Care Planning Interventions for Care Home Residents: A Scoping Review

Q2 Health Professions Journal of long-term care Pub Date : 2023-12-06 DOI:10.31389/jltc.223
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":null,"pages":null},"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对护理院居民的护理规划干预:范围审查
背景:以前对养老院护理计划(CP)干预措施的综述侧重于更高质量的研究方法,并专门考虑高级护理计划(ACP),从而排除了许多可以为当前实践提供信息的基于干预的研究。CP关注的是患者当前的情况,而ACP关注的是表达与未来护理决策相关的偏好。目的:识别、绘制和总结报告养老院老年人CP干预的研究。方法:检索2012年1月1日至2022年1月1日的7个电子数据库。针对主要居住在养老院的老年人(>60岁)的CP干预研究符合纳入条件。两位审稿人独立筛选了3778篇文章的标题和摘要。在对404篇文章进行全文审查后,使用预定义的数据提取表单从112篇符合条件的文章中提取数据。研究结果:研究在25个国家进行,大多数研究在美国、澳大利亚和英国进行。大多数干预发生在养老院(61%,68/112)。超过90%的干预措施(93%,104/112)针对的是员工,培训是最常见的重点(80%,83/104),尽管只有一项干预措施包括对辅助人员(如清洁工和餐饮服务人员)的培训。只有三分之一的研究(35%,39/112)涉及家庭和朋友,62%(69/112)描述了通过多种手段改善CP实践的干预措施。局限性:仅包括英文论文,因此可能省略了潜在的相关研究。结论:两组人——辅助工作者和家人朋友——在CP中可能发挥重要作用,但通常不包括在CP干预中。这些疏忽应该在未来的研究中加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊最新文献
Music in Care Home Settings: Guidelines for Implementation and Evaluation Based on the Music Interventions for Depression and Dementia in ELderly Care (MIDDEL) Study in the UK Staff-Family Communication Methods in Long-Term Care Homes: An Integrative Review Care Relationships Between Support Staff and Adults With a Learning Disability in Long-Term Social Care Residential Settings in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Literature Review Nursing Home Characteristics and Resident Quality of Care Outcomes: A Scoping Review Developing the Principles of Falls Management in Care Homes: An expert Consensus Process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1