Care planning interventions for care home residents: a scoping review

Taylor, Jonathan, Smith, Nick, Prato, Laura, Damant, Jacqueline ORCID: 0000-0003-1425-272X, Jasim, Sarah ORCID: 0000-0003-3940-6350, Toma, Madalina, Hamashima, Yuri, McLeod, Hugh, Towers, Ann-Marie, Keemink, Jolie, Nwolise, Chidiebere, Giebel, Clarissa and Fitzpatrick, Ray (2023) Care planning interventions for care home residents: a scoping review. Journal of Long-term Care. 326 – 337. ISSN 2516-9122

Text (Taylor__Care-planning-interventions-for-care-home-residents--published) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (912kB)

• Author
• Author

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 3778 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 United States, 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 the 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, 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
Official URL:	https://journal.ilpnetwork.org/
Additional Information:	© 2023 The Author(s)
Divisions:	Care Policy and Evaluation Centre
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Date Deposited:	04 Jan 2024 17:39
Last Modified:	20 Dec 2024 00:51
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/121174

Actions (login required)

View Item