Setting priorities to inform assessment of care homes’ readiness to participate in healthcare innovation: a systematic mapping review and consensus process

© 2020 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly citedOrganisational context is known to impact on the successful implementation of healthcare initiatives in care homes. We undertook a systematic mapping review to examine whether researchers have considered organisational context when planning, conducting, and reporting the implementation of healthcare innovations in care homes. Review data were mapped against the Alberta Context Tool, which was designed to assess organizational context in care homes. The review included 56 papers. No studies involved a systematic assessment of organisational context prior to implementation, but many provided post hoc explanations of how organisational context affected the success or otherwise of the innovation. Factors identified to explain a lack of success included poor senior staff engagement, non-alignment with care home culture, limited staff capacity to engage, and low levels of participation from health professionals such as general practitioners (GPs). Thirty-five stakeholders participated in workshops to discuss findings and develop questions for assessing care home readiness to participate in innovations. Ten questions were developed to initiate conversations between innovators and care home staff to support research and implementation. This framework can help researchers initiate discussions about health-related innovation. This will begin to address the gap between implementation theory and practice.Peer reviewe

Care home readiness: a rapid review and consensus workshops on how organisational context affects care home engagement with health care innovation

Summary The NHS Five-Year Forward view recognises that the NHS needs to do more to support older people living with frailty in care homes. This paper presents the findings from a rapid review and consensus events that explored how organisational context affects uptake of healthcare innovation in long term care settings. Care home managers and front line staff, care home researchers, NHS commissioners and NHS practitioners participated in the workshops. The review found that uptake is likely to be better when contextual factors are addressed. Leadership and care home culture were important but there was a limited consensus about how to identify this or, for example, what kind of leadership made a difference. A few studies highlighted the importance of making sure that the priorities of care home and health care practitioners were aligned and establishing that care home staff had the resources and time to implement the change. Workshop participants agreed that the different contextual factors discussed in the literature were important and resonated with their experience. NHS services and practitioners had not however, structured their work with care homes to take these factors into account. Also discussed was the need to consider if NHS services understood how to work with care homes. In deciding how and when to allocate resources to care homes to support new initiatives, the NHS needs to consider carefully the organisational contexts and assess them appropriately. Based on the combined findings we suggest ten key questions for commissioners and service providers working with care home providers. Ideally these questions can be used prior to working with care homes. They can also help to structure reviews of uptake of innovations to enhance health in care homes. 1. Does this intervention align with care home priorities? Or are there other potential interventions that care homes identify as more pressing? 2. What evidence is there of senior management interest and enthusiasm for this intervention at organisation & unit level? Are they willing and able on a daily basis to take a leadership role in supporting the proposed change? 3. Do care home staff have enough “slack and flexibility” to accommodate the change into their current workload, is this recognised as core to their work? 4. How is change discussed (formally and informally) in the care home setting? Who needs to be involved in decision-making about what is being proposed and how it is implemented? 5. What are the recent changes or health related projects this care home has been involved with? 6. Is there a champion in both the care home and in the linked NHS service with protected time to help facilitate change? 7. What are the pre-existing working relationships between NHS services and care home staff and networks of care and support around the care home? ( e.g. GPs, visiting specialists, links with local hospital) 8. Could the intervention appear judgemental by signalling in a negative way that the care home needs to change? 9. How well do existing care home training programmes and work schedules fit with what is proposed? 10. Will care home staff have to collect and enter new data or is it held in existing systems? The report concludes by suggesting some strategies that might support how NHS practitioners and care home staff address their capacity and readiness to work together

Toward Common Data Elements for International Research in Long-term Care Homes: Advancing Person-Centered Care

To support person-centered, residential long-term care internationally, a consortium of researchers in medicine, nursing, behavioral, and social sciences from 21 geographically and economically diverse countries have launched the WE-THRIVE consortium to develop a common data infrastructure. WE-THRIVE aims to identify measurement domains that are internationally relevant, including in low-, middle-, and high-income countries, prioritize concepts to operationalize domains, and specify a set of data elements to measure concepts that can be used across studies for data sharing and comparisons. This article reports findings from consortium meetings at the 2016 meeting of the Gerontological Society of America and the 2017 meeting of the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, to identify domains and prioritize concepts, following best practices to identify common data elements (CDEs) that were developed through the US National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Nursing Research's CDEs initiative. Four domains were identified, including organizational context, workforce and staffing, person-centered care, and care outcomes. Using a nominal group process, WE-THRIVE prioritized 21 concepts across the 4 domains. Several concepts showed similarity to existing measurement structures, whereas others differed. Conceptual similarity (convergence; eg, concepts in the care outcomes domain of functional level and harm-free care) provides further support of the critical foundational work in LTC measurement endorsed and implemented by regulatory bodies. Different concepts (divergence; eg, concepts in the person-centered care domain of knowing the person and what matters most to the person) highlights current gaps in measurement efforts and is consistent with WE-THRIVE's focus on supporting resilience and thriving for residents, family, and staff. In alignment with the World Health Organization's call for comparative measurement work for health systems change, WE-THRIVE's work to date highlights the benefits of engaging with diverse LTC researchers, including those in low-, middle-, and high-income countries, to develop a measurement infrastructure that integrates the aspirations of person-centered LTC

Advancing Long-Term Care Science Through Using Common Data Elements: Candidate Measures for Care Outcomes of Personhood, Well-Being, and Quality of Life

To support the development of internationally comparable common data elements (CDEs) that can be used to measure essential aspects of long-term care (LTC) across low-, middle-, and high-income countries, a group of researchers in medicine, nursing, behavioral, and social sciences from 21 different countries have joined forces and launched the Worldwide Elements to Harmonize Research in LTC Living Environments (WE-THRIVE) initiative. This initiative aims to develop a common data infrastructure for international use across the domains of organizational context, workforce and staffing, person-centered care, and care outcomes, as these are critical to LTC quality, experiences, and outcomes. This article reports measurement recommendations for the care outcomes domain, focusing on previously prioritized care outcomes concepts of well-being, quality of life (QoL), and personhood for residents in LTC. Through literature review and expert ranking, we recommend nine measures of well-being, QoL, and personhood, as a basis for developing CDEs for long-term care outcomes across countries. Data in LTC have often included deficit-oriented measures; while important, reductions do not necessarily mean that residents are concurrently experiencing well-being. Enhancing measurement efforts with the inclusion of these positive LTC outcomes across countries would facilitate international LTC research and align with global shifts toward healthy aging and person-centered LTC models

Delegation and coordination with multiple threshold public goods: experimental evidence

When multiple charities, social programs and community projects simultaneously vie for funding, donors risk mis-coordinating their contributions leading to an inefficient distribution of funding across projects. Community chests and other intermediary organizations facilitate coordination among donors and reduce such risks. To study this, we extend a threshold public goods framework to allow donors to contribute through an intermediary rather than directly to the public goods. Through a series of experiments, we show that the presence of an intermediary increases public good success and subjects’ earnings only when the intermediary is formally committed to direct donations to socially beneficial goods. Without such a restriction, the presence of an intermediary has a negative impact, complicating the donation environment, decreasing contributions and public good success.When multiple charities, social programs and community projects simultaneously vie for funding, donors risk mis-coordinating their contributions leading to an inefficient distribution of funding across projects. Community chests and other intermediary organizations facilitate coordination among donors and reduce such risks. To study this, we extend a threshold public goods framework to allow donors to contribute through an intermediary rather than directly to the public goods. Through a series of experiments, we show that the presence of an intermediary increases public good success and subjects’ earnings only when the intermediary is formally committed to direct donations to socially beneficial goods. Without such a restriction, the presence of an intermediary has a negative impact, complicating the donation environment, decreasing contributions and public good success

Age, Health and Life Satisfaction Among Older Europeans

In this paper we investigate how age affects the self-reported level of life satisfaction among the elderly in Europe. By using a vignette approach, we find evidence that age influences life satisfaction through two counterbalancing channels. On the one hand, controlling for the effects of all other variables, the own perceived level of life satisfaction increases with age. On the other hand, given the same true level of life satisfaction, older respondents are more likely to rank themselves as “dissatisfied” with their life than younger individuals. Detrimental health conditions and physical limitations play a crucial role in explaining scale biases in the reporting style of older individuals