Jonathan Taylor, Nick Smith, Laura Prato, Jaqueline Damant, Sarah Jasim, Madalina Toma, Yuri Hamashima, Hugh McLeod, A. Towers, Jolie R. Keemink, C. Nwolise, C. Giebel, Ray Fitzpatrick
{"title":"Care Planning Interventions for Care Home Residents: A Scoping Review","authors":"Jonathan Taylor, Nick Smith, Laura Prato, Jaqueline Damant, Sarah Jasim, Madalina Toma, Yuri Hamashima, Hugh McLeod, A. Towers, Jolie R. Keemink, C. Nwolise, C. Giebel, Ray Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.31389/jltc.223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Previous reviews of care planning (CP) interventions in care homes focus on higher quality research methodologies and exclusively consider advanced care planning (ACP), thereby excluding many intervention-based studies that could inform current practice. CP is concerned with residents’ current circumstances while ACP focuses on expressing preferences which relate to future care decisions.\nObjectives: To identify, map and summarise studies reporting CP interventions for older people in care homes.\nMethods: Seven electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2022. Studies of CP interventions, targeted at older people (>60 years), whose primary place of residence was a care home, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 3778 articles. Following a full-text review of 404 articles, data from 112 eligible articles were extracted using a predefined data extraction form.\nFindings: Studies were conducted in 25 countries and the majority of studies took place in the United States, Australia and the UK. Most interventions occurred within nursing homes (61%, 68/112). More than 90% of interventions (93%, 104/112) targeted staff, and training was the most common focus (80%, 83/104), although only one included training for ancillary staff (such as cleaners and caterers). Only a third of the studies (35%, 39/112) involved family and friends, and 62% (69/112) described interventions to improve CP practices through multiple means.\nLimitations: Only papers written in English were included, so potentially relevant studies may have been omitted.\nImplications: Two groups of people – ancillary workers and family and friends – who could play a valuable role in CP were often not included in CP interventions. These oversights should be addressed in future research.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":"66 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: Previous reviews of care planning (CP) interventions in care homes focus on higher quality research methodologies and exclusively consider advanced care planning (ACP), thereby excluding many intervention-based studies that could inform current practice. CP is concerned with residents’ current circumstances while ACP focuses on expressing preferences which relate to future care decisions.
Objectives: To identify, map and summarise studies reporting CP interventions for older people in care homes.
Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2022. Studies of CP interventions, targeted at older people (>60 years), whose primary place of residence was a care home, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 3778 articles. Following a full-text review of 404 articles, data from 112 eligible articles were extracted using a predefined data extraction form.
Findings: Studies were conducted in 25 countries and the majority of studies took place in the United States, Australia and the UK. Most interventions occurred within nursing homes (61%, 68/112). More than 90% of interventions (93%, 104/112) targeted staff, and training was the most common focus (80%, 83/104), although only one included training for ancillary staff (such as cleaners and caterers). Only a third of the studies (35%, 39/112) involved family and friends, and 62% (69/112) described interventions to improve CP practices through multiple means.
Limitations: Only papers written in English were included, so potentially relevant studies may have been omitted.
Implications: Two groups of people – ancillary workers and family and friends – who could play a valuable role in CP were often not included in CP interventions. These oversights should be addressed in future research.