“Weighing up risk”: A conceptual model of care home staff decision-making about potential resident hospital transfers.

No description supplie

Hospital transfers from care homes: conceptualising staff decision-making as a form of risk work

When making decisions about whether to transfer residents to hospital, care home staff consider the possible benefits and risks of different courses of action. However, to date, an in-depth and theoretically informed engagement with these decision-making processes and their associated behaviours has been lacking. We conducted an ethnographic study of care home staff’s decision-making about resident hospital transfers in England between May 2018 and November 2019. We combined staff interviews at six care home sites, with 30 members of staff, with 113 hours of ethnographic observation at three care homes sites. ‘Risk’ and risk management emerged as important overarching themes. In this article we conceptualise staff decision-making about potential hospital transfers for residents as a form of risk work. In doing so, we identify the different forms of risk knowledge that staff used to conceptualise risk and explore the ways staff navigated tensions between different forms of risk knowledge. We highlight the ways individual understandings of risk were influenced by social interactions with others, both at an interpersonal and organisational level, before identifying strategies that staff use to manage risk. By understanding transfer decisions explicitly in terms of the different forms of risk that care home staff manage, our analysis provides new insights into hospital transfers from care homes and contributes to the wider literature around risk work, demonstrating the utility of this concept in researching organisations that fall under the umbrella of social care, which have been previously neglected in academic research. </p

Prevalence, Predictors, and Experience of Moral Suffering in Nursing and Care Home Staff during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

(1) Background: Nursing and care home staff experienced high death rates of older residents and increased occupational and psychosocial pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The literature has previously found this group to be at risk of developing mental health conditions, moral injury (MI), and moral distress (MD). The latter two terms refer to the perceived ethical wrongdoing which contravenes an individual&rsquo;s moral beliefs and elicits adverse emotional responses. (2) Method: A systematic review was conducted to explore the prevalence, predictors, and psychological experience of MI and MD in the aforementioned population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The databases CINAHL, APA PsychINFO, APA PsychArticles, Web of Science, Medline, and Scopus were systematically searched for original research studies of all designs, published in English, with no geographical restrictions, and dating from when COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency on the 30 January 2020 to the 3 January 2022. Out of 531 studies screened for eligibility, 8 studies were selected for review. A thematic analysis was undertaken to examine the major underpinning themes. (3) Results: MI, MD, and related constructs (notably secondary traumatic stress) were evidenced to be present in staff, although most studies did not explore the prevalence or predictors. The elicited major themes were resource deficits, role challenges, communication and leadership, and emotional and psychosocial consequences. (4) Conclusions: Our findings suggest that moral injury and moral distress were likely to be present prior to COVID-19 but have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Whilst studies were generally of high quality, the dearth of quantitative studies assessing prevalence and predictors suggests a research need, enabling the exploration of causal relationships between variables. However, the implied presence of MI and MD warrants intervention developments and workplace support for nursing and care home staff

Using advance and emergency care plans during transfer decisions: A grounded theory interview study with care home staff

Background: Advance care planning has been identified as one of few modifiable factors that could reduce hospital transfers from care homes. Several types of documents may be used by patients and clinicians to record these plans. However, little is known about how plans are perceived and used by care home staff at the time of deterioration.  Aim: To describe care home staff experiences and perceptions of using written plans during in-the-moment decision-making about potential resident hospital transfers.  Design: Qualitative semi-structured interviews analysed using the Straussian approach to grounded theory. Setting/participants: Thirty staff across six care homes (with and without nursing) in the East and West Midlands of England.  Results: Staff preferred (in principle) to keep deteriorating residents in the care home but feared that doing so could lead to negative repercussions for them as individuals, especially when there was perceived discordance with family carers’ wishes. They felt that clinicians should be responsible for these plans but were happy to take a supporting role. At the time of deterioration, written plans legitimised the decision to care for the resident within the home; however, staff were wary of interpreting broad statements and wanted plans to be detailed, specific, unambiguous, technically ‘correct’, understood by families and regularly updated.  Conclusions: Written plans provide reassurance for care home staff, reducing concerns about personal and professional risk. However, care home staff have limited discretion to interpret plans and transfers may occur if plans are not specific enough for care home staff to use confidently.</p