Cargando…

The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes

BACKGROUND: The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measures social care related quality of life (SCRQoL) and can be used to measure outcomes and demonstrate impact across different social care settings. This exploratory study built on previous work by collecting new inter-rater reliability d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Towers, Ann-Marie, Smith, Nick, Palmer, Sinead, Welch, Elizabeth, Netten, Ann
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27682625
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1763-1
_version_ 1782456388759322624
author Towers, Ann-Marie
Smith, Nick
Palmer, Sinead
Welch, Elizabeth
Netten, Ann
author_facet Towers, Ann-Marie
Smith, Nick
Palmer, Sinead
Welch, Elizabeth
Netten, Ann
author_sort Towers, Ann-Marie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measures social care related quality of life (SCRQoL) and can be used to measure outcomes and demonstrate impact across different social care settings. This exploratory study built on previous work by collecting new inter-rater reliability data on the mixed-methods version of the toolkit and exploring how it might be used to inform practice in four case study homes. METHOD: We worked with two care home providers to agree an in-depth study collecting SCRQoL data in four case-study homes. Data was collected about residents’ age, ethnicity, cognitive impairment, ability to perform activities of daily living and SCRQoL in the four homes. Feedback sessions with staff and managers were held in the homes two weeks after baseline and follow-up data collected three months later. Interviews with managers explored their views of the feedback and recorded any changes that had been made because of it. RESULTS: Participant recruitment was challenging, despite working in partnership with the homes. Resident response rates ranged from 23 to 54 % with 58 residents from four care homes taking part in the research. 53 % lacked capacity to consent. Inter-rater reliability for the ASCOT ratings of SCRQoL were good at time one (IRR = 0.72) and excellent at time two (IRR = 0.76). During the study, residents’ ability to perform activities of daily living declined significantly (z = -2.67, p < .01), as did their expected needs in the absence of services (z = -2.41, p < .05). Despite these rapid declines in functionings, residents’ current SCRQoL declined slightly but not significantly (Z = -1.49, p = .14). Staff responded positively to the feedback given and managers reported implementing changes in practice because of it. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study faced many challenges in the recruitment of residents, many of whom were cognitively impaired. Nevertheless, without a mixed-methods approach many of the residents living in the care homes would have been excluded from the research altogether or had their views represented only by a representative or proxy. The value of the mixed-methods toolkit and its potential for use by providers is discussed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1763-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5041329
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50413292016-10-05 The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes Towers, Ann-Marie Smith, Nick Palmer, Sinead Welch, Elizabeth Netten, Ann BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measures social care related quality of life (SCRQoL) and can be used to measure outcomes and demonstrate impact across different social care settings. This exploratory study built on previous work by collecting new inter-rater reliability data on the mixed-methods version of the toolkit and exploring how it might be used to inform practice in four case study homes. METHOD: We worked with two care home providers to agree an in-depth study collecting SCRQoL data in four case-study homes. Data was collected about residents’ age, ethnicity, cognitive impairment, ability to perform activities of daily living and SCRQoL in the four homes. Feedback sessions with staff and managers were held in the homes two weeks after baseline and follow-up data collected three months later. Interviews with managers explored their views of the feedback and recorded any changes that had been made because of it. RESULTS: Participant recruitment was challenging, despite working in partnership with the homes. Resident response rates ranged from 23 to 54 % with 58 residents from four care homes taking part in the research. 53 % lacked capacity to consent. Inter-rater reliability for the ASCOT ratings of SCRQoL were good at time one (IRR = 0.72) and excellent at time two (IRR = 0.76). During the study, residents’ ability to perform activities of daily living declined significantly (z = -2.67, p < .01), as did their expected needs in the absence of services (z = -2.41, p < .05). Despite these rapid declines in functionings, residents’ current SCRQoL declined slightly but not significantly (Z = -1.49, p = .14). Staff responded positively to the feedback given and managers reported implementing changes in practice because of it. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study faced many challenges in the recruitment of residents, many of whom were cognitively impaired. Nevertheless, without a mixed-methods approach many of the residents living in the care homes would have been excluded from the research altogether or had their views represented only by a representative or proxy. The value of the mixed-methods toolkit and its potential for use by providers is discussed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1763-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5041329/ /pubmed/27682625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1763-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Towers, Ann-Marie
Smith, Nick
Palmer, Sinead
Welch, Elizabeth
Netten, Ann
The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes
title The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes
title_full The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes
title_fullStr The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes
title_full_unstemmed The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes
title_short The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes
title_sort acceptability and feasibility of using the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ascot) to inform practice in care homes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27682625
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1763-1
work_keys_str_mv AT towersannmarie theacceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT smithnick theacceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT palmersinead theacceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT welchelizabeth theacceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT nettenann theacceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT towersannmarie acceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT smithnick acceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT palmersinead acceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT welchelizabeth acceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes
AT nettenann acceptabilityandfeasibilityofusingtheadultsocialcareoutcomestoolkitascottoinformpracticeincarehomes