Taylor, J 
ORCID: 0000-0003-1790-7699, Smith, N ORCID: 0000-0001-9793-6988, Prato, L ORCID: 0000-0001-9094-968X, Damant, J ORCID: 0000-0003-1425-272X, Jasim, S ORCID: 0000-0003-3940-6350, Toma, M ORCID: 0000-0002-0731-9861, Hamashima, Y ORCID: 0000-0003-2618-9617, McLeod, H ORCID: 0000-0002-2266-7303, Towers, AM ORCID: 0000-0003-3597-1061, Keemink, J ORCID: 0000-0002-4153-4530 et al (show 3 more authors)
(2023)
Care Planning Interventions for Care Home Residents: A Scoping Review
Journal of Long Term Care, 2023.
pp. 326-337.
ISSN 2516-9122, 2516-9122
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 |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | 4203 Health Services and Systems, 42 Health Sciences, Clinical Research, Behavioral and Social Science, Health Services |
| Depositing User: | Symplectic Admin |
| Date Deposited: | 07 Aug 2024 08:46 |
| Last Modified: | 28 Feb 2026 20:53 |
| DOI: | 10.31389/jltc.223 |
| Open Access URL: | https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.223 |
| Related Websites: | |
| URI: | https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3183388 |
| Disclaimer: | The University of Liverpool is not responsible for content contained on other websites from links within repository metadata. Please contact us if you notice anything that appears incorrect or inappropriate. |
Altmetric
Altmetric