Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Study Protocol
  • Open access
  • Published:

Expanded nursing roles to promote person-centred care for people with cognitive impairment in acute care (ENROLE-acute): study protocol for a controlled clinical trial, process and economic evaluation

BMC Geriatrics volume 23, Article number: 858 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

For people with cognitive impairment, hospitalisation is challenging and associated with adverse events as well as negative outcomes resulting in a prolonged hospital stay. Person-centred care can improve the quality of care and the experience of people with cognitive impairment during hospitalisation. However, current care processes in German hospitals are rarely person-centred. To enable successful implementation of person-centred care on hospital wards, change agents within the interprofessional team are key. The aim of this study is to test the feasibility and initial effects of a newly developed complex person-centred care intervention for people with cognitive impairment provided by expanded practice nurses in acute care.

Methods

We will conduct an exploratory non-randomised controlled clinical trial with accompanying process and cost evaluation with three intervention and three control wards at one university hospital. The person-centred care intervention consists of 14 components reflecting the activities of expanded practice nurses within the interprofessional team on the intervention wards. The intervention will be implemented over a six-month period and compared with optimised care on the control wards. We will include people aged 65 years and older with existing cognitive impairment and/or at risk of delirium. The estimated sample size is 720 participants. The primary outcome is length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes include prevalence of delirium, prevalence of agitation, sleep quality, and person-centred care. We will collect patient level data at six time points (t1 admission, t2 day 3, t3 day 7, t4 day 14, t5 discharge, t6 30 days after discharge). For secondary outcomes at staff level, we will collect data before and after the intervention period. The process evaluation will examine degree and quality of implementation, mechanisms of change, and the context of the complex intervention. The economic evaluation will focus on costs from the hospital’s perspective.

Discussion

The ENROLE-acute study will provide insights into the effectiveness and underlying processes of a person-centred care intervention for people with cognitive impairment provided by expanded practice nurses on acute hospitals wards. Results may contribute to intervention refinement and evidence-based decision making.

Trial registration

Current controlled trials: ISRCTN81391868. Date of registration: 12/06/2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN81391868

Background

In 2021, almost half of patients in German hospitals were 65 years and older [1]. Older age is associated with cognitive impairment, with a prevalence among elderly hospital patients ranging from 40 to 67.5% [2, 3]. This mainly includes people living with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and with delirium [3].

Hospitalisation of people with cognitive impairment is associated with several challenges. One challenge is a frequently missing formal diagnosis of cognitive impairment [2, 3], resulting in care that is not tailored to the needs of this vulnerable patient group. An integrative review on hospital outcomes [4] found, that people with cognitive impairment encounter a hospital environment focussed on acute illness rather than their individual needs, as shown by avoidable bed moves, inadequate pain management, inappropriate catheterisation, and poor communication and relationship building with healthcare professionals. Negative experiences are common, frequently leading to feelings of fear and an increase in behavioural and psychological symptoms. In addition, people with cognitive impairment are more likely to encounter a range of related adverse events such as the incidence of delirium, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, pressure ulcers, adverse drug reactions, and falls, that may lead to prolonged hospital stays and increased mortality [4]. Healthcare professionals struggle with the discrepancy between desirable hospital care and the current reality of care for people with cognitive impairment, resulting in distress and frustration, uncertainty in dealing with changed behaviour, conflicting priorities, and the inability to meet individual needs [5].

A key to improve hospital care for people with cognitive impairment is the concept of person-centred care (PCC), which has been recommended in guidelines [6, 7] and by representative organisations [8]. Person-centredness has been applied to different target groups such as people living with dementia [9], different healthcare professionals such as nurses [10], and different care contexts such as hospitals [11]. Despite the widespread use of PCC, there is no consensus on how it is operationalised conceptually. According to a recent scoping review [12], the most common of nine identified dimensions of person-centredness are “perception of the individual as a unique person”, “sharing of responsibility between person and practitioner”, and “formation of a therapeutic relationship". However, the literature indicates a gap between the theoretical concept and practical implementation of PCC in the hospital setting [13]. Reported barriers to provide PCC include lack of knowledge, understanding and training of healthcare professionals [5, 14], ward and institutional cultures, and inappropriate physical environment [5]. To promote PCC in hospitals, change is needed at both institutional and ward levels. Here, leadership of key personnel plays a crucial role, as staff training is not sufficient to implement PCC successfully [15,16,17]. At ward level, so-called change agents with clinical expertise can support staff awareness and initiate change processes in care [17]. This role of a clinical leader reflects one core competence of an Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) [18], a specialised nurse with a master’s degree, possessing expert knowledge, complex decision-making skills, and clinical competencies [19]. APN interventions for older people have shown positive outcomes in primary and long-term care. Evidence for the acute setting shows mixed results [20, 21].

As Germany is at the beginning of establishing APN, Expanded Practice Nurses (EPN) at bachelor’s level are deployed to facilitate the transition to Advanced Practice Nursing [22, 23]. Expanded nursing roles for PCC for people with cognitive impairment in hospitals are rarely described in the literature [24, 25].

The development and implementation of an EPN role is complex as various components and their interactions need to be taken into account. To comprehensively investigate complex interventions, the guidance of the British Medical Research Council (MRC) recommends the evaluation of effects, while considering underlying processes and influencing factors as well as costs [26].

In the ENROLE-acute (Expanded Nursing ROLEs for person-centred care for people with cognitive impairment in ACUTE care) project, we are developing, implementing, and evaluating a complex PCC intervention for people with cognitive impairment, delivered by EPN on peripheral wards in one acute hospital. We hypothesise that by introducing PCC, the individual needs of people with cognitive impairment will be addressed in a timely manner and thus adverse events will be reduced or avoided, leading to a reduction in the length of hospital stay.

Objectives

This study aims to test the feasibility and clinical effectiveness of the newly developed PCC intervention. Therefore, our objectives are to assess (a) initial effects, (b) the degree and quality of implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors, and (c) potential cost savings of the intervention.

Methods / Design

Overall study design

The ENROLE-acute project follows the first and second stage of the MRC guidance [26] for complex interventions, with this study protocol addressing the feasibility stage. Protocol development adheres to the SPIRIT checklist [27] (see Additional file 1).

To examine initial effects of the ENROLE-acute intervention, we will conduct an exploratory non-randomised controlled clinical trial (CCT), comparing the PCC intervention and optimised care as control intervention. The CCT will be accompanied by an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation to explore how and under what circumstances outcomes are achieved. In addition, we will conduct a health economic evaluation. Figure 1 summarises the overall study design.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Participant timeline

Full size image

Setting

We will conduct the study in one university hospital in the western part of Germany. The hospital has about 1,500 beds, with inpatient care provided to 57,900 patients in 2022. According to internal hospital controlling, about 1,500 people with diagnosed cognitive impairment were treated as inpatients in the same year.

The hospital has about 12,000 employees [28]. In recent years, first EPN have been introduced. At present, there are 36 nurses working in expanded roles in wound management, oncology, psychiatry, obstetrics and gynecology, surgery, and cardiology [29, 30].

Intervention

In the first phase of the ENROLE-acute project, we comprehensively developed the complex intervention based on two systematic reviews, two surveys [31], one qualitative interview study, and two workshops with relevant stakeholders from clinical practice, research, and representative organisations of people with cognitive impairment. We will publish details of intervention development elsewhere.

The complex intervention aims to foster PCC for people with cognitive impairment through EPN acting as change agents (see Fig. 2). We defined 14 components reflecting EPN’s role in collaboration with the interprofessional team. The model includes core components that are mandatory (no. 1–12) and peripheral components that are adaptable (no. 13–14) [32]. We differentiate between patient-related and system-related components. Patient-related components are aimed at individual patients and include screening and expanded nursing assessment at patient admission (no. 1–2); planning, conducting, and evaluating PCC interventions in collaboration with registered nurses (no. 3, 4 and 9); and further EPN interventions including case conferences on discharge planning, coaching relatives, and conducting and initiating consultations (no. 5–8). System-related components include EPN interventions at the organisational level, e.g., training interventions for staff, monitoring of change processes, promoting hospital-wide collaboration, conceptual work, and nursing research (no. 10–14).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Intervention components

Full size image

Each intervention ward receives two EPN, qualified at level six of the European Qualifications Framework (bachelor’s degree or equivalent further education) [33]. EPN are integrated into the ward's work schedule and have one day each every two weeks for additional activities.

We developed different implementation strategies to prepare the field. EPN received a 200-h training regarding fundamentals of caring for people with cognitive impairment, principles of PCC, and Advanced Practice Nursing in six modules. In addition, EPN gained knowledge of established expanded nursing models in other hospitals during a 10-day internship. During the intervention period, we accompany the EPN fortnightly in two-hour coaching sessions for reflection and implementation support. We also train the interprofessional team at the beginning of the intervention phase on PCC principles and Advanced Practice Nursing during a one-hour kick-off meeting and through written information.

Team members of control wards provide optimised care with knowledge acquired through a one-time half-hour session and written information on PCC.

Evaluation of effects

Participants

For details on the inclusion criteria of all participants, please see Additional file 2.

Patient level

We defined the following inclusion criteria for potential participants: (1) age of 65 years and older, (2) sufficient knowledge of German language, (3) hospital stay of unclear duration or over 48 h, (4) ability to consent or existence of a legal representative, and (5) present cognitive impairment (e.g., diagnosis of dementia) or risk for cognitive impairment (e.g., risk for delirium) according to predefined criteria.

We will recruit potential participants on six days a week over a time period of six months. Contact persons of the respective wards will inform eligible people with cognitive impairment and, if necessary, their representatives about the study and ask for consent to be approached by the research team for obtaining informed consent.

Staff level

Members of the interprofessional team are registered nurses (European Qualifications Framework level 4), nursing assistants, and physicians of all participating wards. We exclude therapists as well as service and administrative personnel as they do not form the core of the interprofessional team on a ward. We will recruit members of the interprofessional team during kick-off meetings and via superiors.

Cluster level

We will purposefully select six peripheral wards with a prevalence of at least 30 people with cognitive impairment per month according to data from hospital controlling. We will exclude intensive care, intermediate care, psychiatric, palliative, and paediatric wards. Based on the recommendation of nursing management, we will identify eligible wards and recruit them through individual information meetings with ward managers.

Outcomes, data collection and management

For an overview of primary and secondary outcomes, instruments used, data collection time points, and data sources, please see Table 1.

Table 1 Overview of the evaluation of effects
Full size table

Patient level

At patient level, we will collect data at a maximum of six timepoints: t1 (at admission), t2 (at day 3), t3 (at day 7), t4 (at day 14), t5 (at discharge), and t6 (30 days after discharge). We will collect study documentation data (e.g., participant flow) paper-based and outcome data electronically using REDCap®. Trained study staff will accompany people with cognitive impairment for self-rating. Proxy-rating will be carried out by trained study staff or nurses who have been responsible for the participant for at least one shift within the past 24 h. In case of non-participation of people with cognitive impairment in the study, we will document the reason.

Data at patient level will be documented using participant codes. We will keep identification lists and paper-based documents under lock, separate from other study material and only accessible to data collectors. Electronic data will be password-protected and only accessible to the research team. We will automatically carry out a complete backup of the data every day. With the set-up of the database, we have stored definitions (e.g., minimum and maximum) for each value to be entered, which minimises the entry of invalid data. In addition, the biostatistician will perform quality and plausibility checks (data validation).

Staff level

For outcomes at staff level, we will use a paper-based questionnaire at two timepoints: t0 (before intervention phase) and t7 (after six months). We will collect the data pseudonymously and use a self-generated code to allow both sets of data of one participant to be matched over the course of the study. To increase retention, we will use incentives and email reminder to ward managers.

Only data collectors will have access to the paper-based questionnaires, which are kept under lock. We will keep potentially identifying data separate from the rest of the study material. One person will conduct electronic data entry and random samples of the record will be double-checked by another person. In case of discrepancies, the entire data entry will be double-checked.

Assignment of intervention

Allocation of wards as intervention or control ward was based on ward managers’ decision to participate in the intervention. Participants’ assignment will be determined by their wards’ assignment.

Blinding

Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants, EPN providing the intervention, and researchers collecting data is not feasible. However, we will blind the biostatistician during data analyses regarding group allocation of clusters (neutral group IDs) and participating people with cognitive impairment.

Sample size

The sample size is based on a recent retrospective cohort study which investigates the length of hospital stay in older people living with dementia by matching people without dementia in Germany [63]. We assume a mean reduction in the length of hospital stay of three days (intervention vs. control). With a standard deviation of 18 vs. 16 days, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05 [64], and three clusters per treatment group with 120 people with cognitive impairment each, the adjusted two-sample t-test will reach a power of 81.5% at one-sided significance level of 50% [65]. Thus, this exploratory trial will be sufficiently powered to show the hypothesized direction of effect only.

Data analysis

Statistical analysis is according to intention-to-treat (no exclusions). We will evaluate the primary outcome length of hospital stay by the stratified log-rank test (death is censored). Nota bene, the stratified log-rank test has very similar characteristics as the stratified van-Elteren rank-sum test and is available in many (statistical) software packages. We will use a propensity score approach (PSA) to balance individual characteristics between participants in intervention and control groups. In the multivariable logistic regression for PSA, we will use the independent variables age, gender, severity of cognitive impairment, Charlson Comorbidity Index, admission type, expected admission diagnosis-related or ward-related length of stay, and hospitalisations during the last 7 days [66, 67] as these variables are likely to be associated with outcome. Moreover, we will carefully monitor mortality in both arms, although we do not expect any difference. We will evaluate secondary outcome measures by (generalised) mixed models for repeated measures over time. If feasible, we will take outcome measures (particularly those reported by people with cognitive impairment) over the course of hospital stay. Thus, we may need to evaluate the outcome trajectories by random coefficient models. We will categorise and compare safety outcomes by frequency, relatedness, seriousness, and severity. Moreover, we will summarise variables by mean, standard deviation, and percentiles (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100) respectively by absolute and relative frequencies (percentage). Due to the small number of clusters, we will at least account for them in a fixed effect analysis. Though we will attempt to estimate corresponding random effects (e.g., to derive intraclass correlation), this seems prone to bias.

Evaluation of processes

The process evaluation is based on a convergent parallel mixed-methods approach [68]. Theoretical foundations are the MRC guidance for process evaluations of complex interventions [69] and Grant’s framework on process evaluation for cluster-randomised trials [70]. For the design and conduct of the study, we developed a logic model that illustrates expected causal pathways of the ENROLE-acute intervention and potential moderating effects of relevant contextual factors (the logic model will be published as part of the intervention development). We used the logic model’s domains (implementation, mechanisms of change, and context) to organise all process variables in a predefined analysis-plan. Our purpose is that by evaluating processes before, during, and after the intervention period, observed effects can be interpreted in the light of how the complex intervention actually works. For an overview of domains, questions, data collection, participants, and time points, please see Table 2.

Table 2 Overview of the evaluation of processes
Full size table

Participants

We will ask members of the three hospital wards in the ENROLE-acute intervention group to participate in the process evaluation. Target groups of the quantitative and qualitative parts are all EPN, members of the interprofessional team, and ward managers. The qualitative part additionally includes people with cognitive impairment and their relatives as well as members of the hospital’s nursing management and nursing development unit. For the eligibility criteria for each target group, please see Additional file 2.

When selecting participants, we will combine different sampling strategies. For all quantitative parts and the qualitative parts on EPN level, we strive to recruit all members of the relevant target groups. For the remaining explorations, we will form subsamples through purposeful sampling. A predefined sampling plan ensures that different forms of cognitive impairment respectively health professions as well as all three clusters are represented in the sample. The targeted sample size will be guided by reaching data saturation.

For recruitment, we will invite members of the target groups both orally and in writing to participate in the study.

Data collection and management

We will collect both qualitative and quantitative process data on cluster and individual level at five time points: tp0 (before training, internship, and kick-off event), tp1 (after training, internship, and kick-off event), tp2 (start of the intervention period), tp3 (after transfer or discharge of people with cognitive impairment), and tp4 (6 months after start of the intervention period).

The qualitative part of the process evaluation comprises individual (EPN, ward managers, members of the nursing management and the nursing development unit) and dyad interviews (people with cognitive impairment and their relatives) as well as moderated and non-moderated focus groups (EPN, members of the interprofessional team). We will collect data face-to-face, by phone or by web-based video conferencing. Nursing researchers trained in qualitative methodology will guide the data collections. We will audiotape and transcribe interviews and group discussions verbatim.

To collect quantitative data, we will use paper-based questionnaires (EPN, members of the interprofessional team, ward managers) and reflection forms (EPN, members of the interprofessional team). A self-generated identification code will allow us to link participants’ data over time. To increase retention, we will use incentives and email reminder. After data entry, we will perform quality and plausibility checks.

For collecting quantitative and qualitative data, we refer to pre-existing and approved instruments. Only if this is not possible, we will use self-developed instruments. We conduct pretests of all instruments to be used.

In addition, we will gather different process documents and materials (e. g., structured notes on recruitment and retention, protocols and attendance lists, teaching and learning materials, and EPN logbooks).

We will store data both pseudonymously (EPN and ward managers) and anonymously (people with cognitive impairment and their relatives, interprofessional team members, and members of the nursing management and the nursing development unit), while documenting the time point and cluster assignment on data sheets. Data protection follows current data protection laws. We will keep paper-based documents under lock. Electronic data will be password-protected. We will store potentially identifying data separate from the rest of the study material. Data will only be accessible to the research team.

Data analysis

For analysing the process data, we will use a stepwise approach. First, we will analyse qualitative and quantitative data separately. Subsequently, we will merge data during the interpretation of the results.

For analysing the qualitative data (interviews and focus groups), we will conduct a thematic framework analysis [71] with a deductive-inductive approach based on the logic model. Furthermore, we will use a qualitative content analysis [72] applying a deductive-inductive approach to review the structured process documents and materials as well as open-ended questions in the questionnaires. We will conduct all qualitative analyses in the software MAXQDA [73]. To promote credibility, two persons will analyse data and discuss findings within the research team.

We will analyse quantitative data (questionnaires and reflection forms) by means of descriptive statistics (frequency, distributional location, and spread) using the software IBM SPSS Statistics [74].

We will combine qualitative and quantitative findings regarding key process variables and outcomes incorporated in our logic model.

Economic evaluation

We will perform a cost-consequence analysis from the hospital perspective [75].

Data collection and management

We will use claims data from the hospital to determine the potential cost savings of the intervention. These will be available at the hospital controlling department. This data includes Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) charges, length of hospital stay, cost weight, gender, and primary and secondary International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) diagnoses. The data will be delivered pseudonymously to the evaluators via a secure data exchange platform. In addition, we will collect training costs consisting of salaries of the nursing staff, the costs of the lecturers as well as material costs for premises, catering and travel costs.

Data analysis

In the cost-consequence analysis, we will compare the intervention group with the control group in terms of total inpatient costs, length of hospital stay, and cost weight. We will add the intervention costs (e.g., training costs) to the DRG charges of the intervention group. We will analyse differences (possibly after log-transformation) between the mean total costs using a t-test. In addition, we will perform additional analyses according to gender, age groups, and cost weight using t-test, Mann–Whitney-U-test, and other statistical tests. The analysis will be performed with IBM SPSS [74] and Microsoft Access.

Dissemination

We will publish main study results in international, peer reviewed journals. In addition, we will present our results at relevant scientific conferences and meetings. We will report the results based on this study protocol as well as the recommendations of current reporting guidelines. Main study information (e.g., intervention material and results) will be freely available at our project website (https://www.enrole-acute.uni-koeln.de/).

We will share authorship between persons involved in the study following the current guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Persons not directly involved in the study will not be granted authorship.

Discussion

Complex interventions are considered most promising in promoting PCC [76]. The ENROLE-acute intervention builds on implementing an expanded nursing role as a core element to enhance PCC for people with cognitive impairment in acute care. Intervention development and testing are theory-based and follow recent guidance [26, 69]. The planned exploratory CCT will provide insights into the intervention’s initial effects, with the primary outcome focusing on patient length of hospital stay. Since there is a lack of high-quality studies to evaluate PCC interventions for people with cognitive impairment using expanded nursing roles in acute care, our study will provide important evidence. With the accompanying mixed-methods process evaluation, we will additionally examine the intervention’s implementation, mechanisms of change, and contextual factors. Analysing these underlying processes will lead to more transparency in trial results and a comprehensive understanding of how and under what circumstances the intervention will actually work. The additional economic analysis will increase our knowledge regarding the costs of the intervention.

However, some limitations of the study must be considered. Due to practical reasons, randomisation of the clusters will not be feasible. This may lead to differences between the groups at baseline resulting in a high risk of selection bias. However, we will consider these differences in the statistical analyses. Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and researchers during the study period will also not be possible. The knowledge of the group allocation might affect both the participants’ answers and data collection by researchers. At least the statistician will be blinded during data analysis. Finally, staff turnover during the six-month intervention period might result in differences between staff participating in the data collection at baseline and follow-up.

Despite the limitations, the study results will support the future development and implementation of new as well as the optimisation of existing PCC interventions based on expanded nursing roles. Our implications can particularly inform evidence-based decision making at the management and policy level. Additionally, our results will provide valuable information for planning and conducting large-scale trials as claimed in the third and fourth stage of the MRC guidance [26].

Availability of data and materials

Some of the datasets generated and analysed during the current study will be available from the last author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

APN:

Advanced Practice Nurse

CCT:

Controlled clinical trial

ENROLE-acute:

Expanded Nursing ROLEs for person-centred care for people with cognitive impairment in ACUTE care

EPN:

Expanded Practice Nurse

DRG:

Diagnosis Related Groups

ICD:

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems

MRC:

British Medical Research Council

PCC:

Person-centred care

PSA:

Propensity score approach

References

  1. Bundesamt für Statistik: Eckdaten der Krankenhauspatientinnen und -patienten. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Krankenhaeuser/Tabellen/entlassene-patienten-eckdaten.html (2021). Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  2. Kracht F, Boekholt M, Schumacher-Schönert F, Nikelski A, Chikhradze N, Lücker P, et al. Describing people with cognitive impairment and their complex treatment needs during routine care in the hospital – cross-sectional results of the intersec-CM study. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bickel H, Hendlmeier I, Heßler JB, Junge MN, Leonhardt-Achilles S, Weber J, et al. The prevalence of dementia and cognitive impairment in hospitals. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(44):733–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Fogg C, Griffiths P, Meredith P, Bridges J. Hospital outcomes of older people with cognitive impairment: an integrative review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33(9):1177–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gwernan-Jones R, Abbott R, Lourida I, Rogers M, Green C, Ball S, et al. The experiences of hospital staff who provide care for people living with dementia: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Older People Nurs. 2020;15(4): e12325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers. 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng97/resources/dementia-assessment-management-and-support-for-people-living-with-dementia-and-their-carers-pdf-1837760199109 . Accessed 7 Nov 2023.

  7. Deutsches Netzwerk für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Pflege. Expertenstandard Beziehungsgestaltung in der Pflege von Menschen mit Demenz. 2019. https://www.dnqp.de/expertenstandards-und-auditinstrumente/#c4624162. Accessed 10 Dec 2023.

  8. Fazio S, Pace D, Maslow K, Zimmerman S, Kallmyer B. Alzheimer’s association dementia care practice recommendations. Gerontologist. 2018;58:S1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kitwood T. Dementia reconsidered: The person comes first. London: Open University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred practice in nursing and health care: theory and practice. Hoboken: Wiley; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Janerka C, Leslie GD, Gill FJ. Development of patient-centred care in acute hospital settings: a meta-narrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2023;140: 104465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sturgiss EA, Peart A, Richard L, Ball L, Hunik L, Chai TL, et al. Who is at the centre of what? A scoping review of the conceptualisation of ‘centredness’ in healthcare. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5): e059400.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Turner A, Eccles FJR, Elvish R, Simpson J, Keady J. The experience of caring for patients with dementia within a general hospital setting: a meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(1):66–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Røsvik J, Rokstad AMM. What are the needs of people with dementia in acute hospital settings, and what interventions are made to meet these needs? A systematic integrative review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):723.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: a conceptual framework. Health Expect. 2018;21(2):429–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sanatinia R, Crawford MJ, Quirk A, Hood C, Gordon F, Crome P, et al. Health services and delivery research. identifying features associated with higher-quality hospital care and shorter length of admission for people with dementia: a mixed-methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Handley M, Bunn F, Goodman C. Dementia-friendly interventions to improve the care of people living with dementia admitted to hospitals: a realist review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(7): e015257.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tracy MF, O’Grady ET, Phillips SJ. Advanced practice nursing: an integrative approach. 7th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  19. ICN. Guidelines on Advanced Practice Nursing. International Council of Nurses. 2020. https://www.icn.ch/system/files/documents/2020-04/ICN_APN%20Report_EN_WEB.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  20. Morilla-Herrera JC, Garcia-Mayor S, Martín-Santos FJ, Kaknani Uttumchandani S, Leon Campos Á, Caro Bautista J, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness and roles of advanced practice nursing in older people. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;53:290–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chavez KS, Dwyer AA, Ramelet A-S. International practice settings, interventions and outcomes of nurse practitioners in geriatric care: a scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;78:61–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Beil-Hildebrand MB, Smith HB. Comparative analysis of advanced practice nursing: contextual and historical influences in North American and German-Speaking European Countries. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2022;23(3):162–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Maier CB, Aiken LH, Busse R. Nurses in advanced roles in primary care: Policy levers for implementation. 2017. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/nurses-in-advanced-roles-in-primary-care_a8756593-en. Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  24. Schindel Martin L, Gillies L, Coker E, Pizzacalla A, Montemuro M, Suva G, et al. An education intervention to enhance staff self-efficacy to provide dementia care in an acute care hospital in Canada. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2016;31(8):664–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Yevchak A, Fick DM, Kolanowski AM, McDowell J, Monroe T, LeViere A, et al. Implementing nurse-facilitated person-centered care approaches for patients with delirium superimposed on dementia in the acute care setting. J Gerontol Nurs. 2017;43(12):21–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374: n2061.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Uniklinik Köln. Jahresabschluss 2021. https://webstatic.uk-koeln.de/im/dwn/pboxx-pixelboxx-246336/jahresabschluss-2021.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  29. Uniklinik Köln: Pflege. https://www.uk-koeln.de/patienten-besucher/pflege/ (2023a). Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  30. Uniklinik Köln: Pflegerische Experten. https://www.uk-koeln.de/patienten-besucher/pflege/pflegerische-experten/ (2023b). Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  31. von der Lühe V, Roos M, Adams A, Scholten N, Köpke S, Dichter MN. Evolution of advanced practice nursing in acute care in Germany: a cross-sectional study of nurses’ scope of practice. Int Nurs Rev. 2023;0:0.

  32. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. European Union. Description of the eight EQF levels. https://europa.eu/europass/en/description-eight-eqf-levels. Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  34. Huntley DA, Cho DW, Christman J, Csernansky JG. Predicting length of stay in an acute psychiatric hospital. Psychiatr Serv. 1998;49(8):1049–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hestermann U, Backenstrass M, Gekle I, Hack M, Mundt C, Oster P, et al. Validation of a German version of the confusion assessment method for delirium detection in a sample of acute geriatric patients with a high prevalence of dementia. Psychopathology. 2009;42(4):270–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Inouye SK. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM): Training Manual and Coding Guide. 2003. https://americandeliriumsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CAM-Long_Training-Manual.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2023.

  38. Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, Schmitt EM, Puelle MR, Saczynski JS, et al. The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(8):526–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Meagher D, Adamis D, Leonard M, Trzepacz P, Grover S, Jabbar F, et al. Development of an abbreviated version of the delirium motor subtyping scale (DMSS-4). Int Psychogeriatr. 2014;26(4):693–702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Garcia Nuñez D, Boettger S, Meyer R, Richter A, Schubert M, Meagher D, et al. Validation and psychometric properties of the German version of the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS). Assessment. 2019;26(8):1573–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lukas A, Niederecker T, Günther I, Mayer B, Nikolaus T. Self- and proxy report for the assessment of pain in patients with and without cognitive impairment. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;46(3):214–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Basler HD, Hüger D, Kunz R, Luckmann J, Lukas A, Nikolaus T, et al. Beurteilung von Schmerz bei Demenz (BESD): Untersuchung zur Validität eines Verfahrens zur Beobachtung des Schmerzverhaltens. Schmerz. 2006;20(6):519–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Warden V, Hurley AC, Volicer L. Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) Scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2003;4(1):9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zwakhalen SMG, van der Steen JT, Najim MD. Which score most likely represents pain on the observational PAINAD pain scale for patients with dementia? J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(4):384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kupeli N, Vickerstaff V, White N, Lord K, Scott S, Jones L, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the cohen-mansfield agitation inventory in an acute general hospital setting. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33(1):e158–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hülser K. Klinische Diagnostik im Rahmen der Qualitätssicherung [diploma thesis]. Bochum: Ruhr Universität; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nilges P, Essau C. DASS. Depressions-Angst-Stress-Skalen - deutschsprachige Kurzfassung. 2021. https://www.psycharchives.org/en/item/5bcda8ff-b672-43e3-a6e8-6cbc598bf37e. Accessed 7 Nov 2023.

  48. Richards KC, O’Sullivan PS, Phillips RL. Measurement of sleep in critically ill patients. J Nurs Meas. 2000;8(2):131–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Krotsetis S, Richards KC, Behncke A, Köpke S. The reliability of the German version of the Richards Campbell sleep questionnaire. Nurs Crit Care. 2017;22(4):247–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. epa-CC GmbH. epa-AC. https://www.epa-cc.de/impressum/ (2021). Accessed 07 Nov 2023.

  51. Dichter MN, Roos M, Trigg R, Laporte Uribe F, Dreyer J, Halek M. Bath. Erhebungsinstrument der Subjektiven Lebensqualität bei Demenz (BASQID). Benutzerhandbuch für die deutschsprachige Version 1.0: Anleitung für Nutzerinnen und Nutzer sowie Eigenschaften des Instruments. 2020. https://www.dzne.de/fileadmin/Dateien/editors/images/Standorte/Witten/Projekte/QoL-Dem/BASQID_Benutzerhandbuch_German_final.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2023.

  52. Trigg R, Skevington SM, Jones RW. How can we best assess the quality of life of people with dementia? The Bath Assessment of Subjective Quality of Life in Dementia (BASQID). Gerontologist. 2007;47(6):789–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dichter MN, Ettema TP, Schwab CGG, Meyer G, Bartholomeyczik S, Halek M. Benutzerhandbuch für die deutschsprachige QUALIDEM Version 2.0. 2016. https://www.dzne.de/forschung/studien/projekte-der-versorgungsforschung/qol-dem/. Accessed 7 Nov 2023.

  54. Ettema TP, Dröes RM, de Lange J, Mellenbergh GJ, Ribbe MW. QUALIDEM: development and evaluation of a dementia specific quality of life instrument. Scalability, reliability and internal structure. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;22(6):549–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Suhonen R, Leino-Kilpi H, Välimäki M. Development and psychometric properties of the Individualized care scale. J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11(1):7–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Köberich S, Suhonen R, Feuchtinger J, Farin E. The German version of the individualized care scale - assessing validity and reliability. Patient Prefer Adher. 2015;9:483–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, Ghali WA. New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1288–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Schmidt SG, Dichter MN, Palm R, Hasselhorn HM. Distress experienced by nurses in response to the challenging behaviour of residents - evidence from German nursing homes. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(21–22):3134–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Slater P, McCance T, McCormack B. The development and testing of the Person-centred Practice Inventory - Staff (PCPI-S). Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(4):541–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. von Dach C, Schlup N, Gschwenter S, McCormack B. German translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Person-Centred Practice Inventory—Staff (PCPI-S). BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Möllers T, Perna L, Ihle P, Schubert I, Bauer J, Brenner H. Factors associated with length of stay in hospital patients with and without dementia. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;67(3):1055–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JA, Burney PG. Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(5):iii–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. Version 16. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kuss O, Blettner M, Börgermann J. Propensity score: an alternative method of analyzing treatment effects. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113(35–36):597–603.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(12):1149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Edmonds WA, Kennedy TD. An applied guide to research designs: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. California: Thousand Oaks; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350: h1258.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14(1):15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In: Bryman A, Burgess R, editors. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  72. Mayring P, Fenzl T. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N, Blasius J, editors. Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien; 2019. p. 633–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. VERBI Software. MAXQDA. Version 2022. Berlin: VERBI Software; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  74. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for windows. Version 27.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, Stergachis A. The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(3):277–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Poitras ME, Maltais ME, Bestard-Denommé L, Stewart M, Fortin M. What are the effective elements in patient-centered and multimorbidity care? A scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):446.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. McKeown J, Clarke A, Ingleton C, Repper J. Actively involving people with dementia in qualitative research. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(13–14):1935–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Dewing J. Participatory research: a method for process consent with persons who have dementia. Dementia. 2007;6(1):11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all people with cognitive impairment as well as their relatives and legal representatives, nurses, nursing managers, physicians, and other stakeholders for participating in the intervention development. We also thank all members of our advisory board who provided helpful advice regarding the intervention development, study design, and field access.

Funding

The study is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant 01GY2005). VL receives personal funding by the HBG Foundation within a PhD student grant. The funding institutions will not interfere with any part of the study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Verena von der Lühe and Marcelina Roos contributed equally to this study protocol.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Nursing Science, Gleueler Straße 176-178, Cologne, Germany

    Verena von der Lühe, Marcelina Roos, Mareike Löbberding, Sascha Köpke & Martin N. Dichter

  2. University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, Chair of Health Services Research, Eupener Straße 129, Cologne, Germany

    Nadine Scholten

  3. University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Robert-Koch-Straße 10, Cologne, Germany

    Wiebke Müller & Martin Hellmich

  4. University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Gleueler Straße 176-178, Cologne, Germany

    Dusan Simic

Authors
  1. Verena von der Lühe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelina Roos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mareike Löbberding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nadine Scholten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wiebke Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin Hellmich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dusan Simic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sascha Köpke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Martin N. Dichter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

VL and MR contributed equally to this study protocol and share first authorship. MND, VL, MR, ML, NS, WM, MH, DS, and SK conceived the study. MND is the principal investigator. VL, MR, and MND designed the effect evaluation. MR, VL, and MND designed the process evaluation. DS designed the economic evaluation. WM and MH planned the statistical analyses. MR, VL, ML, NS, SK, and MND developed the intervention. VL, MR, ML, WM, and MND planned the data management, developed the database and pilot-tested it. VL, MR, and MND drafted the manuscript. All authors read, provided important revisions, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelina Roos.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This project has received ethical approval from the Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Medicine of Cologne University (no. 23-1009_1). We will inform the ethics committee immediately in the case of protocol amendments, serious or unexpected adverse events as well as a premature end of the study. In addition, we will note all changes in the study registration.

We will obtain written informed consent from people with cognitive impairment and/or their legal representatives. Additionally, we will give both oral and written information about the study before data collection. The ability of people with cognitive impairment to remember, to express oneself linguistically, and to relate the diagnosis to one’s own person can vary from person to person and from day to day. Therefore, it must be decided in the context of each data collection and in each individual case in a joint discussion between the responsible registered nurses, physicians, and the research team whether data collection can be conducted. If, however, before or during data collection, verbal or physical evidence suggests that participants feel uncomfortable or show a decreasing interest in the study, we will use an ongoing and here-and-now consent [77] to check whether the initial consent [78] is still given. If this is not the case, the self-rating or interview will not be started or will be terminated directly by mutual agreement. We will give information regarding this procedure before the start of data collection. Participating people with cognitive impairment may withdraw their consent at any time.

EPN, members of the interprofessional team, ward managers, members of the nursing management and the nursing development unit as well as relatives of people with cognitive impairment who meet the inclusion criteria will receive both oral and written information about the study. We will obtain written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

SPIRIT checklist.

Additional file 2.

Eligibility criteria.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

von der Lühe, V., Roos, M., Löbberding, M. et al. Expanded nursing roles to promote person-centred care for people with cognitive impairment in acute care (ENROLE-acute): study protocol for a controlled clinical trial, process and economic evaluation. BMC Geriatr 23, 858 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04560-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04560-3

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us