↓ Skip to main content

Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE): a pragmatic controlled trial of a care aide-led quality improvement intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE): a pragmatic controlled trial of a care aide-led quality improvement intervention
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13012-022-01259-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Wagg, Matthias Hoben, Liane Ginsburg, Malcolm Doupe, Whitney Berta, Yuting Song, Peter Norton, Jennifer Knopp-Sihota, Carole Estabrooks

Abstract

The increased complexity of residents and increased needs for care in long-term care (LTC) have not been met with increased staffing. There remains a need to improve the quality of care for residents. Care aides, providers of the bulk of direct care, are well placed to contribute to quality improvement efforts but are often excluded from so doing. This study examined the effect of a facilitation intervention enabling care aides to lead quality improvement efforts and improve the use of evidence-informed best practices. The eventual goal was to improve both the quality of care for older residents in LTC homes and the engagement and empowerment of care aides in leading quality improvement efforts. Intervention teams participated in a year-long facilitative intervention which supported care aide-led teams to test changes in care provision to residents using a combination of networking and QI education meetings, and quality advisor and senior leader support. This was a controlled trial with random selection of intervention clinical care units matched 1:1 post hoc with control units. The primary outcome, between group change in conceptual research use (CRU), was supplemented by secondary staff- and resident-level outcome measures. A power calculation based upon pilot data effect sizes resulted in a sample size of 25 intervention sites. The final sample included 32 intervention care units matched to 32 units in the control group. In an adjusted model, there was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control units for CRU or in secondary staff outcomes. Compared to baseline, resident-adjusted pain scores were statistically significantly reduced (less pain) in the intervention group (p=0.02). The level of resident dependency significantly decreased statistically for residents whose teams addressed mobility (p<0.0001) compared to baseline. The Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE) intervention resulted in a smaller change in its primary outcome than initially expected resulting in a study underpowered to detect a difference. These findings should inform sample size calculations of future studies of this nature if using similar outcome measures. This study highlights the problem with measures drawn from current LTC databases to capture change in this population. Importantly, findings from the trial's concurrent process evaluation provide important insights into interpretation of main trial data, highlight the need for such evaluations of complex trials, and suggest the need to consider more broadly what constitutes "success" in complex interventions. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03426072, registered August 02, 2018, first participant site April, 05, 2018.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 12 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Unspecified 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 12 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2023.
All research outputs
#8,138,647
of 25,118,194 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,277
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,186
of 410,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,118,194 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 410,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.