Mixed methods process evaluation of an advance care planning intervention among nursing home staff.

Advance care planning clinical trial dementia long-term care nursing care

Journal

Palliative medicine
ISSN: 1477-030X
Titre abrégé: Palliat Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8704926

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Oct 2024
Historique:
medline: 16 10 2024
pubmed: 16 10 2024
entrez: 16 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

We developed the ACP+ intervention to support nursing home staff with implementation of advance care planning. While ACP+ was found to improve staff's self-efficacy, it did not change their knowledge about advance care planning. To describe the level of implementation, mechanisms of impact, and contextual factors. Process evaluation embedded in a cluster randomized controlled trial in nursing homes (NCT03521206). Throughout and immediately following the 8-month ACP+ implementation, we collected weekly diaries, post-training surveys, attendance records, facility data, and conducted interviews ( Management, staff, and ACP+ trainers in seven intervention homes. Although most participants reported they valued ACP+, 33% of eligible staff across nursing homes attended training (range: 6%-69%) and only a few reported they felt ready to engage in actual care planning conversations. Half of all nursing homes adapted parts of the intervention (e.g., more/fewer/shortened training; assigning a coordinating role for practical management). Enough time to consolidate skills, and management support were key for staff engagement in advance care planning, and limited time and staff shortages were significant barriers. Staff reported increased awareness of the importance of advance care planning and felt there was a more systematic way of organizing advance care planning. There was limited staff engagement. Management ownership, clear roles, and collaborative practices may enhance nursing home advance care planning. Accessible and ongoing training for all staff, and ample practical learning opportunities are needed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND UNASSIGNED
We developed the ACP+ intervention to support nursing home staff with implementation of advance care planning. While ACP+ was found to improve staff's self-efficacy, it did not change their knowledge about advance care planning.
AIM UNASSIGNED
To describe the level of implementation, mechanisms of impact, and contextual factors.
DESIGN UNASSIGNED
Process evaluation embedded in a cluster randomized controlled trial in nursing homes (NCT03521206). Throughout and immediately following the 8-month ACP+ implementation, we collected weekly diaries, post-training surveys, attendance records, facility data, and conducted interviews (
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS UNASSIGNED
Management, staff, and ACP+ trainers in seven intervention homes.
RESULTS UNASSIGNED
Although most participants reported they valued ACP+, 33% of eligible staff across nursing homes attended training (range: 6%-69%) and only a few reported they felt ready to engage in actual care planning conversations. Half of all nursing homes adapted parts of the intervention (e.g., more/fewer/shortened training; assigning a coordinating role for practical management). Enough time to consolidate skills, and management support were key for staff engagement in advance care planning, and limited time and staff shortages were significant barriers. Staff reported increased awareness of the importance of advance care planning and felt there was a more systematic way of organizing advance care planning.
CONCLUSIONS UNASSIGNED
There was limited staff engagement. Management ownership, clear roles, and collaborative practices may enhance nursing home advance care planning. Accessible and ongoing training for all staff, and ample practical learning opportunities are needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39410736
doi: 10.1177/02692163241286652
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2692163241286652

Auteurs

Joni Gilissen (J)

End-of-life Care Research Group, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, Belgium.
Atlantic Fellows for Equity in Brain Health, Global Brain Health Institute (GBHI), University California San Francisco (UCSF), California, USA.
Research Centre Care in Connection, Departement Nursing and Midwifery, Karel de Grote University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Antwerp, Belgium.

Annelien Wendrich-Van Dael (A)

End-of-life Care Research Group, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.

Chris Gastmans (C)

Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium.

Luc Deliens (L)

End-of-life Care Research Group, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, Belgium.

Robert Vander Stichele (R)

Department of Pharmacology, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, Belgium.

Lara Pivodic (L)

End-of-life Care Research Group, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.

Lieve Van Den Block (L)

End-of-life Care Research Group, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH