加强养老院健康的创新和衡量护理结果的工具评估:快速证据综合

B. Hanratty, D. Craig, K. Brittain, K. Spilsbury, John Vines, Paul Wilson
{"title":"加强养老院健康的创新和衡量护理结果的工具评估:快速证据综合","authors":"B. Hanratty, D. Craig, K. Brittain, K. Spilsbury, John Vines, Paul Wilson","doi":"10.3310/HSDR07270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Flexible, integrated models of service delivery are being developed to meet the changing demands of an ageing population. To underpin the spread of innovative models of care across the NHS, summaries of the current research evidence are needed. This report focuses exclusively on care homes and reviews work in four specific areas, identified as key enablers for the NHS England vanguard programme.To conduct a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhancing health in care homes across four key areas: technology, communication and engagement, workforce and evaluation.(1) To map the published literature on the uses, benefits and challenges of technology in care homes; flexible and innovative uses of the nursing and support workforce to benefit resident care; communication and engagement between care homes, communities and health-related organisations; and approaches to the evaluation of new models of care in care homes. (2) To conduct rapid, systematic syntheses of evidence to answer the following questions. Which technologies have a positive impact on resident health and well-being? How should care homes and the NHS communicate to enhance resident, family and staff outcomes and experiences? Which measurement tools have been validated for use in UK care homes? What is the evidence that staffing levels (i.e. ratio of registered nurses and support staff to residents or different levels of support staff) influence resident outcomes?Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and Index to Theses. Grey literature was sought via Google™ (Mountain View, CA, USA) and websites relevant to each individual search.Mapping review and rapid, systematic evidence syntheses.Care homes with and without nursing in high-income countries.Published literature was mapped to a bespoke framework, and four linked rapid critical reviews of the available evidence were undertaken using systematic methods. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis, and are presented in narrative syntheses.Seven hundred and sixty-one studies were mapped across the four topic areas, and 65 studies were included in systematic rapid reviews. This work identified a paucity of large, high-quality research studies, particularly from the UK. The key findings include the following. (1) Technology: some of the most promising interventions appear to be games that promote physical activity and enhance mental health and well-being. (2) Communication and engagement: structured communication tools have been shown to enhance communication with health services and resident outcomes in US studies. No robust evidence was identified on care home engagement with communities. (3) Evaluation: 6 of the 65 measurement tools identified had been validated for use in UK care homes, two of which provide general assessments of care. The methodological quality of all six tools was assessed as poor. (4) Workforce: joint working within and beyond the care home and initiatives that focus on staff taking on new but specific care tasks appear to be associated with enhanced outcomes. Evidence for staff taking on traditional nursing tasks without qualification is limited, but promising.This review was restricted to English-language publications after the year 2000. The rapid methodology has facilitated a broad review in a short time period, but the possibility of omissions and errors cannot be excluded.This review provides limited evidential support for some of the innovations in the NHS vanguard programme, and identifies key issues and gaps for future research and evaluation.Future work should provide high-quality evidence, in particular experimental studies, economic evaluations and research sensitive to the UK context.This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052933, CRD42016052933, CRD42016052937 and CRD42016052938.The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Innovation to enhance health in care homes and evaluation of tools for measuring outcomes of care: rapid evidence synthesis\",\"authors\":\"B. Hanratty, D. Craig, K. Brittain, K. Spilsbury, John Vines, Paul Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/HSDR07270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Flexible, integrated models of service delivery are being developed to meet the changing demands of an ageing population. To underpin the spread of innovative models of care across the NHS, summaries of the current research evidence are needed. This report focuses exclusively on care homes and reviews work in four specific areas, identified as key enablers for the NHS England vanguard programme.To conduct a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhancing health in care homes across four key areas: technology, communication and engagement, workforce and evaluation.(1) To map the published literature on the uses, benefits and challenges of technology in care homes; flexible and innovative uses of the nursing and support workforce to benefit resident care; communication and engagement between care homes, communities and health-related organisations; and approaches to the evaluation of new models of care in care homes. (2) To conduct rapid, systematic syntheses of evidence to answer the following questions. Which technologies have a positive impact on resident health and well-being? How should care homes and the NHS communicate to enhance resident, family and staff outcomes and experiences? Which measurement tools have been validated for use in UK care homes? What is the evidence that staffing levels (i.e. ratio of registered nurses and support staff to residents or different levels of support staff) influence resident outcomes?Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and Index to Theses. Grey literature was sought via Google™ (Mountain View, CA, USA) and websites relevant to each individual search.Mapping review and rapid, systematic evidence syntheses.Care homes with and without nursing in high-income countries.Published literature was mapped to a bespoke framework, and four linked rapid critical reviews of the available evidence were undertaken using systematic methods. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis, and are presented in narrative syntheses.Seven hundred and sixty-one studies were mapped across the four topic areas, and 65 studies were included in systematic rapid reviews. This work identified a paucity of large, high-quality research studies, particularly from the UK. The key findings include the following. (1) Technology: some of the most promising interventions appear to be games that promote physical activity and enhance mental health and well-being. (2) Communication and engagement: structured communication tools have been shown to enhance communication with health services and resident outcomes in US studies. No robust evidence was identified on care home engagement with communities. (3) Evaluation: 6 of the 65 measurement tools identified had been validated for use in UK care homes, two of which provide general assessments of care. The methodological quality of all six tools was assessed as poor. (4) Workforce: joint working within and beyond the care home and initiatives that focus on staff taking on new but specific care tasks appear to be associated with enhanced outcomes. Evidence for staff taking on traditional nursing tasks without qualification is limited, but promising.This review was restricted to English-language publications after the year 2000. The rapid methodology has facilitated a broad review in a short time period, but the possibility of omissions and errors cannot be excluded.This review provides limited evidential support for some of the innovations in the NHS vanguard programme, and identifies key issues and gaps for future research and evaluation.Future work should provide high-quality evidence, in particular experimental studies, economic evaluations and research sensitive to the UK context.This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052933, CRD42016052933, CRD42016052937 and CRD42016052938.The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/HSDR07270\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/HSDR07270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目前正在发展灵活的综合服务模式,以满足人口老龄化不断变化的需求。为了在NHS中推广创新的护理模式,需要对当前的研究证据进行总结。本报告专门关注护理院和审查工作在四个具体领域,确定为NHS英格兰先锋方案的关键推动者。在技术、沟通和参与、劳动力和评估四个关键领域,快速综合与改善养老院健康有关的证据。(1)绘制有关养老院技术使用、好处和挑战的已发表文献;灵活和创新地使用护理和支持人员,使住院护理受益;护理院、社区和健康相关组织之间的沟通和参与;以及评估养老院新模式的方法。(2)快速、系统地综合证据,回答以下问题。哪些技术对居民的健康和福祉有积极的影响?护理院和NHS应如何沟通,以提高居民,家庭和工作人员的成果和经验?哪些测量工具已被验证用于英国护理院?有什么证据表明人员配备水平(即注册护士和辅助人员与住院医生的比例或不同水平的辅助人员)会影响住院医生的治疗结果?检索MEDLINE、CINAHL、Science Citation Index、Cochrane system Reviews Database、DARE (Reviews of Effects摘要数据库)和论文索引。通过谷歌™(Mountain View, CA, USA)和与每个搜索相关的网站搜索灰色文献。绘图审查和快速、系统的证据合成。高收入国家有和没有护理的养老院。已发表的文献被映射到一个定制的框架中,并使用系统方法对现有证据进行了四次相关的快速批判性审查。数据不适合进行元分析,并以叙事综合的方式呈现。在四个主题领域绘制了761项研究,其中65项研究被纳入系统快速评价。这项工作确定了大型、高质量研究的缺乏,特别是来自英国的研究。主要发现包括以下内容。(1)技术:一些最有前途的干预措施似乎是促进身体活动和增强心理健康和福祉的游戏。(2)沟通和参与:在美国的研究中,结构化沟通工具已被证明可以加强与卫生服务机构的沟通和居民的结果。没有强有力的证据表明养老院与社区的联系。(3)评估:确定的65个测量工具中有6个已被验证可用于英国护理院,其中两个提供护理的一般评估。所有六个工具的方法学质量被评估为较差。(4)劳动力:养老院内外的联合工作,以及侧重于员工承担新的但具体的护理任务的举措,似乎与提高结果有关。没有资格的工作人员承担传统护理任务的证据有限,但很有希望。本综述仅限于2000年以后的英文出版物。快速的方法有助于在短时间内进行广泛的审查,但不能排除遗漏和错误的可能性。本综述为NHS先锋项目的一些创新提供了有限的证据支持,并确定了未来研究和评估的关键问题和差距。未来的工作应该提供高质量的证据,特别是实验研究、经济评估和对英国环境敏感的研究。本研究注册号为PROSPERO CRD42016052933、CRD42016052933、CRD42016052937和CRD42016052938。国家卫生研究所卫生服务和提供研究方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Innovation to enhance health in care homes and evaluation of tools for measuring outcomes of care: rapid evidence synthesis
Flexible, integrated models of service delivery are being developed to meet the changing demands of an ageing population. To underpin the spread of innovative models of care across the NHS, summaries of the current research evidence are needed. This report focuses exclusively on care homes and reviews work in four specific areas, identified as key enablers for the NHS England vanguard programme.To conduct a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhancing health in care homes across four key areas: technology, communication and engagement, workforce and evaluation.(1) To map the published literature on the uses, benefits and challenges of technology in care homes; flexible and innovative uses of the nursing and support workforce to benefit resident care; communication and engagement between care homes, communities and health-related organisations; and approaches to the evaluation of new models of care in care homes. (2) To conduct rapid, systematic syntheses of evidence to answer the following questions. Which technologies have a positive impact on resident health and well-being? How should care homes and the NHS communicate to enhance resident, family and staff outcomes and experiences? Which measurement tools have been validated for use in UK care homes? What is the evidence that staffing levels (i.e. ratio of registered nurses and support staff to residents or different levels of support staff) influence resident outcomes?Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and Index to Theses. Grey literature was sought via Google™ (Mountain View, CA, USA) and websites relevant to each individual search.Mapping review and rapid, systematic evidence syntheses.Care homes with and without nursing in high-income countries.Published literature was mapped to a bespoke framework, and four linked rapid critical reviews of the available evidence were undertaken using systematic methods. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis, and are presented in narrative syntheses.Seven hundred and sixty-one studies were mapped across the four topic areas, and 65 studies were included in systematic rapid reviews. This work identified a paucity of large, high-quality research studies, particularly from the UK. The key findings include the following. (1) Technology: some of the most promising interventions appear to be games that promote physical activity and enhance mental health and well-being. (2) Communication and engagement: structured communication tools have been shown to enhance communication with health services and resident outcomes in US studies. No robust evidence was identified on care home engagement with communities. (3) Evaluation: 6 of the 65 measurement tools identified had been validated for use in UK care homes, two of which provide general assessments of care. The methodological quality of all six tools was assessed as poor. (4) Workforce: joint working within and beyond the care home and initiatives that focus on staff taking on new but specific care tasks appear to be associated with enhanced outcomes. Evidence for staff taking on traditional nursing tasks without qualification is limited, but promising.This review was restricted to English-language publications after the year 2000. The rapid methodology has facilitated a broad review in a short time period, but the possibility of omissions and errors cannot be excluded.This review provides limited evidential support for some of the innovations in the NHS vanguard programme, and identifies key issues and gaps for future research and evaluation.Future work should provide high-quality evidence, in particular experimental studies, economic evaluations and research sensitive to the UK context.This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052933, CRD42016052933, CRD42016052937 and CRD42016052938.The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信