↓ Skip to main content

SCOPEOUT: sustainability and spread of quality improvement activities in long-term care- a mixed methods approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
SCOPEOUT: sustainability and spread of quality improvement activities in long-term care- a mixed methods approach
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2978-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa A. Cranley, Matthias Hoben, Jasper Yeung, Carole A. Estabrooks, Peter G. Norton, Adrian Wagg

Abstract

Interventions to improve quality of care for residents of long-term care facilities, and to examine the sustainability and spread of such initiatives, remain a top research priority. The purpose of this exploratory study was to assess the extent to which activities initiated in a quality improvement (QI) collaborative study using care aide led teams were sustained or spread following cessation of the initial project and to identify factors that led to its success. This study used an exploratory mixed methods study design and was conducted in seven residential long-term care facilities in two Canadian provinces. Sustainability and spread of QI activities were assessed by a questionnaire over five time points for 18 months following the collaborative study with staff from both intervention with non-intervention units. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with care managers at six and 12 months. QI team success in applying the QI model was ranked as high, medium, or low using criteria developed by the research team. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and General Estimating Equations were used to analyze the data. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. In total, 683 surveys were received over the five time periods from 476 unique individuals on a facility unit. Seven managers were interviewed. A total of 533 surveys were analyzed. While both intervention and non-intervention units experienced a decline over time in all outcome measures, this decline was significantly less pronounced on intervention units. Facilities with medium and high success ranking had significantly higher scores in all four outcomes than facilities with a low success ranking. Care aides reported significantly less involvement of others in QI activities, less empowerment and less satisfaction with the quality of their work life than regulated care providers. Manager interviews provided evidence of sustainability of QI activities on the intervention units in four of the seven facilities up to 18 months following the intervention and demonstrated the need for continued staff and leadership engagement. Sustainability of a QI project which empowers and engages care aides is possible and achievable, but requires ongoing staff and leadership engagement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Librarian 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 30 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#20,469,520
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,176
of 7,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,923
of 332,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#199
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 332,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.