对护理院居民的护理规划干预:范围审查

Q2 Health Professions
Jonathan Taylor, Nick Smith, Laura Prato, Jaqueline Damant, Sarah Jasim, Madalina Toma, Yuri Hamashima, Hugh McLeod, A. Towers, Jolie R. Keemink, C. Nwolise, C. Giebel, Ray Fitzpatrick
{"title":"对护理院居民的护理规划干预:范围审查","authors":"Jonathan Taylor, Nick Smith, Laura Prato, Jaqueline Damant, Sarah Jasim, Madalina Toma, Yuri Hamashima, Hugh McLeod, A. Towers, Jolie R. Keemink, C. Nwolise, C. Giebel, Ray Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.31389/jltc.223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Previous reviews of care planning (CP) interventions in care homes focus on higher quality research methodologies and exclusively consider advanced care planning (ACP), thereby excluding many intervention-based studies that could inform current practice. CP is concerned with residents’ current circumstances while ACP focuses on expressing preferences which relate to future care decisions.\nObjectives: To identify, map and summarise studies reporting CP interventions for older people in care homes.\nMethods: Seven electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2022. Studies of CP interventions, targeted at older people (>60 years), whose primary place of residence was a care home, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 3778 articles. Following a full-text review of 404 articles, data from 112 eligible articles were extracted using a predefined data extraction form.\nFindings: Studies were conducted in 25 countries and the majority of studies took place in the United States, Australia and the UK. Most interventions occurred within nursing homes (61%, 68/112). More than 90% of interventions (93%, 104/112) targeted staff, and training was the most common focus (80%, 83/104), although only one included training for ancillary staff (such as cleaners and caterers). Only a third of the studies (35%, 39/112) involved family and friends, and 62% (69/112) described interventions to improve CP practices through multiple means.\nLimitations: Only papers written in English were included, so potentially relevant studies may have been omitted.\nImplications: Two groups of people – ancillary workers and family and friends – who could play a valuable role in CP were often not included in CP interventions. These oversights should be addressed in future research.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Care Planning Interventions for Care Home Residents: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Taylor, Nick Smith, Laura Prato, Jaqueline Damant, Sarah Jasim, Madalina Toma, Yuri Hamashima, Hugh McLeod, A. Towers, Jolie R. Keemink, C. Nwolise, C. Giebel, Ray Fitzpatrick\",\"doi\":\"10.31389/jltc.223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Previous reviews of care planning (CP) interventions in care homes focus on higher quality research methodologies and exclusively consider advanced care planning (ACP), thereby excluding many intervention-based studies that could inform current practice. CP is concerned with residents’ current circumstances while ACP focuses on expressing preferences which relate to future care decisions.\\nObjectives: To identify, map and summarise studies reporting CP interventions for older people in care homes.\\nMethods: Seven electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2022. Studies of CP interventions, targeted at older people (>60 years), whose primary place of residence was a care home, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 3778 articles. Following a full-text review of 404 articles, data from 112 eligible articles were extracted using a predefined data extraction form.\\nFindings: Studies were conducted in 25 countries and the majority of studies took place in the United States, Australia and the UK. Most interventions occurred within nursing homes (61%, 68/112). More than 90% of interventions (93%, 104/112) targeted staff, and training was the most common focus (80%, 83/104), although only one included training for ancillary staff (such as cleaners and caterers). Only a third of the studies (35%, 39/112) involved family and friends, and 62% (69/112) described interventions to improve CP practices through multiple means.\\nLimitations: Only papers written in English were included, so potentially relevant studies may have been omitted.\\nImplications: Two groups of people – ancillary workers and family and friends – who could play a valuable role in CP were often not included in CP interventions. These oversights should be addressed in future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.223\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.223","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: 0

摘要

背景:以前对养老院护理计划(CP)干预措施的综述侧重于更高质量的研究方法,并专门考虑高级护理计划(ACP),从而排除了许多可以为当前实践提供信息的基于干预的研究。CP关注的是患者当前的情况,而ACP关注的是表达与未来护理决策相关的偏好。目的:识别、绘制和总结报告养老院老年人CP干预的研究。方法:检索2012年1月1日至2022年1月1日的7个电子数据库。针对主要居住在养老院的老年人(>60岁)的CP干预研究符合纳入条件。两位审稿人独立筛选了3778篇文章的标题和摘要。在对404篇文章进行全文审查后,使用预定义的数据提取表单从112篇符合条件的文章中提取数据。研究结果:研究在25个国家进行,大多数研究在美国、澳大利亚和英国进行。大多数干预发生在养老院(61%,68/112)。超过90%的干预措施(93%,104/112)针对的是员工,培训是最常见的重点(80%,83/104),尽管只有一项干预措施包括对辅助人员(如清洁工和餐饮服务人员)的培训。只有三分之一的研究(35%,39/112)涉及家庭和朋友,62%(69/112)描述了通过多种手段改善CP实践的干预措施。局限性:仅包括英文论文,因此可能省略了潜在的相关研究。结论:两组人——辅助工作者和家人朋友——在CP中可能发挥重要作用,但通常不包括在CP干预中。这些疏忽应该在未来的研究中加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Care Planning Interventions for Care Home Residents: A Scoping Review
Context: Previous reviews of care planning (CP) interventions in care homes focus on higher quality research methodologies and exclusively consider advanced care planning (ACP), thereby excluding many intervention-based studies that could inform current practice. CP is concerned with residents’ current circumstances while ACP focuses on expressing preferences which relate to future care decisions. Objectives: To identify, map and summarise studies reporting CP interventions for older people in care homes. Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2022. Studies of CP interventions, targeted at older people (>60 years), whose primary place of residence was a care home, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 3778 articles. Following a full-text review of 404 articles, data from 112 eligible articles were extracted using a predefined data extraction form. Findings: Studies were conducted in 25 countries and the majority of studies took place in the United States, Australia and the UK. Most interventions occurred within nursing homes (61%, 68/112). More than 90% of interventions (93%, 104/112) targeted staff, and training was the most common focus (80%, 83/104), although only one included training for ancillary staff (such as cleaners and caterers). Only a third of the studies (35%, 39/112) involved family and friends, and 62% (69/112) described interventions to improve CP practices through multiple means. Limitations: Only papers written in English were included, so potentially relevant studies may have been omitted. Implications: Two groups of people – ancillary workers and family and friends – who could play a valuable role in CP were often not included in CP interventions. These oversights should be addressed in future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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