Quantitative or Qualitative Research
Literature Search Chart – Quantitative or Qualitative Research Studies
(may also use for Mixed Methods or Outcomes Studies)
Also attach article as PDF to assignment
Reference
1 pt
1 pt
Reference listed in correct APA format
PDF of article uploaded to Canvas assignment
Type of Research
1 pt
Accurately identify whether quantitative (non-experimental), quantitative (experimental) or qualitative
Quantitative: Non-experimental
Quantitative – Experimental
Qualitative
Design/ Method
2 pts
1 pt
1 pt
· Describe method (e.g., longitudinal, cohort, pre-test/post-test, retrospective chart review, interview, focus group)
· Describe whether researcher had comparison groups and how they differed
· Describe time frame (e.g. baseline data, follow-up at x months)
·
Sample & Setting
1 pt
1 pt
1 pt
1 pt
· Population studied: demographic variables
· Inclusion criteria
· How sample is chosen
· Setting of study
·
Major Variables & Measurements
2 pts
2 pts
· Describe the variables studied (quantitative) or the general content of questions (qualitative)
· For each variable, list the specific survey/tool/measurement (quantitative) or how are data collected and analyzed (qualitative)
·
Findings
1 pt
4 pts
· In your own words
· Describe the key findings of the study, specifically detailing results, such as % of subjects who experienced a certain result; discuss whether results were statistically significant (quantitative) or describe/define the major themes of the study including details about what the themes mean and any sub-themes (qualitative)
·
Appraisal: Applicability to PICOT
2 pts
· Describe how and to what extent this study contributes to answering your PICOT question – such as – Does it have a similar population? Does it answer your question? Does it support or not support your intervention?
·
Appraisal: Study Rigor
1 pt
1 pt
1 pt
· Discuss issues related to validity or reliability, including study design, researcher bias, subject selection, etc.
· State whether you believe the study was sufficient to answer the researcher’s questions in terms of: Design, number of subjects, variables, etc. (quantitative) or Your determination of whether the analysis of data and themes was sufficient and whether it aligned with philosophy for this type of study (qualitative)
· Why did you state the study was sufficient or not sufficient?
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A Systematic Review of Interventions to Change Staff Care Practices in Order to Improve Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes Lee-Fay Low1*, Jennifer Fletcher1, Belinda Goodenough2,3, Yun-Hee Jeon4, Christopher Etherton-Beer5, Margaret MacAndrew6, Elizabeth Beattie6
1 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2 Dementia Collaborative Research Centre: Assessment and Better Care, University of New South Wales, New SouthWales, Australia, 3 Dementia Study Training Centre, University of Wollongong, New SouthWales, Australia, 4 Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 5 School of Medicine and Pharmacology Royal Perth Hospital Unit, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 6 Dementia Collaborative Research Centre: Carers and Consumers, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
* lee-fay.low@sydney.edu.au
Abstract
Background
We systematically reviewed interventions that attempted to change staff practice to improve
long-term care resident outcomes.
Methods
Studies met criteria if they used a control group, included 6 or more nursing home units and
quantitatively assessed staff behavior or resident outcomes. Intervention components were
coded as including education material, training, audit and feedback, monitoring, champions,
team meetings, policy or procedures and organizational restructure.
Results
Sixty-three unique studies were broadly grouped according to clinical domain—oral health
(3 studies), hygiene and infection control (3 studies), nutrition (2 studies), nursing home
acquired pneumonia (2 studies), depression (2 studies) appropriate prescribing (7 studies),
reduction of physical restraints (3 studies), management of behavioral and psychological
symptoms of dementia (6 studies), falls reduction and prevention (11 studies), quality
improvement (9 studies), philosophy of care (10 studies) and other (5 studies). No single
intervention component, combination of, or increased number of components was associ-
ated with greater likelihood of positive outcomes. Studies with positive outcomes for resi-
dents also tended to change staff behavior, however changing staff behavior did not
necessarily improve resident outcomes. Studies targeting specific care tasks (e.g. oral
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0140711 November 11, 2015 1 / 60
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Low L-F, Fletcher J, Goodenough B, Jeon Y-H, Etherton-Beer C, MacAndrew M, et al. (2015) A Systematic Review of Interventions to Change Staff Care Practices in Order to Improve Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes. PLoS ONE 10(11): e0140711. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140711
Editor: Terence J Quinn, University of Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: June 28, 2015
Accepted: September 28, 2015
Published: November 11, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 Low et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was supported by the Dementia Collaborative Research Centres at University of New South Wales, Queensland University of Technology, and Australian National University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0140711&domain=pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
care, physical restraints) were more likely to produce positive outcomes than those requir-
ing global practice changes (e.g. care philosophy). Studies using intervention theories were
more likely to be successful. Program logic was rarely articulated, so it was often unclear
whether there was a coherent connection between the intervention components and mea-
sured outcomes. Many studies reported barriers relating to staff (e.g. turnover, high work-
load, attitudes) or organizational factors (e.g. funding, resources, logistics).
Conclusion
Changing staff practice in nursing homes is possible but complex. Interventionists should
consider barriers and feasibility of program components to impact on each intended outcome.
Introduction There are multiple high quality trials and systematic reviews providing evidence for good prac- tice in long-term residential institutions for older people, referred to in many countries as nursing homes and, also known as long-term care homes, homes for the aged, rest homes, resi- dential aged care facilities [1–3]. However, there is often an unreasonable lag between research evidence and practice change [4]. Further, attempts at knowledge translation may not be suc- cessful. For instance, after over a decade of extensive promotion of person-centered cultures of care, culture change efforts are becoming widespread in American nursing homes, but it is not clear whether implementation efforts are changing staff and organizational practices, nor whether these practice changes are improving quality of care or resident outcomes [5].
Barriers to implementation have been identified such as cost, senior leadership resistance, low-innovation culture, low staff education, and high staff turnover [6]. Success factors for implementation include contextualizing the practice change, adequate resourcing, and demon- strating connections between practice change and outcomes [7].
Implementation science has an important role in bridging the gap between research and practice within health services [8]. There is a vast body of research that focuses on changing the practice of individual clinicians such as general practitioners [9,10], allied health profes- sionals [11] and nurses [12]. There is less information about how to change the behavior of teams of staff in organizations such as hospitals, health services, and nursing homes, despite evidence suggesting that organizational culture contributes to health care performance [7,13].
Previous systematic reviews have examined whether specific interventions can improve related resident outcomes. For example, reviews have examined the effect of training nursing home staff in dementia care and management of behavioral and psychological symptoms, and the effectiveness of quality systems in improving nursing home quality of care and culture change [14–16] [17]. These reviews described the literature as being of relatively low quality with high possibility of methodological bias. The review of staff training concluded that exten- sive interventions with ongoing support successfully demonstrated practice change, but there was little evidence for simpler training without reinforcement [15]. The review of quality sys- tems found that results were inconsistent but that there was some evidence that specific train- ing and guidelines can influence resident outcomes [14]. These reviews focused on efficacy of interventions with less emphasis on identifying which interventions or components of inter- ventions contributed to changing practice.
Implementation scientists are increasingly more interested in why practice change interven- tions succeed or fail and have called for greater use of theory in planning and understanding
Review of Staff Care Practice Interventions
PLOS ONE |…
