Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
School of Health Policy & Management, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Implement Sci. 2020 Sep 10;15(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01038-3.
Effective communication among interdisciplinary healthcare teams is essential for quality healthcare, especially in nursing homes (NHs). Care aides provide most direct care in NHs, yet are rarely included in formal communications about resident care (e.g., change of shift reports, family conferences). Audit and feedback is a potentially effective improvement intervention. This study compares the effect of simple and two higher intensity levels of feedback based on goal-setting theory on improving formal staff communication in NHs.
This pragmatic three-arm parallel cluster-randomized controlled trial included NHs participating in TREC (translating research in elder care) across the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Facilities with at least one care unit with 10 or more care aide responses on the TREC baseline survey were eligible. At baseline, 4641 care aides and 1693 nurses cared for 8766 residents in 67 eligible NHs. NHs were randomly allocated to a simple (control) group (22 homes, 60 care units) or one of two higher intensity feedback intervention groups (based on goal-setting theory): basic assisted feedback (22 homes, 69 care units) and enhanced assisted feedback 2 (23 homes, 72 care units). Our primary outcome was the amount of formal communication about resident care that involved care aides, measured by the Alberta Context Tool and presented as adjusted mean differences [95% confidence interval] between study arms at 12-month follow-up.
Baseline and follow-up data were available for 20 homes (57 care units, 751 care aides, 2428 residents) in the control group, 19 homes (61 care units, 836 care aides, 2387 residents) in the basic group, and 14 homes (45 care units, 615 care aides, 1584 residents) in the enhanced group. Compared to simple feedback, care aide involvement in formal communications at follow-up was 0.17 points higher in both the basic ([0.03; 0.32], p = 0.021) and enhanced groups ([0.01; 0.33], p = 0.035). We found no difference in this outcome between the two higher intensity groups.
Theoretically informed feedback was superior to simple feedback in improving care aides' involvement in formal communications about resident care. This underlines that prior estimates for efficacy of audit and feedback may be constrained by the type of feedback intervention tested.
ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02695836 ), registered on March 1, 2016.
跨学科医疗团队之间的有效沟通对于高质量的医疗保健至关重要,尤其是在养老院(NHs)中。护理助理在 NHs 中提供最直接的护理,但在有关居民护理的正式沟通中很少被包括在内(例如,换班报告、家庭会议)。审核和反馈是一种潜在有效的改进干预措施。本研究比较了基于目标设定理论的简单和两种更高强度水平的反馈对改善 NHs 中正式员工沟通的效果。
这是一项务实的三臂平行聚类随机对照试验,包括参与加拿大艾伯塔省和不列颠哥伦比亚省的 TREC(翻译老年护理研究)的 NHs。有至少一个护理单元有 10 个或更多护理助理对 TREC 基线调查做出回应的设施有资格参加。在基线时,4641 名护理助理和 1693 名护士在 67 个符合条件的 NHs 中照顾了 8766 名居民。NHs 被随机分配到一个简单(对照)组(22 个家庭,60 个护理单元)或两个更高强度反馈干预组之一(基于目标设定理论):基本辅助反馈(22 个家庭,69 个护理单元)和增强辅助反馈 2(23 个家庭,72 个护理单元)。我们的主要结局是护理助理参与的正式沟通量,通过艾伯塔省情境工具进行测量,并以 12 个月随访时研究臂之间的调整平均差异[95%置信区间]呈现。
在对照组中,20 个家庭(57 个护理单元,751 名护理助理,2428 名居民)、基础组中的 19 个家庭(61 个护理单元,836 名护理助理,2387 名居民)和增强组中的 14 个家庭(45 个护理单元,615 名护理助理,1584 名居民)都有基线和随访数据。与简单反馈相比,基本组和增强组中护理助理在随访时正式沟通的参与度分别提高了 0.17 分[0.03;0.32],p = 0.021)和增强组[0.01;0.33],p = 0.035)。我们在这两个更高强度的组之间没有发现这种结果的差异。
基于理论的反馈在提高护理助理参与居民护理的正式沟通方面优于简单反馈。这强调了先前对审核和反馈效果的估计可能受到测试的反馈干预类型的限制。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02695836),于 2016 年 3 月 1 日注册。