Background
Development of the CHOICE program
Connecting | Feeling a sense of togetherness and belonging with others. It is important to get to know who the resident is and how they like to connect with others at mealtimes. |
Honouring Dignity | Respecting a resident’s decisions, choices, and actions at mealtimes. |
Offering Support | Adapting to what a resident needs in the moment. The amount and type of support may change from meal to meal. It is best to ask a resident what they need or want instead of making assumptions. |
Supporting Identity | Accepting and acknowledging a resident for who they are today, while working to understand their life story that includes significant events, roles, and important relationships. Who they are will impact how they experience mealtimes. |
Creating Opportunities | Engaging in meaningful mealtime roles is important to all of us. Involve residents in familiar or new meal related activities to make them feel a part of a familiar routine. |
Enjoyment | Creating a welcoming, relaxed, and friendly dining environment can lead to more enjoyment at mealtimes. Create mealtime events for special occasions, such as birthdays or cultural holidays. |
Methods
Study aim
Research design
Intervention participants and setting
Implementation overview
Intervention Components | Description | Dosage | Frequency over 8 months |
---|---|---|---|
Education Session and Training Modules | Overview of program components and best-practices to enhance mealtime experience for residents using relationship-centred approaches. Education session was developed into training module to ensure all staff received education sessions. | 45 min./home area | 1 per home area or as needed for new hires/refresher for current team members |
Staff Huddles and Huddle Diary | Mealtime-focused huddles scheduled during shift changeover to promote CHOICE Principles, problem-solve, record progress in huddle diaries, and facilitate communication between care staff. | 5–10 min./huddle | 1 x week or as needed |
Visual Reminders | Posters provided weekly reminders of each CHOICE Principle for care staff and posted strategically around dining room and servery. | 1 poster/week | 2–3 posters per dining room or as needed |
Reference Binder | CHOICE reference binder provided resources staff would need to carry out program, including program overview, huddle schedule, huddle diary sheets, and reminder posters. | 1 binder/home area | As needed by care staff and leadership |
MT Champion Meetings | Teleconference meetings held when CHOICE Coach not on site in order to discuss progress, identify areas for improvement, problem-solve, and identify ways to respond to MTS feedback. In-person meetings held when Coach on site. | 10–20 min/home area | 1 per week |
Continuous Feedback | Progress reports were generated based on MTS data collected by external auditors. Reports were reviewed by the MT Champions, DFS, project coordinator, with the research team prior to being shared with the care staff and other home administrators. Reports assisted in identifying areas that had improved and/or needed improvement | Comprehensive report based on MTS Data. | Baseline, 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 28 weeks for each home area (missing 5th meal audit because of outbreak) |
CHOICE Coach | CHOICE Coach worked closely with MT Champions and DFS to facilitate and support each component of CHOICE program and assist in tailoring components when needed. Coach provided feedback on barriers and facilitators of program components, implementation process, and important contextual factors, such as organizational climate. | In-person visit: 5–7 h per home area. MT Champion Meetings 10–20 min. | In-person visit 2 per month for 5 months for each home area. Teleconference 1 per week for 3 months. |
Quantitative phase
Data collection
Data analysis
Qualitative phase
Data collection
-
Team members: their perceptions of the impact of the intervention on resident mealtime experience; their experiences adopting and carrying out intervention components; their opinions on how the program could be improved and sustained; what mealtime changes were noticed
-
Home Management: their perceptions of the program components and how they were received by team members; their experiences with the implementation process; how better to support team members to sustain the program; what mealtime changes were noticed.
Data analysis
Results
Characteristic | Both Home Areas (N = 64) | Wellesley (n = 32) | Parker (n = 32) |
---|---|---|---|
Age, mean (SD) | 85 (11.7) | 84 (13.3) | 85 (10.0) |
Male (n) | 30.4% (4) | 26.1% (6) | 34.8% (8) |
CPS Score,a mean (SD) | 2.6 (1.7) | 3.1 (1.5) | 2.0 (1.7) |
Moderate/severe impairment (n) | 52.2% (24) | 65.2% (15) | 39.1% (9) |
ADL-LFb Score, mean (SD) | 16.4 (8.7) | 16.9 (9.3) | 16.0 (8.3) |
Quantitative phase
Descriptive characteristics of two dining areas assessed by MTS
Variable | Both Home Areas | Wellesley | Parker |
---|---|---|---|
Residents in dining room, mean (SD) | 24.3 (2.90) | 22.4 (1.98) | 26.3 (2.27)* |
Any staff who entered dining room during meal observation, mean (SD) | 6.7 (1.38) | 7.2 (1.42) | 6.3 (1.23) |
Staff serving fooda, mean (SD) | 2.1 (0.94) | 1.4 (0.51) | 2.8 (0.77)* |
Staff assisting residents to eata, mean (SD) | 2.6 (0.98) | 3.2 (0.70) | 2.0 (0.82)* |
Family/Volunteers, mean (SD) | 0.6 (0.89) | 0.4 (0.59) | 1.0 (1.05) |
% of meals where at least 1 resident eating meal in adjacent area, % (freq.) | 55.0 (22) | 63.6 (14) | 36.4 (8) |
MTS changes over time by home area
Time Point (weeks) | Descriptives by dining room | Mixed model analysis with interaction | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Summative Scale Scores, Mean (SD)a | Effect | p-valueb | ||
Wellesley | Parker | |||
Physical Environment | Physical Environment | |||
0 | 5.2 (0.84) | 4.8 (0.45) | Dining Room | 0.37 |
8 | 5.6 (0.89) | 4.6 (0.89) | Time | < 0.01 |
16 | 4.6 (0.55) | 5.2 (0.45) | Dining Room x Time | 0.09 |
24 | 6.2 (0.84) | 6.2 (0.45) | ||
Social Environment | Social Environment | |||
0 | 5.4 (1.14) | 4.4 (0.55) | Dining Room | 0.04 |
8 | 4.4 (0.55) | 4.6 (0.89) | Time | 0.02 |
16 | 3.0 (1.00) | 5.6 (1.14) | Dining Room x Time | < 0.01 |
24 | 5.2 (1.30) | 6.0 (0.71) | ||
Relationship-Centred Care | Relationship-Centred Care | |||
0 | 4.4 (1.14) | 4.2 (0.45) | Dining Room | 0.15 |
8 | 5.0 (0.71) | 4.8 (0.84) | Time | 0.40 |
16 | 3.8 (1.30) | 5.6 (0.55) | Dining Room x Time | 0.09 |
24 | 4.8 (1.30) | 5.2 (1.10) | ||
Overall Quality of Dining Environment | Overall Quality of Dining Environment | |||
0 | 4.8 (0.84) | 4.2 (0.45) | Dining Room | 0.41 |
8 | 5.0 (0.71) | 4.6 (0.89) | Time | 0.02 |
16 | 4.2 (0.84) | 5.6 (0.55) | Dining Room x Time | 0.02 |
24 | 5.4 (0.89) | 5.8 (0.84) |
Qualitative phase
Findings | Learnings | Planned Improvements to Program |
---|---|---|
New Appreciation for Mealtimes: “It’s not about us; it’s about them.” | • CHOICE provided dedicated time for care staff and management to reflect and reconsider the meaning of mealtimes within their home area. • Care staff took advantage of this opportunity to share insights, learnings, and revelations amongst care teams as another way to reinforce the importance of what they are undertaking. • Staff huddles and meetings serve as a great opportunity to engage in self-reflection. | • Staff huddles and meetings proved to be more beneficial to staff to communicate with one another than using Huddle Diaries. The use of diaries ceased, which left additional time for staff to consider what aspect of mealtimes were improving, and what needed more attention. • Self-reflection based on checklists of relationship-centred care practices at mealtimes. • Adapting training on CHOICE Principles to video to allow for individual review and goal setting. |
Knowing context and culture | • Additional time is needed prior to implementation to tailor the intervention components to each home area, support communication across all stakeholders and build consensus on what needs to be improved. • Changes to both the physical and social environment can improve the mealtime experience. Taking time to reflect on both environments and how they interact with one another is important. • Spending time with staff discussing how each CHOICE Principle would be enacted during their mealtimes and collectively identifying specific approaches to make change as opposed to offering vague recommendations that are not relevant to their context. | • Program extended to 52 weeks to allow for a preparatory phase where a CHOICE Dining Team is developed and trained on change management techniques. • Engagement of the residents, family and greater team with baseline findings and what areas need to be improved and identification of priority areas for change based on the perspectives of all stakeholders • Self-assessment checklist for mealtime practices as well as physical aspects of dining. • CHOICE Dining Team takes priority areas identified by family, residents and the greater care team and develops concrete action plans that are negotiated and communicated with all stakeholders in the area. |
Getting everyone on board | • Additional time spent at the early stages of implementation to ensure that everyone understands what changes need to be made is critical to buy-in from care staff and management. • The development of a dining team that includes members from home management would assist in tailoring implementation components that were acceptable and feasible for a specific home area • Basic change management principles should become part of educational component for Mealtime Champions (and a dining team) so that home areas can utilize implementation methods and tools that work best for their home area. | • Greater team engagement and self-reflection checklists mentioned above to bring awareness as to what aspects of mealtimes could be improved. • CHOICE Dining Team to include residents, family, care team champions, management and CHOICE Coach; ownership and leadership transferred from Coach to home members over the course of the implementation. • Training components for the CHOICE Dining Team on change management; mentorship by Coach on change management principles. |
Keeping communication lines open | • More frequent communication was needed between the CHOICE Coach, the Mealtime Champions, and the home area for guidance and support in determining what aspects of mealtimes to target and how to go about it. • Once implementation is underway, clear and consistent methods of communication are needed to understand how the intervention is progressing and what support is needed in the home area. | • Establish communication processes with Choice Dining Team and greater team, including residents and family. • Use a variety of communication formats to reach diverse audiences and once established use consistently. |
Sharing responsibilities and accountability | • The CHOICE Program gave the home areas the opportunity and space to reflect on how mealtimes could be improved and what their roles were to make changes. • Mealtime Champions expressed additional pressure associated with the responsibility of leading the change efforts in their home areas. • The development of a Dining Team would assist in sharing some of the change management tasks that were originally given to the Mealtime Champions. | • Development of a CHOICE Dining Team to share responsibility and promote accountability. • Use of informal audit of new practices to promote accountability and embedding. |
Empowering and supporting creativity | • From the outset of implementation, care staff and management need to collaborate to identify feasible mealtime improvements and change management strategies that work best for their home area. • Care staff have creative ideas and solutions to improve the mealtime experience for residents, however, they require time, resources, and support to make them a reality. | • CHOICE Dining Team needs to include a management representative to facilitate some changes considered a priority. • To ensure that care staff do not feel overwhelmed with change efforts, 1–2 CHOICE Principles could be prioritized. • Provide opportunities for engaging staff in identifying solutions; potentially post review of evaluation data to stimulate priority setting and motivation for change. |