Abstract
Abstract
Background
Rapid and mass transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus amongst vulnerable people led to devastating effects from COVID-19 in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduced Bluetooth Low Energy ‘smart’ wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a basis for automated contact tracing in, and feedback on infection risks and patterns to, care homes to try and improve infection prevention and control (IPC). We planned a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CONTACT. To be feasible, homes had to adopt CONTACT’s technology and new ways of working. This paper reports on the process evaluation conducted alongside CONTACT’s feasibility study and explains why it lacked the feasibility and acceptability for a definitive RCT.
Methods
This mixed method process evaluation used Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) qualitative (interviews, field notes, study case report forms and documents, and observation) and quantitative (survey instruments, counts of activity) data to plan, implement, and analyse the mechanisms, effects, and contextual factors that shaped the feasibility and acceptability of the CONTACT intervention.
Results
Thirteen themes within four core NPT constructs explained CONTACT’s lack of feasibility. Coherence: the home’s varied in the scale and extent of commitment and understanding of the technology and study procedures. Leadership credibility was important but compromised by competing priorities. Management and direct care staff saw CONTACT differently. Work to promote (cognitive participation) and enact (collective action) CONTACT was burdensome and failed to be prioritised over competing COVID-19-related demands on time and scarce human and cognitive resources. Ultimately, staff appraisal of the value of CONTACT-generated information and study procedures (reflexivity) was that any utility for IPC was insufficient to outweigh the perceived burden and complexity involved.
Conclusions
Despite implementation failure, dismissing BLE wearables’ potential for contact tracing is premature. In non-pandemic conditions, with more time, better co-design and integration of theory-driven implementation strategies tailored to care homes’ unique contexts, researchers could enhance normalisation in readiness for future pandemic challenges.
Trial registration
ISRCTN registration: 11,204,126 registered 17/02/2021.
Funder
Health Technology Assessment Programme
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference60 articles.
1. Office for national Statistics. Impact of coronavirus in care homes in England: 26 May to 19 June 2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/impactofcoronavirusincarehomesinenglandvivaldi/26mayto19june2020 (2021).
2. Office for National Statistics. Deaths involving COVID-19 in the care sector, England and Wales: deaths registered between week ending 20 March 2020 and week ending 21 January 2022. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorenglandandwales/deathsregisteredbetweenweekending20march2020andweekending21january2022 (2022).
3. Graham NSN, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical features and outcome of COVID-19 in United Kingdom nursing homes. J Infect. 2020;81:411–9.
4. Paananen J, Rannikko J, Harju M, Pirhonen J. The impact of COVID-19-related distancing on the well-being of nursing home residents and their family members: a qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2021;3:100031.
5. Rajan S & M., M. Learning from the impacts of COVID-19 on care homes: a pilot survey. https://ltccovid.org/2020/06/09/learning-from-the-impacts-of-covid-19-on-care-homes-in-england-a-pilot-survey/ (2020).
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献