Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Implementation Science and BioMed Central.

Journal App

google play app store
Open Access Research

Nursing home administrators’ perspectives on a study feedback report: a cross sectional survey

Anne-Marie Boström123*, Lisa A Cranley3, Alison M Hutchinson45, Greta G Cummings3, Peter G Norton6 and Carole A Estabrooks3

Author Affiliations

1 Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden

2 Department of Geriatric Medicine, Danderyd Hospital, Danderyd, Sweden

3 Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

4 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

5 Cabrini-Deakin Centre for Nursing Research, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

6 Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

For all author emails, please log on.

Implementation Science 2012, 7:88  doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-88

Published: 13 September 2012

Abstract

Background

This project is part of the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program of research, a multi-level and longitudinal research program being conducted in 36 nursing homes in three Canadian Prairie Provinces. The overall goal of TREC is to improve the quality of care for older persons living in nursing homes and the quality of work life for care providers. The purpose of this paper is to report on development and evaluation of facility annual reports (FARs) from facility administrators’ perspectives on the usefulness, meaningfulness, and understandability of selected data from the TREC survey.

Methods

A cross sectional survey design was used in this study. The feedback reports were developed in collaboration with participating facility administrators. FARs presented results in four contextual areas: workplace culture, feedback processes, job satisfaction, and staff burnout. Six weeks after FARs were mailed to each administrator, we conducted structured telephone interviews with administrators to elicit their evaluation of the FARs. Administrators were also asked if they had taken any actions as a result of the FAR. Descriptive and inferential statistics, as well as content analysis for open-ended questions, were used to summarize findings.

Results

Thirty-one facility administrators (representing thirty-two facilities) participated in the interviews. Six administrators had taken action and 18 were planning on taking action as a result of FARs. The majority found the four contextual areas addressed in FAR to be useful, meaningful, and understandable. They liked the comparisons made between data from years one and two and between their facility and other TREC study sites in their province. Twenty-two indicated that they would like to receive information on additional areas such as aggressive behaviours of residents and information sharing. Twenty-four administrators indicated that FARs contained enough information, while eight found FARs ‘too short’. Administrators who reported that the FAR contained enough information were more likely to take action within their facilities than administrators who reported that they needed more information.

Conclusions

Although the FAR was brief, the presentation of the four contextual areas was relevant to the majority of administrators and prompted them to plan or to take action within their facility.