Journal of Long-Term Care (Dec 2023)

Care Planning Interventions for Care Home Residents: A Scoping Review

  • Jonathan Taylor,
  • Nick Smith,
  • Laura Prato,
  • Jacqueline Damant,
  • Sarah Jasim,
  • Madalina Toma,
  • Yuri Hamashima,
  • Hugh McLeod,
  • Ann-Marie Towers,
  • Jolie Keemink,
  • Chidiebere Nwolise,
  • Clarissa Giebel,
  • Ray Fitzpatrick

DOI
https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.223

Abstract

Read online

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.

Keywords