The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Implementing the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) programme in acute hospital settings: a pilot RCT and feasibility study

Implementing the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) programme in acute hospital settings: a pilot RCT and feasibility study
Implementing the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) programme in acute hospital settings: a pilot RCT and feasibility study
Background:
Concerns about the degree of compassion in health care have become a focus for national and international attention. However, existing research on compassionate care interventions provides scant evidence of effectiveness or the contexts in which effectiveness is achievable.

Objectives:
To assess the feasibility of implementing the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) programme in acute hospital settings and to evaluate its impact on patient care.

Design:
Pilot cluster randomised trial (CRT) and associated process and economic evaluations.

Setting:
Six inpatient ward nursing teams (clusters) in two English NHS hospitals randomised to intervention (n = 4) or control (n = 2).

Participants:
Patients (n = 639), staff (n = 211) and visitors (n = 188).

Intervention:
CLECC is a workplace educational intervention focused on developing sustainable leadership and work team practices (dialogue, reflective learning, mutual support) theorised to support the delivery of compassionate care. The control setting involved no planned staff team-based educational activity.

Main outcome measures:
Quality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) for staff–patient interactions, patient-reported evaluations of emotional care in hospital (PEECH) and nurse-reported empathy (as assessed via the Jefferson Scale of Empathy).

Data sources:
Structured observations of staff–patient interactions; patient, visitor and staff questionnaires and qualitative interviews; and qualitative observations of CLECC activities.

Results:
The pilot CRT proceeded as planned and randomisation was acceptable to teams. There was evidence of potential contamination between wards in the same hospital. QuIS performed well, achieving a 93% recruitment rate, with 25% of the patient sample cognitively impaired. At follow-up there were more positive (78% vs. 74%) and fewer negative (8% vs. 11%) QuIS ratings for intervention wards than for control wards. In total, 63% of intervention ward patients achieved the lowest possible (i.e. more negative) scores on the PEECH connection subscale, compared with 79% of control group patients. These differences, although supported by the qualitative findings, are not statistically significant. No statistically significant differences in nursing empathy were observed, although response rates to staff questionnaire were low (36%). Process evaluation: the CLECC intervention is feasible to implement in practice with medical and surgical nursing teams in acute care hospitals. Strong evidence of good staff participation was found in some CLECC activities and staff reported benefits throughout its introductory period and beyond. Further impact and sustainability were limited by the focus on changing ward team behaviours rather than wider system restructuring. Economic evaluation: the costs associated with using CLECC were identified and it is recommend that an impact inventory be used in any future study.

Limitations:
Findings are not generalisable outside hospital nursing teams, and this feasibility work is not powered to detect differences attributable to the CLECC intervention.

Conclusions:
Use of the experimental methods is feasible. The use of structured observation of staff–patient interaction quality is a promising primary outcome that is inclusive of patient groups often excluded from research, but further validation is required. Further development of the CLECC intervention should focus on ensuring that it is adequately supported by resources, norms and relationships in the wider system by, for instance, improving the cognitive participation of senior nurse managers. Funding is being sought for a more definitive evaluation.

Trial registration:
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16789770.

Funding:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The systematic review reported in Chapter 2 was funded by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Wessex, the University of Örebro and the Karolinska Institutet.
2050-4349
1-166
Bridges, Jackie
57e80ebe-ee5f-4219-9bbc-43215e8363cd
Pickering, Ruth M.
4a828314-7ddf-4f96-abed-3407017d4c90
Barker, Hannah
d6a8b75f-432e-4825-ba6c-2db7a0e381c2
Chable, Rosemary
3ef572e0-ac7d-4f88-96ed-87b24478ba22
Fuller, Alison
0b5ba9fd-c1af-448d-8dba-c5dfaa515702
Gould, Lisa
363cc1b3-078d-48eb-a164-feee7dcd9246
Libberton, Paula
d6c21e87-26b1-4842-bb74-d897de7dba14
Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ines
581065b0-e101-454a-9954-366ce8b9a00e
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Aihie Sayer, Avan
fb4c2053-6d51-4fc1-9489-c3cb431b0ffb
Westwood, Greta
473889ae-57b2-49bd-a77e-fc1330a036b0
Wigley, Wendy
bb0682f2-e95c-4e15-8a26-5d2b0665ebf7
Yao, Guiqing
d777f84c-cf3d-4fad-bbc1-ea01dec01695
Zhu, Shihua
13511f9c-151c-483c-9dfd-2da13421db5c
Griffiths, Peter
ac7afec1-7d72-4b83-b016-3a43e245265b
Bridges, Jackie
57e80ebe-ee5f-4219-9bbc-43215e8363cd
Pickering, Ruth M.
4a828314-7ddf-4f96-abed-3407017d4c90
Barker, Hannah
d6a8b75f-432e-4825-ba6c-2db7a0e381c2
Chable, Rosemary
3ef572e0-ac7d-4f88-96ed-87b24478ba22
Fuller, Alison
0b5ba9fd-c1af-448d-8dba-c5dfaa515702
Gould, Lisa
363cc1b3-078d-48eb-a164-feee7dcd9246
Libberton, Paula
d6c21e87-26b1-4842-bb74-d897de7dba14
Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ines
581065b0-e101-454a-9954-366ce8b9a00e
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Aihie Sayer, Avan
fb4c2053-6d51-4fc1-9489-c3cb431b0ffb
Westwood, Greta
473889ae-57b2-49bd-a77e-fc1330a036b0
Wigley, Wendy
bb0682f2-e95c-4e15-8a26-5d2b0665ebf7
Yao, Guiqing
d777f84c-cf3d-4fad-bbc1-ea01dec01695
Zhu, Shihua
13511f9c-151c-483c-9dfd-2da13421db5c
Griffiths, Peter
ac7afec1-7d72-4b83-b016-3a43e245265b

Bridges, Jackie, Pickering, Ruth M., Barker, Hannah, Chable, Rosemary, Fuller, Alison, Gould, Lisa, Libberton, Paula, Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ines, Raftery, James, Aihie Sayer, Avan, Westwood, Greta, Wigley, Wendy, Yao, Guiqing, Zhu, Shihua and Griffiths, Peter (2018) Implementing the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) programme in acute hospital settings: a pilot RCT and feasibility study. Health Services and Delivery Research, 6 (33), 1-166. (doi:10.3310/hsdr06330).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background:
Concerns about the degree of compassion in health care have become a focus for national and international attention. However, existing research on compassionate care interventions provides scant evidence of effectiveness or the contexts in which effectiveness is achievable.

Objectives:
To assess the feasibility of implementing the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) programme in acute hospital settings and to evaluate its impact on patient care.

Design:
Pilot cluster randomised trial (CRT) and associated process and economic evaluations.

Setting:
Six inpatient ward nursing teams (clusters) in two English NHS hospitals randomised to intervention (n = 4) or control (n = 2).

Participants:
Patients (n = 639), staff (n = 211) and visitors (n = 188).

Intervention:
CLECC is a workplace educational intervention focused on developing sustainable leadership and work team practices (dialogue, reflective learning, mutual support) theorised to support the delivery of compassionate care. The control setting involved no planned staff team-based educational activity.

Main outcome measures:
Quality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) for staff–patient interactions, patient-reported evaluations of emotional care in hospital (PEECH) and nurse-reported empathy (as assessed via the Jefferson Scale of Empathy).

Data sources:
Structured observations of staff–patient interactions; patient, visitor and staff questionnaires and qualitative interviews; and qualitative observations of CLECC activities.

Results:
The pilot CRT proceeded as planned and randomisation was acceptable to teams. There was evidence of potential contamination between wards in the same hospital. QuIS performed well, achieving a 93% recruitment rate, with 25% of the patient sample cognitively impaired. At follow-up there were more positive (78% vs. 74%) and fewer negative (8% vs. 11%) QuIS ratings for intervention wards than for control wards. In total, 63% of intervention ward patients achieved the lowest possible (i.e. more negative) scores on the PEECH connection subscale, compared with 79% of control group patients. These differences, although supported by the qualitative findings, are not statistically significant. No statistically significant differences in nursing empathy were observed, although response rates to staff questionnaire were low (36%). Process evaluation: the CLECC intervention is feasible to implement in practice with medical and surgical nursing teams in acute care hospitals. Strong evidence of good staff participation was found in some CLECC activities and staff reported benefits throughout its introductory period and beyond. Further impact and sustainability were limited by the focus on changing ward team behaviours rather than wider system restructuring. Economic evaluation: the costs associated with using CLECC were identified and it is recommend that an impact inventory be used in any future study.

Limitations:
Findings are not generalisable outside hospital nursing teams, and this feasibility work is not powered to detect differences attributable to the CLECC intervention.

Conclusions:
Use of the experimental methods is feasible. The use of structured observation of staff–patient interaction quality is a promising primary outcome that is inclusive of patient groups often excluded from research, but further validation is required. Further development of the CLECC intervention should focus on ensuring that it is adequately supported by resources, norms and relationships in the wider system by, for instance, improving the cognitive participation of senior nurse managers. Funding is being sought for a more definitive evaluation.

Trial registration:
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16789770.

Funding:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The systematic review reported in Chapter 2 was funded by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Wessex, the University of Örebro and the Karolinska Institutet.

Text
Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC): a feasibility study - Accepted Manuscript
Download (3MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 28 November 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 1 September 2018
Published date: September 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 416200
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/416200
ISSN: 2050-4349
PURE UUID: d7568c0d-f7e4-4565-ad55-f9a2b2432a7c
ORCID for Jackie Bridges: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6776-736X
ORCID for Peter Griffiths: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-2857

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Dec 2017 17:30
Last modified: 18 Feb 2021 17:17

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Jackie Bridges ORCID iD
Author: Hannah Barker
Author: Rosemary Chable
Author: Alison Fuller
Author: Lisa Gould
Author: Paula Libberton
Author: Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray
Author: James Raftery
Author: Avan Aihie Sayer
Author: Greta Westwood
Author: Wendy Wigley
Author: Guiqing Yao
Author: Shihua Zhu
Author: Peter Griffiths ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×