Search

Objective: This study aimed to develop a measure of contributory factors to safety incidents in care homes to be completed by residents and/or their unpaid carers. Introduction: Care home residents are particularly vulnerable to patient safety incidents, due to higher likelihood of frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive decline. However, despite residents and their carers wanting to be involved in safety initiatives, there are few mechanisms for them to contribute and make meaningful safety improvements to practice. Methods: We developed 73 evidence‐based items from synthesis and existing measures, which we presented to a panel of stakeholders (residents/carers, health/social care professionals and researchers). We used two online rounds of Delphi to generate consensus (80%) on items important to include in the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS); a consensus meeting was later held. The draft RMOS developed through the Delphi was presented to participants during 'Think Aloud' interviews using cognitive testing techniques. Results: The 29‐item RMOS was developed. Forty‐three participants completed Delphi round 1, and 27 participants completed round 2, 11 participants attended the consensus meeting and 12 'Think Aloud' interviews were conducted. Of the 73 original items, 42 items that did not meet consensus in Delphi round 1 were presented in round 2. After the consensus meeting, it was agreed that 35 items would comprise the RMOS questionnaire and were presented in the 'Think Aloud' interviews. Participants suggested numerous changes to items mostly to improve comprehension and ability to answer. Conclusion: We have a developed an evidence‐based RMOS, with good face validity, to assess contributory factors to safety in care homes from a resident/carer perspective. Future work will involve psychometrically testing the items in a pilot and developing a complementary simplified, dementia‐friendly version to promote inclusivity. Patient or Public Involvement: Four patient and public contributors worked with researchers to develop the online questionnaires. Patients (residents) and carers participated on the consensus panel. One member of the research team is an expert by lived experience and was involved in design and analysis decisions. The item list and instructions for the questionnaires were reviewed for face validity, understanding and acceptability by a patient and public involvement group and modified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to develop interpretive insights concerning Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) in care homes for older people. Design: This study had a meta‐ethnography design. Data Sources: Six bibliographic databases were searched from inception to May 2020 to identify the relevant literature. Review Methods: A meta‐ethnography was performed. Results: Searches yielded 652 records; 15 were included. Findings were categorized into groups: The difficulties of enacting IPC measures in the care home environment; workload as an impediment to IPC practice; the tension between IPC and quality of life for care home residents; and problems dealing with medical services located outside the facility including diagnostics, general practice and pharmacy. Infection was revealed as something seen to lie 'outside' the control of the care home, whether according to origins or control measures. This could help explain the reported variability in IPC practice. Facilitators to IPC uptake involved repetitive training and professional development, although such opportunities can be constrained by the ways in which services are organized and delivered. Conclusions: Significant challenges were revealed in implementing IPC in care homes including staffing skills, education, workloads and work routines. These challenges cannot be properly addressed without resolving the tension between the objectives of maintaining resident quality of life while enacting IPC practice. Repetitive staff training and professional development with parallel organisational improvements have prospects to enhance IPC uptake in residential and nursing homes. Patient or Public Contribution: A carer of an older person joined study team meetings and was involved in writing a lay summary of the study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]