Trial Outcomes & Findings for Implementation of Knowledge-Based Palliative Care (NCT NCT02708498)
NCT ID: NCT02708498
Last Updated: 2020-10-28
Results Overview
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) measure quality of life for older persons' at the end of life living in nursing homes. Five-point Likert-scale. Higher values mean better outcomes. Total score Min 26. Max 130. The range for the sub scale Overall Quality of Life; Min 1 Max 5 The range for the sub scale General health; Min 1 Max 5 The range for the sub scale Physical Health; Min 7 Max 35 The range for the sub scale Psychological; Min 6 Max 30 The range for the sub scale Social relationships; Min 3 Max 15 The range for the sub scale Environment; Min 8 Max 40
Recruitment status
COMPLETED
Study phase
NA
Target enrollment
1151 participants
Primary outcome timeframe
9 months
Results posted on
2020-10-28
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Intervention Group Next-of-Kin
The next of kin: The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Control Group Next-of-kin
The next of kin: The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Intervention Group Staff
Staff: The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Control Group Staff
Staff: The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Intervention Group Managers
Managers: Managers at different levels with responsibility for the care and social service at the included nursing homes.
|
Intervention Focus Groups
The focus groups took place at the intervention nursing homes and included 48 staff divided into six groups.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
42
|
40
|
152
|
156
|
363
|
330
|
20
|
48
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
22
|
21
|
90
|
105
|
167
|
198
|
20
|
48
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
20
|
19
|
62
|
51
|
196
|
132
|
0
|
0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Intervention Group Next-of-Kin
The next of kin: The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Control Group Next-of-kin
The next of kin: The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Intervention Group Staff
Staff: The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Control Group Staff
Staff: The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Intervention Group Managers
Managers: Managers at different levels with responsibility for the care and social service at the included nursing homes.
|
Intervention Focus Groups
The focus groups took place at the intervention nursing homes and included 48 staff divided into six groups.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Death
|
20
|
19
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Overall Study
Unknown reason, missing data
|
0
|
0
|
62
|
51
|
195
|
132
|
0
|
0
|
Baseline Characteristics
Age was not given by all participants.
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=42 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=40 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Intervention Group Next-of-Kin
n=152 Participants
The next of kin: The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Control Group Next-of-kin
n=156 Participants
The next of kin: The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Intervention Group Staff
n=363 Participants
Staff: The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Control Group Staff
n=330 Participants
Staff: The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Intervention Group Managers
n=20 Participants
Managers: Managers at different levels with responsibility for the care and social service at the included nursing homes.
|
Intervention Focus Groups Staff
n=48 Participants
The focus groups took place at the intervention nursing homes and included 40 staff divided into six groups.
|
Total
n=1151 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Customized
Age
|
87.51 years
n=42 Participants
|
87.22 years
n=40 Participants
|
65 years
n=152 Participants
|
64 years
n=156 Participants
|
47 years
n=363 Participants
|
47 years
n=330 Participants
|
53.77 years
n=20 Participants
|
47 years
n=48 Participants
|
53 years
n=1151 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
28 Participants
n=42 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
24 Participants
n=40 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
112 Participants
n=152 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
124 Participants
n=156 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
333 Participants
n=357 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
320 Participants
n=330 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
20 Participants
n=20 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
44 Participants
n=48 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
1005 Participants
n=1145 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
14 Participants
n=42 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
16 Participants
n=40 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
40 Participants
n=152 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
32 Participants
n=156 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
24 Participants
n=357 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
10 Participants
n=330 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
4 Participants
n=48 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
140 Participants
n=1145 Participants • Age was not given by all participants.
|
|
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
0 Participants
Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant.
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 9 monthsPopulation: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were that they were 65 years or older, spoke Swedish, did not have dementia and had enough energy to participate in a structured interview for up to one hour.
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) measure quality of life for older persons' at the end of life living in nursing homes. Five-point Likert-scale. Higher values mean better outcomes. Total score Min 26. Max 130. The range for the sub scale Overall Quality of Life; Min 1 Max 5 The range for the sub scale General health; Min 1 Max 5 The range for the sub scale Physical Health; Min 7 Max 35 The range for the sub scale Psychological; Min 6 Max 30 The range for the sub scale Social relationships; Min 3 Max 15 The range for the sub scale Environment; Min 8 Max 40
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=23 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=29 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)
Total score
|
86 score on a scale
Interval 74.0 to 95.0
|
82 score on a scale
Interval 77.5 to 90.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)
Overall Quality of Life
|
3 score on a scale
Interval 2.0 to 4.0
|
3 score on a scale
Interval 2.5 to 4.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)
General health
|
3 score on a scale
Interval 2.0 to 4.0
|
3 score on a scale
Interval 2.5 to 4.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)
Physical Health
|
21 score on a scale
Interval 18.0 to 25.0
|
20 score on a scale
Interval 17.0 to 24.5
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)
Psychological
|
21 score on a scale
Interval 21.0 to 23.0
|
20 score on a scale
Interval 18.0 to 21.5
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)
Social relationships
|
8 score on a scale
Interval 7.0 to 8.0
|
8 score on a scale
Interval 7.5 to 9.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)
Environment
|
28 score on a scale
Interval 25.0 to 33.0
|
29 score on a scale
Interval 26.0 to 31.0
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 9 monthsPopulation: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were that they were 65 years or older, spoke Swedish, did not have dementia and had enough energy to participate in a structured interview for up to one hour.
World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD) measure quality of life for older persons living in nursing homes. Five point Likert-scale. Higher value means better outcome. Min 24. Max. 120. The range for the all the sub scales are; Min 1 Max 20
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=23 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=29 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD)
Social participation
|
12 score on a scale
Interval 9.0 to 16.0
|
13 score on a scale
Interval 10.0 to 14.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD)
Sensory Abilities
|
15 score on a scale
Interval 12.0 to 17.0
|
13 score on a scale
Interval 11.0 to 15.5
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD)
Autonomy
|
11 score on a scale
Interval 10.0 to 15.0
|
12 score on a scale
Interval 10.0 to 13.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD)
Past, present and future abilities
|
14 score on a scale
Interval 11.0 to 15.0
|
14 score on a scale
Interval 12.0 to 15.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD)
Death and Dying
|
17 score on a scale
Interval 14.0 to 19.0
|
18 score on a scale
Interval 15.0 to 19.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD)
Intimacy
|
14 score on a scale
Interval 12.0 to 16.0
|
14 score on a scale
Interval 12.0 to 16.0
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 9 monthsPopulation: In total, 90 older persons, (65 years or older) were included in the study based on the inclusion criteria of being Swedish speaking, not having dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview lasting up to one hour.
Person-centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) (patient version) measure person-centred care for older persons living in nursing homes. Five point Likert-scale. Higher score means better outcomes. Min 13. Max. 65. The range for the sub scale Extent of personalizing care; Min 8 Max 40 The range for the sub scale Amount of organizational and environmental support; Min 5 Max 25
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=24 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=20 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Person-centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT)(Patient Version)
Amount of organizational and environmental support
|
11.0 score on a scale
Interval 6.5 to 16.5
|
11.0 score on a scale
Interval 10.0 to 16.0
|
|
Person-centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT)(Patient Version)
Extent of personalizing care
|
25.0 score on a scale
Interval 18.0 to 32.0
|
27 score on a scale
Interval 22.2 to 29.8
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 9 monthsPopulation: In total, 90 older persons, (65 years or older) were included in the study based on the inclusion criteria of being Swedish speaking, not having dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview lasting up to one hour.
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ patient version) measure person-centred care for older persons living in nursing homes. Six point Likert-scale. Higher score means better outcome. Min 17. Max. 102. The range for the sub scale Safety; Min 10 Max 60 The range for the sub scale Everydayness; Min 4 Max 24 The range for the sub scale Hospitality; Min 3 Max 18
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=24 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=20 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ Patient Version)
Hospitality
|
15.0 score on a scale
Interval 14.0 to 16.0
|
15.5 score on a scale
Interval 14.2 to 17.0
|
|
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ Patient Version)
Safety
|
51.5 score on a scale
Interval 48.5 to 55.8
|
53.0 score on a scale
Interval 47.5 to 58.0
|
|
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ Patient Version)
Everydayness
|
19.5 score on a scale
Interval 17.0 to 23.0
|
19.5 score on a scale
Interval 18.0 to 22.0
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 9 monthsPopulation: The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
Next-of-Kin Participation in Care (NoK-PiC) measure participation for next of kin to older persons in nursing homes. The study includes both intervention and control groups. The two scales are 1) Communication and Trust (CaT); and 2) Collaboration in Care (CiC). The scales contains nine items each and items are scored from 0 to 4 (agree not at all (=0); agree to a low degree (=1); agree partly (=2); agree to a high degree (=3); and agree totally (=4). The possible score range from 0 to 36 in each of the two scales, and from 0-72 in the total scale. Higher score means better outcomes. This results are based upon a recently published psychometric evaluation by Westergren et al (2020).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=95 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=108 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Next-of-Kin Participation in Care (NoK-PiC); Psychometric Evaluation
Next-of-Kin Participation in Care
|
48.9 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.9
|
48.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.1
|
|
Next-of-Kin Participation in Care (NoK-PiC); Psychometric Evaluation
Communication and Trust
|
27.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.2
|
27.9 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.6
|
|
Next-of-Kin Participation in Care (NoK-PiC); Psychometric Evaluation
Collaboration in Care
|
21.4 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.6
|
20.7 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.8
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 9 monthsPopulation: The inclusion criteria were a next of kin who had a relation to an older person living in one of the participating nursing homes but was not necessarily a family member or a relative \[14\]. The next of kin were recruited consecutively in equal numbers from both the intervention nursing homes and the control nursing homes.
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) measure quality of life for next of kin to older persons in nursing homes. Five-point Likert-scale. Higher values mean better outcomes. Min 26. Max 130. he range for the sub scale Overall Quality of Life; Min 1 Max 5 The range for the sub scale General health; Min 1 Max 5 The range for the sub scale Physical Health; Min 7 Max 35 The range for the sub scale Psychological; Min 6 Max 30 The range for the sub scale Social relationships; Min 3 Max 15 The range for the sub scale Environment; Min 8 Max 40
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=90 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=105 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for Next of Kin
Total score
|
94 score on a scale
Interval 87.0 to 102.0
|
103 score on a scale
Interval 96.0 to 111.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for Next of Kin
Overall Quality of Life
|
4 score on a scale
Interval 4.0 to 5.0
|
4 score on a scale
Interval 4.0 to 5.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for Next of Kin
General health
|
4 score on a scale
Interval 3.0 to 4.0
|
4 score on a scale
Interval 3.0 to 5.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for Next of Kin
Physical Health
|
16 score on a scale
Interval 15.0 to 18.0
|
16 score on a scale
Interval 14.0 to 18.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for Next of Kin
Psychological
|
16 score on a scale
Interval 14.0 to 17.0
|
17 score on a scale
Interval 15.0 to 18.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for Next of Kin
Social relationships
|
4 score on a scale
Interval 4.0 to 5.0
|
4 score on a scale
Interval 4.0 to 5.0
|
|
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for Next of Kin
Environment
|
16 score on a scale
Interval 15.0 to 18.0
|
17 score on a scale
Interval 15.0 to 18.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 monthsPopulation: The informants in this study, the staff, were recruited consecutively in equal numbers from both the intervention nursing homes and the control nursing homes.
Person-centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT)(staff version) measure person-centred care for staff working in nursing homes. Five-point Likert-scale. Higher values mean better outcomes. Min 13. Max 65. The range for the sub scale Extent of personalizing care; Min 8 Max 40 The range for the sub scale Amount of organizational and environmental support; Min 5 Max 25
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=167 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=198 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Person-centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) (Staff Version)
Amount of organizational and environmental support
|
11.0 score on a scale
Interval 8.0 to 14.0
|
11.0 score on a scale
Interval 8.0 to 15.0
|
|
Person-centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) (Staff Version)
Total score
|
45.0 score on a scale
Interval 42.0 to 48.0
|
44.0 score on a scale
Interval 41.0 to 48.0
|
|
Person-centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) (Staff Version)
Extent of personalizing care
|
34.0 score on a scale
Interval 32.0 to 37.0
|
34.0 score on a scale
Interval 31.0 to 36.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 monthsPopulation: The informants in this study, the staff, were recruited consecutively in equal numbers from both the intervention nursing homes and the control nursing homes.
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ-S) measure person-centred care for staff working in nursing homes. Six-point Likert-scale. Higher values mean better outcomes. Min 14. Max 84. The range for the sub scale Safety; Min 5 Max 30 The range for the sub scale Everydayness; Min 5 Max 30 The range for the sub scale Community; Min 4 Max 24
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=167 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=198 Participants
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ-S)
Total score
|
77.0 score on a scale
Interval 68.0 to 81.0
|
74.0 score on a scale
Interval 67.0 to 79.0
|
|
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ-S)
Safety
|
27.0 score on a scale
Interval 25.0 to 30.0
|
27.0 score on a scale
Interval 24.0 to 29.0
|
|
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ-S)
Everydayness
|
25.0 score on a scale
Interval 22.0 to 29.0
|
25.0 score on a scale
Interval 21.0 to 27.0
|
|
Person-Centred Climate Questionnaire (PCQ-S)
Community
|
23.0 score on a scale
Interval 20.0 to 24.0
|
22.0 score on a scale
Interval 21.0 to 24.0
|
Adverse Events
Intervention Group Older People
Serious events: 20 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 20 deaths
Control Group Older People
Serious events: 19 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 19 deaths
Intervention Group Next of Kin
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 62 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Control Group Next of Kin
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 51 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Intervention Group Staff
Serious events: 1 serious events
Other events: 195 other events
Deaths: 1 deaths
Control Group Staff
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 132 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Intervention Group Managers
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Intervention Focus Groups Staff
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=42 participants at risk
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia, speaking Swedish and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=40 participants at risk
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia, speaking Swedish and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Intervention Group Next of Kin
n=152 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Control Group Next of Kin
n=156 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Intervention Group Staff
n=363 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Control Group Staff
n=330 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Intervention Group Managers
n=20 participants at risk
Managers at different levels with responsibility for the care and social service at the included nursing homes
|
Intervention Focus Groups Staff
n=48 participants at risk
The focus groups took place at the intervention nursing homes and included 40 staff divided into six groups.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
General disorders
Death
|
47.6%
20/42 • Number of events 20 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
47.5%
19/40 • Number of events 19 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/152 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/156 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.28%
1/363 • Number of events 1 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/330 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/20 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/48 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Intervention Group Older People
n=42 participants at risk
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia, speaking Swedish and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Control Group Older People
n=40 participants at risk
Older persons: The inclusion criteria for the older persons were ≥ 65 years without dementia, speaking Swedish and with enough energy to manage a structured interview during up to one hour.
|
Intervention Group Next of Kin
n=152 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Control Group Next of Kin
n=156 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was someone who had a relation to one of the older persons living at the participating nursing homes but not necessarily family members or relatives.
|
Intervention Group Staff
n=363 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Control Group Staff
n=330 participants at risk
The inclusion criterion was staff at nursing homes (commonly assistant nurses, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists).
|
Intervention Group Managers
n=20 participants at risk
Managers at different levels with responsibility for the care and social service at the included nursing homes
|
Intervention Focus Groups Staff
n=48 participants at risk
The focus groups took place at the intervention nursing homes and included 40 staff divided into six groups.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social circumstances
Other
|
0.00%
0/42 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/40 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
40.8%
62/152 • Number of events 152 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
32.7%
51/156 • Number of events 156 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
53.7%
195/363 • Number of events 363 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
40.0%
132/330 • Number of events 330 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/20 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
0.00%
0/48 • Data were collected at baseline and three months after the intervention was completed i.e nine months after baseline. Phase one data collection began 25th April 2015 and ended 31st March 2016. Phase two data collection began 23th August 2016 and ended 17th June 2017. After the main data collection period, there were a few (3) interviews missing with managers which were conducted until 15 October 2017.
Due to major drop-outs among older people (death) and staff (limited time) the cross-over design was not possible to fulfilled as planned from the start of the project (see more details in the study protocol).
|
Additional Information
Professor Gerd Ahlström
Department of Health Sciences, Lund University
Phone: +46702747767
Email: [email protected]
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place