Taylor, J, Smith, Nick, Prato, L, Damant, J, Jasim, S, Toma, Madalina, Hamashima, Y, McLeod, H, Towers, Ann-Marie, Keemink, Jolie R., and others. (2023) Care planning interventions for care home residents: A scoping review. Journal of Long-Term Care, . pp. 326-337. E-ISSN 2516-9122. (doi:10.31389/jltc.223) (KAR id:103330)
PDF
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English |
|
Download this file (PDF/475kB) |
Preview |
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.223 |
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. 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 3,778 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
USA, 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 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 and 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.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.31389/jltc.223 |
Uncontrolled keywords: | Scoping Review, Care Home, Care Planning, Nursing Home, Older Adults, Advanced Care Planning |
Subjects: |
H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare > HV59 Institutional care/home care R Medicine > RT Nursing |
Divisions: |
Divisions > Division for the Study of Law, Society and Social Justice > School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research > Personal Social Services Research Unit Divisions > Division for the Study of Law, Society and Social Justice > School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research > Centre for Health Services Studies |
Depositing User: | Nick Smith |
Date Deposited: | 18 Oct 2023 10:18 UTC |
Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2024 13:09 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/103330 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):