The use of data for process and quality improvement in long term care and home care: a systematic review of the literature

BackgroundStandardized resident or client assessments, including the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), have been available in long term care and home care settings (continuing care sector) in many jurisdictions for a number of years. Although using these data can make quality improvement activities more efficient and less costly, there has not been a review of the literature reporting quality improvement interventions using standardized data.ObjectivesTo address 2 questions: (1) How have RAI and other standardized data been used in process or quality improvement activities in the continuing care sector? and (2) Has the use of RAI and similar data resulted in improvements to resident or other outcomes?Data SourcesSearches using a combination of keyword and controlled vocabulary term searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO.Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and InterventionsEnglish language publications from database inception to October 2008 were included. Eligibility criteria included the following: (1) set in continuing care (long-term care facility or home care), (2) involved some form of intervention designed to improve quality or process of care, and (3) used standardized data in the quality or process improvement intervention.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsAfter reviewing the articles, we grouped the studies according to the type of intervention used to initiate process improvement. Four different intervention types were identified. We organized the results and discussion by these 4 intervention types.ResultsKey word searches identified 713 articles, of which we excluded 639 on abstract review because they did not meet inclusion criteria. A further 50 articles were excluded on full-text review, leaving a total of 24 articles. Of the 24 studies, 10 used a defined process improvement model, 8 used a combination of interventions (multimodal), 5 implemented new guidelines or protocols, and 1 used an education intervention.Conclusions/ImplicationsThe most frequently cited issues contributing to unsuccessful quality improvement interventions were lack of staff, high staff turnover, and limited time available to train staff in ways that would improve client care. Innovative strategies and supporting research are required to determine how to intervene successfully to improve quality in these settings characterized by low staffing levels and predominantly nonprofessional staff. Research on how to effectively enable practitioners to use data to improve quality of care, and ultimately quality of life, needs to be a priority.