Table 1 Characteristics of participating nursing homes and selected results of the first part of the process evaluation of the FallDem trial [14]
Nursing home | E29 | E79 | E75 | E82 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of residents at baseline (n) | 79 | 100 | 80 | 54 |
Number of units at baseline (n) | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
Case conferences prior to WELCOME-IdA implementation | Yes Weekly 1–2 h | Yes Quarterly 1 h | Yes Quarterly 1 h | No |
Number of participants per DSCC (recommended in WELCOME-IdA: 5–8) (n) | 8–19 | 7–17 | 6–9 | 4–6 |
No prior case conferences or less often, thus difficulty of integrating WELCOME-IdA DSCCs into existing routines. | ||||
High levels of sick leave and high workload and time pressure, thus difficulty of integrating WELCOME-IdA DSCCs in routine care. | ||||
No continuous participation of the same staff members in the consecutive parts of WELCOME-IdA, thus difficulty of establishing learning processes and radiation effects, possible delay of change in nursing staff behavior, and prevalence of BPSD of residents. | ||||
Low number of target residents reached in the intervention (residents were discussed twice, nursing staff selected residents who were not included in the study sample, reduced number of DSCCs, dropout of two clusters); thus, the required power >80% was not reached. | ||||
Reduced frequency of WELCOME-IdA DSCCs, what might have had an impact on the effectiveness of WELCOME-IdA. | ||||
Nursing staff selected residents for DSCC with relatively low score of behavioral disturbances, what might have had an impact on the effectiveness of WELCOME-IdA. | ||||
In some cases, no care interventions addressing BPSD were planned during the DSCC, what might have had an impact on the effectiveness of WELCOME-IdA. | ||||