Organizational Capacity Building in Nursing Facilities to Promote Resident Mobility: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of the present systematic review was to investigate the effects of organizational capacity building interventions on the environment, nursing staff capacity, and mobility of residents in nursing facilities. Design: Systematic review. Setting and Participants: Nursing facilities, staff, and residents. Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the methods of the Cochrane Collaboration. The systematic review was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42020202996). We searched for studies in MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and the Cochrane Library (07/20). A narrative synthesis was conducted because of the high heterogeneity of the included studies. Results: We identified 6747 records and included 14 studies in our review. We clustered the 14 interventions into 3 different categories (environmental modification, nursing staff capacity, and multifactorial interventions). Three studies assessed outcomes at the nursing staff level, and all studies reported outcomes at the resident level. We found highly heterogeneous and inconsistent effects of organizational capacity building on increasing nursing staff capacity and/or resident mobility. Conclusions and Implications: The findings emphasize the need for further research focusing on an international understanding and definition of organizational capacity building. Additionally, research and intervention development for organizational capacity building interventions to promote resident mobility are needed while applying the framework of the Medical Research Council. Furthermore, studies should assess outcomes regarding the environment and nursing staff to better understand if and how environmental structures and nursing staff capacity effect resident mobility.

Promoting activity and mobility in long‐term care environments: A photo‐elicitation study with older adults and nurses

“…It should be noted that some design attributes that were raised as impediments could be fixed at a relatively low cost, such as the colours of floors. Used facilities should be renovated, considering the existing evidence of the factors related to the activity (Anderiesen et al, 2014; Benjamin et al, 2014; Douma et al, 2017; Narsakka, Suhonen, Kielo‐Viljamaa, & Stolt, 2022) and mobility (Narsakka, Suhonen, & Stolt, 2022; Rommerskirch‐Manietta et al, 2021) of older adults, and the know‐how of the users. The varying quality of the physical environments place the older adults in unequal positions, considering their unnegotiable need to live in an institutional setting they have minimal influence on.…”

“…The environment is defined as including the qualitative dimensions of the physical (matter-based aspects), social (individuals and groups) and symbolic (ideational, normative and institutional elements) environment (Kim, 2010). Various aspects of all of these dimensions have been identified as relating to older adults' activity (Anderiesen et al, 2014;Benjamin et al, 2014;Douma et al, 2017;Narsakka, Suhonen, Kielo-Viljamaa, & Stolt, 2022) and mobility Rommerskirch-Manietta et al, 2021) in the institutional long-term care setting.…”

“…The environment is defined as including the qualitative dimensions of the physical (matter‐based aspects), social (individuals and groups) and symbolic (ideational, normative and institutional elements) environment (Kim, 2010). Various aspects of all of these dimensions have been identified as relating to older adults' activity (Anderiesen et al, 2014; Benjamin et al, 2014; Douma et al, 2017; Narsakka, Suhonen, Kielo‐Viljamaa, & Stolt, 2022) and mobility (Narsakka, Suhonen, & Stolt, 2022; Rommerskirch‐Manietta et al, 2021) in the institutional long‐term care setting. However, considering the recurrent evidence of older adults in long‐term care settings living inactive lives (den Ouden et al, 2015; Parry et al, 2019), a research‐practice gap seems to exist regarding the implementation of this evidence as activity‐ and mobility‐promoting environments.…”

“…Rommerskirch-Manietta et al, 2021) of older adults, and the know-how of the users. The varying quality of the physical environments place the older adults in unequal positions, considering their unnegotiable need to live in an institutional setting they have minimal influence on.…”

Consulting concepts and structures for people with dementia in Germany: a protocol for a ‘grey-shaded’ scoping review

“…In recent years, different types of methodological approaches have been established for conducting reviews depending on a wide variety of research questions. Examples include systematic reviews and rapid reviews for the (rapid) evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions,1 3–6 scoping reviews and evidence maps for mapping of the current research landscape related to a broad question,2 7–15 realist reviews for the analysis of the underlying theory of programmes or interventions in terms of how these theories are relevant and can explain why a programme or intervention works, is effective or not,16 and integrative reviews with a focus on the analysis and synthesis of qualitative as well as quantitative studies 17–19. More review types are described in the publications by Grant and Booth 20.…”