nursing homes
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: Intervention group:
Three nursing homes in Bremen are restructered into academic teaching nursing homes. Over a total period of nine years, various digital care technologies will be implement
Sponsors
Universität Bremen - IPP
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Principally: voluntary participation - Nursing homes: Nursing homes in Bremen that have stated their interest, the selection resides with the TCALL initiative. - Employees: Questionnaires and focus groups: Direct involvement in the nursing care of residents - Residents: i) Survey: all residents who are able to complete a questionnaire independently or with support according to the assessment of the nursing staff. For cognitively impaired residents, for example, an external assessment is provided. ii) Focus groups with residents who, according to the assessment of the care professionals, are cognitively able to do so
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: - Residents: terminal residents, living in the respecting nursing home less than 6 weeks - Employees: survey: employment less than 4 weeks.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Summative evaluation: The outcomes depend on the particular digital care technology. Due to the participatory selection of the digital care technology in the course of the project, the outcomes can only be specified once the digital care technology have been selected. The content of the technology-related outcomes will therefore be based on the outcome framework developed by Krick et al. (2020). If outcomes are defined in the course of the project that have already been surveyed by the KoTrans project (e.g. job satisfaction), this data is used instead of a new survey in the interests of data minimisation. The extent to which conventional health economic methods can be applied to the evaluation of care technologies is currently being discussed in scientific discourses. The outcomes of the economic evaluation will therefore be defined during the course of the project. Possible alternative approaches include for instance the kePP model by Betting & Knuth (2023) or a focus on quality indicators (Social Code - Book XI - Social Care). Outcomes for the outcome-area ‘acceptance’: readiness for technology, acceptance of technology Outcomes for the outcome-area ‘usability’: system usability, user experience Outcomes for the outcome-area ‘effectiveness’: technology-related endpoints Outcomes for the outcome-area ‘efficiency’: technology-related endpoints The summative evaluation is based on a mixed methods design. In order to meet the challenges of a complex intervention, the outcomes should be triangulated. This prevents bias and ensures a valid data basis. For example, if a fall sensor is introduced, which is intended to provide employees with greater safety and thus an improved quality of life, "quality of life" is defined as an outcome. Development-oriented/ formative evaluation: The development-oriented evaluation is planned using qualitative methods. For this purpose, workshops/focus groups will be held in presence as well as digitally supported anonymized employee | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| In addition to the surveys at employee and resident level, the development at facility level is also being analysed. The effects of the changes on the quality of the facilities as a whole are analysed by looking at the quality indicators (Social Code - Book XI - Social Care) on the one hand and the operational structural data on the other (data extract, secondary data analysis). | — |
Countries
Germany
Contacts
Public ContactKarin Wolf-Ostermann
Universität Bremen
Outcome results
None listed