Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study
Authors: Spilsbury Karen , Charlwood Andy , Thompson Carl , Haunch Kirsty , Valizade Danat , Devi Reena , Jackson Cornell , Alldred David Phillip , Arthur Antony , Brown Lucy , Edwards Paul , Fenton Will , Gage Heather , Glover Matthew , Hanratty Barbara , Meyer Julienne , Waton Aileen 
Published: April 2024

Background

Quality of life and care varies between and within the care homes in which almost half a million older people live and over half a million direct care staff (registered nurses and care assistants) work. The reasons are complex, understudied and sometimes oversimplified, but staff and their work are a significant influence.

Objective(s)

To explore variations in the care home nursing and support workforce; how resident and relatives’ needs in care homes are linked to care home staffing; how different staffing models impact on care quality, outcomes and costs; how workforce numbers, skill mix and stability meet residents’ needs; the contributions of the care home workforce to enhancing quality of care; staff relationships as a platform for implementation by providers.

Design

Mixed-method (QUAL-QUANT) parallel design with five work packages. WP1 – two evidence syntheses (one realist); WP2 – cross-sectional survey of routine staffing and rated quality from care home regulator; WP3 – analysis of longitudinal data from a corporate provider of staffing characteristics and quality indicators, including safety; WP4 – secondary analysis of care home regulator reports; WP5 – social network analysis of networks likely to influence quality innovation. We expressed our synthesised findings as a logic model.

Setting

English care homes, with and without nursing, with various ownership structures, size and location, with varying quality ratings.

Participants

Managers, residents, families and care home staff.

Findings

Staffing’s contribution to quality and personalised care requires: managerial and staff stability and consistency; sufficient staff to develop ‘familial’ relationships between staff and residents, and staff–staff reciprocity, ‘knowing’ residents, and skills and competence training beyond induction; supported, well-led staff seeing modelled behaviours from supervisors; autonomy to act.

Outcome measures that capture the relationship between staffing and quality include: the extent to which resident needs and preferences are met and culturally appropriate; resident and family satisfaction; extent of residents living with purpose; safe care (including clinical outcomes); staff well-being and job satisfaction were important, but underacknowledged.

Limitations

Many of our findings stem from self-reported and routine data with known biases – such as under reporting of adverse incidents; our analysis may reflect these biases. COVID-19 required adapting our original protocol to make it feasible. Consequently, the effects of the pandemic are reflected in our research methods and findings. Our findings are based on data from a single care home operator and so may not be generalised to the wider population of care homes.

Conclusions

Innovative and multiple methods and theory can successfully highlight the nuanced relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Modifiable characteristics such as visible philosophies of care and high-quality training, reinforced by behavioural and relational role modelling by leaders can make the difference when sufficient amounts of consistent staff are employed. Greater staffing capacity alone is unlikely to enhance quality in a cost-effective manner. Social network analysis can help identify the right people to aid adoption and spread of quality and innovation. Future research should focus on richer, iterative, evaluative testing and development of our logic model using theoretically and empirically defensible – rather than available – inputs and outcomes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021241066 and Research Registry registration: 1062.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/144/29) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.