Background: Person-centred care is often described as an ideal way of preserving vulnerable persons’ wellbeing and dignity and an essential component of quality-care delivery. However, the staff find that making the care dignified is the most challenging issue, often because of effectivity, everyday stress and overload. In the interests of making the care more person-centred, systematic intervention involving ‘one-to-one contact’ (resident – carer) was trialled for 30 min twice a week over 12 months in two units in a nursing home in Eastern Norway. Objectives: The aim of the study was to elicit healthcare staff’s experiences of implementing ‘one-to-one contact’ between residents and carers in nursing homes. Methods: The study has a grounded-theory inspired design. Two groups of health care staff were each interviewed three times. Data were collected over an 18-month period. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the Data Protection Official for Research under the auspices of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. Findings: The core category is ‘One-to-one contact’ at a nursing home is possible, but requires open-mindedness. The core category indicates that open-mindedness is required, since it does not take much for scepticism to take over and cause reversion to habitual practices. The category Expectant but Sceptical describes staff thoughts and experiences before the implementation phase got underway. The category Positive but Undecided describes staff experiences 6 months into the intervention and after 12 months. Conclusions: This study has revealed that systematic ‘one-to-one contact’ between resident and carer in nursing home is achievable, and that such a simple action might be an important step towards achieving more person-centred care as the resident is seen more as a person. However, in order to make a more person-centred and dignified approach to care constant attentiveness and awareness is required, as there were ongoing factors counteracting it.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore potential differences in how nursing home residents rate care quality and to explore cluster characteristics. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional design was used, with one questionnaire including questions from quality from patients' perspective and Big Five personality traits, together with questions related to socio-demographic aspects and health condition. Residents ( n=103) from four Norwegian nursing homes participated (74.1 per cent response rate). Hierarchical cluster analysis identified clusters with respect to care quality perceptions. χ tests and one-way between-groups ANOVA were performed to characterise the clusters ( p<0.05). Findings Two clusters were identified; Cluster 1 residents (28.2 per cent) had the best care quality perceptions and Cluster 2 (67.0 per cent) had the worst perceptions. The clusters were statistically significant and characterised by personal-related conditions: gender, psychological well-being, preferences, admission, satisfaction with staying in the nursing home, emotional stability and agreeableness, and by external objective care conditions: healthcare personnel and registered nurses. Research limitations/implications Residents assessed as having no cognitive impairments were included, thus excluding the largest group. By choosing questionnaire design and structured interviews, the number able to participate may increase. Practical implications Findings may provide healthcare personnel and managers with increased knowledge on which to develop strategies to improve specific care quality perceptions. Originality/value Cluster analysis can be an effective tool for differentiating between nursing homes residents' care quality perceptions.

Aim To explore informal caregivers’ experiences and perspectives concerning assistive technology (AT) in two nursing homes, through the conceptual lens of person-centredness. Background The integration and use of AT and a person-centred approach to care are political intentions within healthcare services, both internationally and in Norway. In nursing homes, informal caregivers are often collaborators with the staff, and can be important partners concerning the implementation of AT in a person-centred way. However, there is little knowledge about the informal caregivers’ perspectives on the use of AT in nursing homes, or of whether or how they are included in the integration and use of AT. Methods The study had a qualitative design and comprised eleven informal caregivers of residents in two nursing homes in Norway. In-depth interviews were used for data collection. The data were analysed using content analysis. COREQ reporting guidelines were applied to ensure comprehensive reporting. Results Emerging themes highlighted the slow-going transition from old to new technology, and how the informal caregivers experienced that AT both promoted and degraded the dignity of their family members. Informal caregivers were positive to the use of technology, but have sparse knowledge and information about ATs in the nursing homes. They express a desire for AT to increase activity and safety, which promotes dignity, quality of life, and quality of the care for their family member. The informal caregivers want their family member to be seen, heard, and to get assistance on their own terms, even with regard to technology. Conclusion Before AT can be implemented, informal caregivers need to be informed and listened to and included in the processes. Through their stories, one can form an idea of how important a person-centred approach is to contributing to individually tailored and introduced AT in collaboration with the informal caregivers.

Objective: The overall objective is to explore how the implementation of person-centred practice and use of technology affects patients’ and relatives’ perceptions of care quality and healthcare personnel’s job satisfaction, as well as shed light on nursing students’ experiences when performing person-centred interventions. In this paper, the interventions used to assure implementation of person-centredness and use of technology in relation to patients are described to facilitate an increased understanding of the study’s future results. Results: A person-centred practice framework was introduced and facilitated in three phases. These included: 1) Establishing a project group consisting of ward leaders and researchers. Workshops and meetings were held with the healthcare personnel to inform and discuss the concept of person-centred practice, use of technology and the interventions: “one-to-one-contact”, collection of life stories, advanced care planning, and point prevalence of wounds, including pressure ulcers, incontinence associated dermatitis and developing a skin care bundle. 2) A twelve months’ intervention period including facilitated innovation groups for personnel and leaders and conducting the four interventions. 3) Discussion of results with personnel. Inhibitors and promoters for the continuation of interventions will be highlighted. Strategies will ensure the further development of person-centred practice and use of technology in nursing homes.

No abstract