Producing ‘Top Tips’ for Care Home Staff During the COVID-19 Pandemic in England: Rapid Reviews Inform Evidence-Based Practice but Reveal Major Gaps

Q2 Health Professions
A. Towers, Anne Killett, Melanie Handley, K. Almack, T. Backhouse, D. Bunn, F. Bunn, A. Dickinson, E. Mathie, A. Mayrhofer, Rasa Mikelyte, C. Goodman
{"title":"Producing ‘Top Tips’ for Care Home Staff During the COVID-19 Pandemic in England: Rapid Reviews Inform Evidence-Based Practice but Reveal Major Gaps","authors":"A. Towers, Anne Killett, Melanie Handley, K. Almack, T. Backhouse, D. Bunn, F. Bunn, A. Dickinson, E. Mathie, A. Mayrhofer, Rasa Mikelyte, C. Goodman","doi":"10.31389/jltc.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: The work presented in this paper was undertaken during the first three months of the COVID-19 crisis in the UK. Objectives: The project is aimed to respond to questions and concerns raised by front-line care staff during this time, by producing research-based ‘Top Tips’ to complement emerging COVID-19 policy and practice guidelines. Methods: Eight rapid, expert reviews of published, multidisciplinary research evidence were conducted to help answer care home workers’ questions about ‘how’ to support residents, family members and each other at a time of unprecedented pressure and grief and adhere to guidance on self-distancing and isolation. A review of the emerging policy guidelines published up to the end of April 2020 was also undertaken. Findings: The rapid reviews revealed gaps in research evidence, with research having a lot to say about what care homes should do and far less about how they should do it. The policy review highlighted the expectations and demands placed on managers and direct care workers as the pandemic spread across the UK. Implications: This paper highlights the value of working with the sector to co-design and co-produce research and pathways to knowledge with those who live, work and care in care homes. To have a real impact on care practice, research in care homes needs to go beyond telling homes ‘what’ to do by working with them to find out ‘how’.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.43","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: 14

Abstract

Context: The work presented in this paper was undertaken during the first three months of the COVID-19 crisis in the UK. Objectives: The project is aimed to respond to questions and concerns raised by front-line care staff during this time, by producing research-based ‘Top Tips’ to complement emerging COVID-19 policy and practice guidelines. Methods: Eight rapid, expert reviews of published, multidisciplinary research evidence were conducted to help answer care home workers’ questions about ‘how’ to support residents, family members and each other at a time of unprecedented pressure and grief and adhere to guidance on self-distancing and isolation. A review of the emerging policy guidelines published up to the end of April 2020 was also undertaken. Findings: The rapid reviews revealed gaps in research evidence, with research having a lot to say about what care homes should do and far less about how they should do it. The policy review highlighted the expectations and demands placed on managers and direct care workers as the pandemic spread across the UK. Implications: This paper highlights the value of working with the sector to co-design and co-produce research and pathways to knowledge with those who live, work and care in care homes. To have a real impact on care practice, research in care homes needs to go beyond telling homes ‘what’ to do by working with them to find out ‘how’.
在英国新冠肺炎大流行期间为护理院工作人员提供“最佳提示”:快速审查为基于证据的实践提供信息,但揭示了主要差距
背景:本文介绍的工作是在英国新冠肺炎危机的前三个月进行的。目标:该项目旨在通过制定基于研究的“最佳提示”来补充新出现的新冠肺炎政策和实践指南,回应一线护理人员在此期间提出的问题和担忧。方法:对已发表的多学科研究证据进行了八次快速专家评审,以帮助回答护理院工作人员关于“如何”在前所未有的压力和悲伤时刻支持居民、家庭成员和彼此的问题,并坚持自我距离和隔离的指导。还对截至2020年4月底公布的新政策指南进行了审查。调查结果:快速审查揭示了研究证据的差距,研究对养老院应该做什么有很多话要说,而对他们应该如何做却少得多。政策审查强调了随着疫情在英国蔓延,对管理人员和直接护理人员的期望和要求。含义:本文强调了与该部门合作的价值,与那些在养老院生活、工作和护理的人共同设计和共同制作研究和知识途径。为了对护理实践产生真正的影响,护理院的研究需要超越告诉家庭“该做什么”,而是与他们合作,找出“如何”。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信