A posture and mobility (skilful care) training package for care home staff: results of a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial

Physiotherapy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. e32
Author(s):  
A. Forster ◽  
B. Cundill ◽  
A. Ellwood ◽  
J. Fisher ◽  
M. Goodwin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Care Home ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Care Home Staff ◽  
Training Package ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Care Training ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals A posture and mobility training package for care home staff: results of a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial (the PATCH trial)

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 821-828
Author(s):  
Liz Graham ◽  
Alison Ellwood ◽  
Karen Hull ◽  
Jill Fisher ◽  
Bonnie Cundill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Care Staff ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Training Package ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Mobility Training ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Intervention Uptake

Abstract Background provision of care for care home residents with complex needs is challenging. Physiotherapy and activity interventions can improve well-being but are often time-limited and resource intensive. A sustainable approach is to enhance the confidence and skills of staff who provide care. This trial assessed the feasibility of undertaking a definitive evaluation of a posture and mobility training programme for care staff. Design and setting a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation. Ten care homes in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised (1:1) to the skilful care training package (SCTP) or usual care (UC). Participants residents who were not independently mobile. Intervention SCTP—delivered by physiotherapists to care staff. Objectives and measurements key objectives informed progression to a definitive trial. Recruitment, retention and intervention uptake were monitored. Data, collected by a blinded researcher, included pain, posture, mobility, hospitalisations and falls. This informed data collection feasibility and participant safety. Results a total of 348 residents were screened; 146 were registered (71 UC, 75 SCTP). Forty two were lost by 6 months, largely due to deaths. While data collection from proxy informants was good (>95% expected data), attrition meant that data completion rates did not meet target. Data collection from residents was poor due to high levels of dementia. Intervention uptake was variable—staff attendance at all sessions ranged from 12.5 to 65.8%. There were no safety concerns. Conclusion care home and resident recruitment are feasible, but refinement of data collection approaches and intervention delivery are needed for this trial and care home research more widely.

scholarly journals 101 A Posture and Mobility Training Package for Care Home Staff: Results of A Cluster Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i34-i36
Author(s):  
L Graham ◽  
B Cundill ◽  
A Ellwood ◽  
J Fisher ◽  
M Goodwin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Care Home ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Care Staff ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Direct Care Staff ◽  
Intervention Delivery ◽  
Care Home Staff ◽  
Mobility Training ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Introduction Provision of care for care home residents with complex needs is challenging. Physiotherapy and activity interventions can improve physical well-being but are often time-limited and resource intensive. A sustainable approach is to enhance the confidence, skills and abilities of care home staff. This trial assessed the feasibility of undertaking a definitive evaluation of the Skilful Care Training Package (SCTP) - a posture and mobility training programme developed by physiotherapists for care home staff. Methods A parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was undertaken in ten care homes in Yorkshire. Five were randomised to receive SCTP, five to usual care. SCTP was delivered by specialist physiotherapists, with the intention of training all direct care staff. Following consent, data were collected from and about residents with restricted mobility (those fulfilling the eligibility criteria) at baseline, three and six months post-randomisation by blinded researchers. Outcome measurement included resident mobility, posture, pain and quality of life. The feasibility of recruitment, retention, data collection and intervention delivery was assessed. Results All residents (348) at participating homes were screened for eligibility. 250 were eligible and 146 took part. Follow-up was balanced between arms, with an overall loss-to-follow-up rate of 28.8% at six months. Where residents were available for six-month follow-up, proxy data provision was excellent (97.1% - 100% of expected data). Difficulty collecting data directly from residents was experienced (43.3% of expected data) due to high levels of cognitive impairment. Staff attendance at training met or was close to pre-specified criteria for acceptability in three homes, with 63.0%, 63.6% and 65.8% direct care staff attending all sessions, and >85% attending at least one session across all three homes. However attendance fell short of acceptability in two homes, with only 21.4% and 12.5% staff attending all sessions. Conclusions It is feasible to recruit and follow-up residents in a randomised trial comparing SCTP and usual care. Proxy data collection is a successful method, but collection of data from residents is difficult. Intervention delivery success was variable, illustrating heterogeneity between care homes. Future research will be informed by learning from those homes with greater intervention compliance. Work should be undertaken to investigate how best to collect meaningful data from residents.

scholarly journals Longer-term health and social care strategies for stroke survivors and their carers: the LoTS2Care research programme including cluster feasibility RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-268
Author(s):  
Anne Forster ◽  
Seline Ozer ◽  
Thomas F Crocker ◽  
Allan House ◽  
Jenny Hewison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Unmet Needs ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Stroke Services ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background It is reported that the longer-term outcomes for stroke survivors are poor, with a range of unmet needs identified. Objectives The aims were to develop and test a longer-term stroke care strategy focused on improving the quality of life of stroke survivors and their carers by addressing unmet needs, and maintenance and enhancement of participation (i.e. involvement in life situations). Design Five overlapping workstreams were undertaken – (1) refinement of content by semistructured interviews with stroke survivors and their carers and by a review of the literature to inform content and delivery of the care strategy; (2) exploration of service models by national survey and focus groups with purposely selected services; (3) intervention development by interaction with a reference group of stroke survivors, carers, and health and social care professionals; (4) refinement and pilot implementation of the developed intervention in three stroke services (case studies); and (5) a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial in 10 stroke services across England and Wales. Setting The intervention development work and feasibility trial were in stroke services (inclusive of primary, secondary, community and social care provision) across England and Wales. Participants Participants were stroke survivors resident in the community and their carers, and health and social care professionals in the included stroke services. Data sources Interviews with 28 stroke survivors and their carers at least 9 months post stroke ascertained their needs and the barriers to and facilitators of addressing those needs. Additional literature reviews identified 23 needs. No evidence-based interventions to address these needs were reported; self-management was highlighted as a possible delivery mechanism. In workstream 2, a national survey revealed that the most common model of stroke service provision was care up to 12 months post stroke, reported by 46 (40%) services. Thirty-five (30%) services provided care up to 6 months post stroke and 35 (30%) provided care beyond 12 months, thus identifying 6 months post stroke as an appropriate delivery point for a new intervention. Through focus groups in a range of services, stroke survivors’ perceived unmet needs and the barriers to and enablers of service provision were identified. Intervention Using information obtained in workstreams 1 and 2 and working closely with a stakeholder reference group, we developed an intervention based on the unmet needs prioritised by stroke survivors and their carers (workstream 3). In workstream 4, action groups (clinicians, stroke survivors and researchers) were established in three stroke services that led implementation in their service and contributed to the iterative refinement of the intervention, associated training programme and implementation materials. The intervention (called New Start) was delivered at 6 months post stroke. Key components were problem-solving self-management with survivors and carers, help with obtaining usable information, and helping survivors and their carers build sustainable, flexible support networks. Results A cluster randomised feasibility trial (workstream 5) was successfully implemented in 10 stroke services across England and Wales, with associated process and health economic evaluations. Five services were randomised to provide New Start, while five continued with usual care; 269 participants were recruited. Progression criteria – in terms of our pre-determined (red, amber, green) criteria for progress to a full trial: target stroke survivor recruitment rates were achieved, on average, across sites (24.1 per site over 6 months, green); 216 (80.3%) registered stroke survivors returned follow-up questionnaires at 9 months (84.1% in the intervention arm and 75.8% in the usual care arm, green); according to data reported by sites, overall, 95.2% of registered stroke survivors were offered at least one session of the intervention (green); all five intervention sites had at least two facilitators deemed competent, delivered the New Start intervention and provided it to stroke survivors (green). However, at some sites, there were concerns regarding the number of stroke survivors being offered, accepting and receiving the intervention. Only small differences in outcomes and costs were observed between the New Start and usual care groups, and considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness remains. Conclusions We report a complex programme of work that has described the longer-term needs of stroke survivors and highlighted evidence and service gaps. Working closely with stroke survivors, an intervention was developed that has been refined in three services and feasibility tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Further refinement of the target population and optimisation of the intervention materials is required prior to a full randomised controlled trial evaluation. Future work Optimisation of the intervention, and clearer specification of recipients, are required prior to a full trial evaluation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38920246. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document