Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (3) (remove)
Document Type
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- no (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Activities of daily living (1)
- Cluster-randomised controlled trials (1)
- Complex intervention (1)
- Environmental factors (1)
- ICF (1)
- Implementation strategy (1)
- Joint contractures (1)
- Nursing homes (1)
- Participation (1)
- Pilot study (1)
Background
Modification of the home environment, together with rehabilitative interventions, is important for maximizing the level of functioning after an individual with disability undergoes rehabilitation in the hospital.
Objectives
We developed a simple screening scale – the home environment checklist (HEC) – to identify any mismatch between an individual's abilities and their home environment to help clinicians monitor the appropriateness of the home environment to which individuals with disability will be discharged. We also examined the psychometric properties of the HEC.
Methods
The HEC was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of rehabilitation experts using information routinely collected in rehabilitation clinics before discharge. The reliability of the checklist was assessed in 60 individuals undergoing rehabilitation. The inter-rater agreement and internal consistency of the scale were assessed by weighted kappa statistics and Cronbach's alpha, respectively. Rasch analysis was performed with 244 rehabilitation individuals to evaluate the internal construct validity, and the known-groups validity was confirmed by a comparison of the daily activity levels of 30 individuals with disabilities under rehabilitation to the HEC score.
Results
The HEC was developed as a simple, 10-item checklist. The weighted kappa statistics ranged from 0.73 to 0.93, indicating excellent inter-rater reliability. Cronbach's alpha was 0.92, indicating high internal consistency. Rasch analysis with a testlet approach on 3 subscales demonstrated a good fit with the Rasch model (χ2 = 13.2, P = 0.153), and the demonstrated unidimensionality and absence of differential item functioning supported the internal construct validity of the HEC. HEC scores were significantly different (P < .01) among individuals with disability and 3 levels of restrictions in their activities (no limitation, home-bound, and bed-bound), which demonstrates the known-groups validity of the HEC.
Conclusions
The HEC has good reliability and validity, which supports its utility in rehabilitation clinics.
Background
Joint contractures in frail older people are associated with serious restrictions in participation. We developed the Participation Enabling CAre in Nursing (PECAN) intervention, a complex intervention to enable nurses to promote participation in nursing home residents with joint contractures. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of the implementation strategy and to identify enablers and barriers for a successful implementation.
Methods
The implementation of PECAN was investigated in a 6-month pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial (c-RCT). As a key component of the implementation strategy, nominated nurses were trained as facilitators in a one-day workshop and supported by peer-mentoring (visit, telephone counselling). A mixed-methods approach was conducted in conjunction with the pilot trial and guided by a framework for process evaluations of c-RCTs. Data were collected using standardised questionnaires (nursing staff), documentation forms, problem-centred qualitative interviews (facilitators, therapists, social workers, relatives, peer-mentors), and a group discussion (facilitators). A set of predefined criteria on the nursing home level was examined. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis.
Results
Seven nursing homes (n = 4 intervention groups, n = 3 control groups) in two regions of Germany took part in the study. Facilitators responded well to the qualification measures (workshop participation: 14/14; workshop rating: “good”; peer-mentor visit participation: 10/14). The usage of peer-mentoring via telephone varied (one to seven contacts per nursing home). Our implementation strategy was not successful in connection with supplying the intervention to all the nurses. The clear commitment of the entire nursing home and the respect for the expertise of different healthcare professionals were emphasised as enablers, whereas a lack of impact on organisational conditions and routines and a lack of time and staff competence were mentioned as barriers.
Conclusion
The PECAN intervention was delivered as planned to the facilitators but was unable to produce comprehensive changes in the nursing homes and subsequently for the residents. Strategies to systematically include the management and the nursing team from the beginning are needed to support the facilitators during implementation in the main trial.
Trial registration
German clinical trials register, DRKS00010037. Registered 12 February 2016.
Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review
(2020)
Background: Robots in healthcare are gaining increasing attention; however, their implementation is challenging due to the complexity of both interventions themselves and the contexts in which they are implemented. The objective of this integrative review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic systems in nursing.
Methods: Articles published from 2002 to 2019 reporting on projects to implement robotic devices in nursing care were searched on Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL and databases on funded research projects (Community Research and Development Information Services and Technische Informationsbibliothek) and in journals for robotic research in November 2017 and July 2019 for an update. No restrictions regarding study designs were imposed. All included articles underwent quality assessments with design-specific critical appraisal tools. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework.
Results: After removing all duplicates, the search revealed 11 204 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. The majority of the studies dealt with the implementation of robots designed to support individuals, either living at home or in nursing homes (n=11). The studies were conducted in Europe, the USA and New Zealand and were carried out in nursing homes, individual living environments, hospital units and laboratories. The quality of reporting and quality of evidence were low in most studies. The most frequently reported barriers were in socioeconomic and ethical domains and were within the implementation outcomes domain. The most frequently reported facilitators were related to the sociocultural context, implementation process and implementation strategies.
Discussion: This review identified barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic devices in nursing within different dimensions. The results serve as a basis for the development of suitable implementation strategies to reduce potential barriers and promote the integration of elements to facilitate implementation.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018073486.