Process evaluation of a reablement training program for homecare staff to encourage independence in community-dwelling older adults

Teuni H Rooijackers, G A Rixt Zijlstra, Erik van Rossum, Ruth G M Vogel, Marja Y Veenstra, Gertrudis I J M Kempen, Silke F Metzelthin, Teuni H Rooijackers, G A Rixt Zijlstra, Erik van Rossum, Ruth G M Vogel, Marja Y Veenstra, Gertrudis I J M Kempen, Silke F Metzelthin

Abstract

Background: Many community-dwelling older adults experience limitations in (instrumental) activities of daily living, resulting in the need for homecare services. Whereas services should ideally aim at maintaining independence, homecare staff often take over activities, thereby undermining older adults' self-care skills and jeopardizing their ability to continue living at home. Reablement is an innovative care approach aimed at optimizing independence. The reablement training program 'Stay Active at Home' for homecare staff was designed to support the implementation of reablement in the delivery of homecare services. This study evaluated the implementation, mechanisms of impact and context of the program.

Methods: We conducted a process evaluation alongside a 12-month cluster randomized controlled trial, using an embedded mixed-methods design. One hundred fifty-four homecare staff members (23 nurses, 34 nurse assistants, 8 nurse aides and 89 domestic workers) from five working areas received the program. Data on the implementation (reach, dose, fidelity, adaptations and acceptability), possible mechanisms of impact (homecare staff's knowledge, attitude, skills and support) and context were collected using logbooks, registration forms, checklists, log data and focus group interviews with homecare staff (n = 23) and program trainers (n = 4).

Results: The program was largely implemented as intended. Homecare staff's average compliance to the program meetings was 73.4%; staff members accepted the program, and particularly valued its practical elements and team approach. They experienced positive changes in their knowledge, attitude and skills about reablement, and perceived social and organizational support from colleagues and team managers to implement reablement. However, the extent to which homecare staff implemented reablement in practice, varied. Perceived facilitators included digital care plans, the organization's lump sum funding and newly referred clients. Perceived barriers included resistance to change from clients or their social network, complex care situations, time pressure and staff shortages.

Conclusions: The program was feasible to implement in the Dutch homecare setting, and was perceived as useful in daily practice. Nevertheless, integrating reablement into homecare staff's working practices remained challenging due to various personal and contextual factors. Future implementation of the program may benefit from minor program adaptations and a more stimulating work environment.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT03293303 ). Registered 26 September 2017.

Keywords: Activities of daily living; Behavior and behavior mechanisms; Home and community based care and services; Independence; Process evaluation; Reablement; Self-care; Training program.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Implementation process of the ‘Stay Active at Home’ program for homecare staff
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Format and content of the ‘Stay Active at Home’ program for homecare staff

References

    1. Beard JR, Officer A, De Carvalho IA, et al. The world report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet. 2016;387(10033):2145–2154. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4.
    1. Rostgaard T, Glendinning C, Gori C, et al. Livindhome: living independently at home: reforms in home care in 9 European countries. 2011.
    1. Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RES. The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist. 2012;52(3):357–366. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr098.
    1. Low L-F, Yap M, Brodaty H. A systematic review of different models of home and community care services for older persons. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):93. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-93.
    1. Oliver D, Foot C, Humphries R. Making our health and care systems fit for an ageing population: King's fund London: UK. 2014.
    1. Resnick B, Boltz M, Galik E, Pretzer-Aboff I. Restorative care nursing for older adults: a guide for all care settings. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2012.
    1. Aspinal F, Glasby J, Rostgaard T, Tuntland H, Westendorp RGJ. New horizons: Reablement - supporting older people towards Independence. Age Ageing. 2016;45(5):574–578. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afw094.
    1. Metzelthin SF, Rostgaard T, Parsons M, Burton E. Development of an internationally accepted definition of Reablement: a Delphi study. Ageing & Society. 2020:1–16. 10.1017/S0144686X20000999.
    1. Social Care Institute For Excellence (SCIE). Scie Guide 49: Maximising the Potential of Reablement. London; 2013.
    1. Beresford B, Mann R, Parker G, et al. Work package 2b: delivering Reablement–practitioner views. Reablement Services for People at risk of needing social care: the more mixed-methods evaluation: NIHR journals. Library. 2019. 10.3310/hsdr07160.
    1. Doh D, Smith R, Gevers P. Reviewing the Reablement approach to caring for older people. Ageing & Society. 2019:1–13. 10.1017/S0144686X18001770.
    1. Sims-Gould J, Tong CE, Wallis-Mayer L, Ashe MC. Reablement, reactivation, rehabilitation and restorative interventions with older adults in receipt of home care: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(8):653–663. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.12.070.
    1. Cochrane A, Furlong M, McGilloway S, Molloy DW, Stevenson M, Donnelly M. Time-limited home-care Reablement Services for Maintaining and Improving the functional Independence of older adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10. 10.1002/14651858.CD010825.pub2.
    1. Moe C, Brinchmann BS. Tailoring Reablement: a grounded theory study of establishing Reablement in a community setting in Norway. Health & social care in the community. 2018;26(1):113–121. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12471.
    1. Metzelthin SF, Zijlstra GAR, Van Rossum E, et al. ‘Doing with … ‘rather than ‘doing for … ‘older adults: rationale and content of the ‘stay active at Home’programme. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(11):1419–1430. doi: 10.1177/0269215517698733.
    1. Metzelthin SF, Rooijackers TH, Zijlstra GAR, et al. Effects, costs and feasibility of the ‘stay active at Home’reablement training Programme for home care professionals: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):276. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0968-z.
    1. Tessier A, Beaulieu M-D, Mcginn CA, Latulippe R. Effectiveness of Reablement: A Systematic Review. Healthcare Policy. 2016;11(4):49. doi: 10.12927/hcpol.2016.24594.
    1. Smeets RGM, Kempen GIJM, Zijlstra GAR, et al. Experiences of home-care workers with the ‘stay active at Home’programme targeting Reablement of community-living older adults: an exploratory study. Health & social care in the community. 2020;28(1):291–299. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12863.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350. 10.1136/bmj.h1258.
    1. Creswell JW, Clark VP, Garrett A. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. Advanced mixed methods research; pp. 209–240.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (Coreq): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5661.
    1. O'cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):92–98. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074.
    1. Hanson WE, Creswell JW, Clark VLP, Petska KS, Creswell JD. Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):224. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.224.
    1. Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6(2):134–147. doi: 10.1177/1524839904273387.
    1. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2015;42(5):533–544. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
    1. Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J General Practice. 2018;24(1):120–124. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092.
    1. Martin LR, Haskard-Zolnierek KB, DiMatteo MR. Health behavior change and treatment adherence: evidence-based guidelines for improving healthcare: Oxford University press, USA. 2010.
    1. Crookes K, Crookes PA, Walsh K. Meaningful and engaging teaching techniques for student nurses: a literature review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2013;13(4):239–243. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2013.04.008.
    1. Hjelle KM, Skutle O, Førland O, Alvsvåg H. The Reablement Team’s voice: a qualitative study of how an integrated multidisciplinary team experiences participation in Reablement. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:575. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S115588.
    1. Rabiee P, Glendinning C. Organisation and delivery of home care re-Ablement: what makes a difference? Health & Social Care in the Community. 2011;19(5):495–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01010.x.
    1. Prochaska JO. Decision making in the Transtheoretical model of behavior change. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(6):845–849. doi: 10.1177/0272989X08327068.
    1. Ajani K, Moez S. Gap between knowledge and practice in nursing. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:3927–3931. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.396.
    1. Liaaen J. Professional Carers’ experiences of working with Reablement. 2016.
    1. Legg L, Gladman J, Drummond A, Davidson A. A systematic review of the evidence on home care Reablement services. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(8):741–749. doi: 10.1177/0269215515603220.
    1. Dorresteijn TAC, Zijlstra GAR, Van Haastregt JCM, Vlaeyen JWS, Kempen GIJM. Feasibility of a nurse-led in-home cognitive behavioral program to manage concerns about falls in frail older people: a process evaluation. Res Nurs Health. 2013;36(3):257–270. doi: 10.1002/nur.21534.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren