Quality improvement in long-term care settings: a scoping review of effective strategies used in care homes
- PDF / 694,041 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 2 Downloads / 229 Views
REVIEW
Quality improvement in long‑term care settings: a scoping review of effective strategies used in care homes Neil H. Chadborn1,2 · Reena Devi3 · Kathryn Hinsliff‑Smith4 · Jay Banerjee5 · Adam L. Gordon1,2 Received: 1 May 2020 / Accepted: 26 August 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Key summary points Aim To review quality improvement in care homes and identify quality improvement approach, process evaluation and resident outcomes. Findings Seventy five articles were included which described a variety of quality improvement approaches and various methods of process evaluation addressing various clinical problems. Some studies showed benefits to health outcomes, but it was not possible to synthesise due to diversity of data. Message Future quality improvement should apply structured reporting of quality improvement initiatives and resident-level interventions in order that findings can by synthesised and implemented. Abstract Purpose We conducted a scoping review of quality improvement in care homes. We aimed to identify participating occupational groups and methods for evaluation. Secondly, we aimed to describe resident-level interventions and which outcomes were measured. Methods Following extended PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews, we conducted systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and ASSIA (2000–2019). Furthermore, we searched systematic reviews databases including Cochrane Library and JBI, and the grey literature database, Greylit. Four co-authors contributed to selection and data extraction. Results Sixty five studies were included, 6 of which had multiple publications (75 articles overall). A range of quality improvement strategies were implemented, including audit feedback and quality improvement collaboratives. Methods consisted of controlled trials, quantitative time series and qualitative interview and observational studies. Process evaluations, involving staff of various occupational groups, described experiences and implementation measures. Many studies measured resident-level outputs and health outcomes. 14 studies reported improvements to a clinical measure; however, four
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-020-00389-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Neil H. Chadborn [email protected] 1
Division of Medical Science and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
2
NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, Nottingham, UK
3
School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
4
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
5
School of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
European Geriatric Medicine
of these articles were of low quality. Larger randomised controlled studies did not show statistically significant benefits to resident health outcomes. Conclusion In care homes, quality improvement has been applie
Data Loading...
