Improving hydration of care home residents by increasing choice and opportunity to drink: A quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dehydration is recognised as an important problem among care home residents and can be associated with severe consequences. Insufficient provision of fluids to meet resident preferences and lack of assistance to drink have been identified as key factors driving under-hydration of care home residents. Using targeted interventions, this study aimed to optimise hydration care for frail older people in a care home setting. METHODS: The study used quality improvement methods to develop and test interventions to extend drinking opportunities and choice in two care homes. Changes were made and evaluated using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Data were captured on the amount of fluids served and consumed, and staff and resident feedback. The long-term impact of the interventions was assessed by measuring daily laxative and antibiotic consumption, weekly incidence of adverse health events, and average fluid intake of a random sample of six residents captured monthly. RESULTS: The interventions were associated with an increase in the amount and range of fluids consumed, in one home mean fluid intakes exceeded 1500 ml for three consecutive months. Laxative use decreased significantly in both homes. A number of practical and organisational barriers affected the sustainability of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to optimise the hydration of care home residents can be effective. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles provide an effective methodology to implement new interventions into existing practice in care homes. Sustainable change requires strong leadership, organisational support and teamwork.

Professionals learning together with patients: An exploratory study of a collaborative learning Fellowship programme for healthcare improvement.

Improving the quality of healthcare involves collaboration between many different stakeholders. Collaborative learning theory suggests that teaching different professional groups alongside each other may enable them to develop skills in how to collaborate effectively, but there is little literature on how this works in practice. Further, though it is recognised that patients play a fundamental role in quality improvement, there are few examples of where they learn together with professionals. To contribute to addressing this gap, we review a collaborative fellowship in Northwest London, designed to build capacity to improve healthcare, which enabled patients and professionals to learn together. Using the lens of collaborative learning, we conducted an exploratory study of six cohorts of the year long programme (71 participants). Data were collected using open text responses from an online survey (n = 31) and semi-structured interviews (n = 34) and analysed using an inductive open coding approach. The collaborative design of the Fellowship, which included bringing multiple perspectives to discussions of real world problems, was valued by participants who reflected on the safe, egalitarian space created by the programme. Participants (healthcare professionals and patients) found this way of learning initially challenging yet ultimately productive. Despite the pedagogical and practical challenges of developing a collaborative programme, this study indicates that opening up previously restricted learning opportunities as widely as possible, to include patients and carers, is an effective mechanism to develop collaborative skills for quality improvement.

Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement.

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL). Data from project teams' responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as 'engaged,' 'partially engaged' and 'non-engaged.' Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a 'diversity of opinion' measure was derived to assess response variance over time. Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as 'engaged,' six 'partially engaged,' and seven as 'non-engaged.' Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness. The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams' views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM.