cummings, Greta G; Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna M; Squires, Janet E; Wagg, Adrian S; Estabrooks, Carole A
    Abstract Background Effective communication among interdisciplinary healthcare teams is essential for quality healthcare, especially in nursing homes (NHs). Care aides provide most direct care in NHs, yet are rarely included in formal communications about resident care (e.g., change of shift reports, family conferences). Audit and feedback is a potentially effective improvement intervention. This study compares the effect of simple and two higher intensity levels of feedback based on goal-setting theory on improving formal staff communication in NHs. Methods This pragmatic three-arm parallel cluster-randomized controlled trial included NHs participating in TREC (translating research in elder care) across the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Facilities with at least one care unit with 10 or more care aide responses on the TREC baseline survey were eligible. At baseline, 4641 care aides and 1693 nurses cared for 8766 residents in 67 eligible NHs. NHs were randomly allocated to a simple (control) group (22 homes, 60 care units) or one of two higher intensity feedback intervention groups (based on goal-setting theory): basic assisted feedback (22 homes, 69 care units) and enhanced assisted feedback 2 (23 homes, 72 care units). Our primary outcome was the amount of formal communication about resident care that involved care aides, measured by the Alberta Context Tool and presented as adjusted mean differences [95% confidence interval] between study arms at 12-month follow-up. Results Baseline and follow-up data were available for 20 homes (57 care units, 751 care aides, 2428 residents) in the control group, 19 homes (61 care units, 836 care aides, 2387 residents) in the basic group, and 14 homes (45 care units, 615 care aides, 1584 residents) in the enhanced group. Compared to simple feedback, care aide involvement in formal communications at follow-up was 0.17 points higher in both the basic ([0.03; 0.32], p = 0.021) and enhanced groups ([0.01; 0.33], p = 0.035). We found no difference in this outcome between the two higher intensity groups. Conclusions Theoretically informed feedback was superior to simple feedback in improving care aides’ involvement in formal communications about resident care. This underlines that prior estimates for efficacy of audit and feedback may be constrained by the type of feedback intervention tested. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02695836 ), registered on March 1, 2016
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Examining fidelity in the INFORM trial: a complex team-based behavioral intervention
    (2020-09-16) Ginsburg, Liane R; Hoben, Matthias; Easterbrook, Adam; Andersen, Elizabeth; Anderson, Ruth A; Cranley, Lisa; Lanham, Holly J; Norton, Peter G; Weeks, Lori E; Estabrooks, Carole A
    Abstract Background Fidelity in complex behavioral interventions is underexplored. This study examines the fidelity of the INFORM trial and explores the relationship between fidelity, study arm, and the trial’s primary outcome—care aide involvement in formal team communications about resident care. Methods A concurrent process evaluation of implementation fidelity was conducted in 33 nursing homes in Western Canada (Alberta and British Columbia). Study participants were from 106 clinical care units clustered in 33 nursing homes randomized to the Basic and Enhanced-Assisted Feedback arms of the INFORM trial. Results Fidelity of the INFORM intervention was moderate to high, with fidelity delivery and receipt higher than fidelity enactment for both study arms. Higher enactment teams experienced a significantly larger improvement in formal team communications between baseline and follow-up than lower enactment teams (F(1, 70) = 4.27, p = .042). Conclusions Overall fidelity enactment was associated with improvements in formal team communications, but the study arm was not. This suggests that the intensity with which an intervention is offered and delivered may be less important than the intensity with which intervention participants enact the core components of an intervention. Greater attention to fidelity assessment and publication of fidelity results through studies such as this one is critical to improving the utility of published trials.