Comparing effects of two higher intensity feedback interventions with simple feedback on improving staff communication in nursing homes-the INFORM cluster-randomized controlled trial

Matthias Hoben, Liane R Ginsburg, Adam Easterbrook, Peter G Norton, Ruth A Anderson, Elizabeth A Andersen, Anne-Marie Boström, Lisa A Cranley, Holly J Lanham, Lori E Weeks, Greta G Cummings, Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc, Janet E Squires, Adrian S Wagg, Carole A Estabrooks, Matthias Hoben, Liane R Ginsburg, Adam Easterbrook, Peter G Norton, Ruth A Anderson, Elizabeth A Andersen, Anne-Marie Boström, Lisa A Cranley, Holly J Lanham, Lori E Weeks, Greta G Cummings, Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc, Janet E Squires, Adrian S Wagg, Carole A Estabrooks

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02695836 ), registered on March 1, 2016.

Keywords: Audit and feedback; Care aides; Formal communication; Nursing homes; Quality improvement; Randomized controlled trial.

Conflict of interest statement

JHL reports personal fees received from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, outside the submitted work. No financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study arms
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Trial profile

References

    1. Institute of Medicine (IOM) Crossing the quality chiasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.
    1. Sentinel event statistics released through second quarter 2015. . Accessed 7 Sept 2020.
    1. CRICO Strategies . Malpractice risks in communication failures: 2015 annual benchmarking report. Boston: CRICO Strategies; 2015.
    1. Panagioti M, Bower P, Kontopantelis E, Lovell K, Gilbody S, Waheed W, Dickens C, Archer J, Simon G, Ell K, et al. Association between chronic physical conditions and the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression: an individual participant data meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(9):978–989.
    1. Sacks GD, Shannon EM, Dawes AJ, Rollo JC, Nguyen DK, Russell MM, Ko CY, Maggard-Gibbons MA. Teamwork, communication and safety climate: a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical culture. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(7):458–467.
    1. Pillay B, Wootten AC, Crowe H, Corcoran N, Tran B, Bowden P, Crowe J, Costello AJ. The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;42:56–72.
    1. Sunkara PR, Islam T, Bose A, Rosenthal GE, Chevli P, Jogu H, Tk LA, Huang CC, Chaudhary D, Beekman D, et al. Impact of structured interdisciplinary bedside rounding on patient outcomes at a large academic health centre. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(7):569–75.
    1. Nazir A, Unroe K, Tegeler M, Khan B, Azar J, Boustani M. Systematic review of interdisciplinary interventions in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(7):471–478.
    1. Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):88.
    1. Mills WL, Pimentel CB, Palmer JA, Snow AL, Wewiorski NJ, Allen RS, Hartmann CW. Applying a theory-driven framework to guide quality improvement efforts in nursing homes: the LOCK model. Gerontologist. 2018;58(3):598–605.
    1. Low LF, Fletcher J, Goodenough B, Jeon YH, Etherton-Beer C, MacAndrew M, Beattie E. A systematic review of interventions to change staff care practices in order to improve resident outcomes in nursing homes. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0140711.
    1. Onder G, Carpenter I, Finne-Soveri H, Gindin J, Frijters D, Henrard JC, Nikolaus T, Topinkova E, Tosato M, Liperoti R, et al. Assessment of nursing home residents in Europe: the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:5.
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing home data compendium 2015 edition. Baltimore: CMS; 2015.
    1. Dementia in long-term care. . Accessed 7 Sept 2020.
    1. Bartfay E, Bartfay WJ, Gorey KM. Prevalence and correlates of potentially undetected dementia among residents of institutional care facilities in Ontario, Canada, 2009-2011. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;28(10):1086–1094.
    1. Hoben M, Chamberlain SA, Gruneir A, Knopp-Sihota JA, Sutherland JM, Poss JW, Doupe MB, Bergstrom V, Norton PG, Schalm C etal. Nursing home length of stay in three Canadian health regions: temporal trends, jurisdictional differences and associated factors. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(9):1121–8.
    1. Hewko SJ, Cooper SL, Huynh H, Spiwek TL, Carleton HL, Reid S, Cummings GG. Invisible no more: a scoping review of the health care aide workforce literature. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:38.
    1. Morley JE. Certified nursing assistants: a key to resident quality of life. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15(9):610–612.
    1. Kolanowski A, Van Haitsma K, Penrod J, Hill N, Yevchak A. “Wish we would have known that!” Communication breakdown impedes person-centered care. Gerontologist. 2015;55(Suppl_1):S50–S60.
    1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O'Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012(6):Art. No.: CD000259.
    1. Sykes MJ, McAnuff J, Kolehmainen N. When is audit and feedback effective in dementia care? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:27–35.
    1. Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, Grimshaw JM. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):14.
    1. Grimshaw JM, Ivers N, Linklater S, Foy R, Francis JJ, Gude WT, Hysong SJ, Audit, Feedback M Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(5):416–423.
    1. Soong C, Shojania KG. Education as a low-value improvement intervention: often necessary but rarely sufficient. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:353–7.
    1. Roos-Blom MJ, Gude WT, de Jonge E, Spijkstra JJ, van der Veer SN, Peek N, Dongelmans DA, de Keizer NF. Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(12):1007–1015.
    1. Hoben M, Norton PG, Ginsburg LR, Anderson RA, Cummings GG, Lanham HJ, Squires JE, Taylor D, Wagg AS, Estabrooks CA. Improving nursing home care through feedback on PerfoRMance data (INFORM): protocol for a cluster-randomized trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):9.
    1. Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Cummings GG, Teare GF, Norton PG. Study protocol for the translating research in elder care (TREC): building context – an organizational monitoring program in long-term care project (project one) Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):52.
    1. Estabrooks CA, Teare GF, Norton PG. Should we feed back research results in the midst of a study? Implement Sci. 2012;7:87.
    1. Bostrom AM, Cranley LA, Hutchinson AM, Cummings GG, Norton PG, Estabrooks CA. Nursing home administrators’ perspectives on a study feedback report: a cross sectional survey. Implement Sci. 2012;7:88.
    1. Cranley LA, Birdsell JM, Norton PG, Morgan DG, Estabrooks CA. Insights into the impact and use of research results in aresidential long-term care facility: a case study. Implement Sci. 2012;7:90.
    1. Hutchinson AM, Batra-Garga N, Cranley L, Bostrom AM, Cummings G, Norton P, Estabrooks CA. Feedback reporting of survey data to healthcare aides. Implement Sci. 2012;7:89.
    1. Latham GP, Locke EA. Self-regulation through goal-setting. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):212–247.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.
    1. Dixon-Woods M, Bosk CL, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):167–205.
    1. Patsopoulos NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217–224.
    1. Norton PG, Murray M, Doupe MB, Cummings GG, Poss JW, Squires JE, Teare GF, Estabrooks CA. Facility versus unit level reporting of quality indicators in nursing homes when performance monitoring is the goal. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e004488.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Group C Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.
    1. Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC): Minimum number of care aide responses needed per care unit to obtain stable, valid and reliable unit-aggregated ACT scores, (Internal report, available upon request) edn. Edmonton, AB: TREC; 2010.
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information . Data quality documentation, continuing care reporting system, 2013-2014. Ottawa: CIHI; 2015.
    1. Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Hayduk LA, Cummings GG, Norton PG. Advancing the argument for validity of the Alberta Context Tool with healthcare aides in residential long-term care. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):107.
    1. Estabrooks CA, Knopp-Sihota JA, Norton PG. Practice sensitive quality indicators in RAI-MDS 2.0 nursing home data. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6(1):460.
    1. Hoben M, Chamberlain SA, Knopp-Sihota JA, Poss JW, Thompson GN, Estabrooks CA. Impact of symptoms and care practices on nursing home residents at the end of life: a rating by front-line care providers. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17(2):155–161.
    1. Arnold BF, Hogan DR, Colford JM, Jr, Hubbard AE. Simulation methods to estimate design power: an overview for applied research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:94.
    1. Bowen SJ, Graham ID. From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: promoting research relevance and utilization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1 Suppl):S3–S8.
    1. Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Carleton HL, Cummings GG, Norton PG. Who is looking after mom and dad? Unregulated workers in Canadian long-term care homes. Can J Aging. 2015;34(1):47–59.
    1. Chamberlain SA, Hoben M, Squires JE, Cummings GG, Norton P, Estabrooks CA. Who is (still) looking after mom and dad? Few improvements in care aides’ quality-of-work life. Can J Aging. 2019;38(1):35–50.
    1. Osterman P. Who will care for us? Long-term care and the long-term workforce. New York: Sage; 2017.
    1. Muir T. Measuring social protection for long-term care (OECD Health Working Papers, No. 93) Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.
    1. MacDonald B-J, Wolfson M, Hirdes JP. The future co$t of long-term care in Canada. Toronto: National Institute on Aging; 2019.
    1. Sinha S, Dunning J, Wong I, Nicin M, Nauth S. Enabling the future provision of long-term care in Canada. Toronto: National Institute on Aging; 2019.
    1. Caspar S, Ratner PA, Phinney A, MacKinnon K. The influence of organizational systems on information exchange in long-term care facilities: an institutional ethnography. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(7):951–965.
    1. Janes N, Sidani S, Cott C, Rappolt S. Figuring it out in the moment: a theory of unregulated care providers’ knowledge utilization in dementia care settings. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2008;5(1):13–24.
    1. Colquhoun H, Michie S, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw JM, Carroll K, Chalifoux M, Eva K, Brehaut J. Reporting and design elements of audit and feedback interventions: a secondary review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(1):54–60.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren