Co-Designing a Model of Brilliant Care for Older People.
Ann Dadich, Rachael Kearns, Ben Harris-Roxas and 18 others
PMID 40748067WHAT IT FOUND
Older people, carers and staff prioritised protecting time, showing everyone matters, role flexibility, curiosity, small improvements and recognising brilliant care.
The model was co-designed, not tested, so it offers principles rather than proof.
Key findings
01Participants prioritised protecting time and demonstrating that everyone matters as principles to promote connection.
02Participants prioritised role flexibility, curiosity, small improvements, and performance assessment systems that recognise brilliant practices as principles to promote innovation.
03Participants identified risk aversion, limited personal agency, impersonal care, and low morale as challenges to brilliant care for older people.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 13 participants were involved, and 10 to 12 attended each workshop, so the findings are not broadly transferable. Participants had to be conversant in English and use web-conferencing, so people who do not use English or online meetings may be under-represented. The study was cross-sectional and relied on self-reported views in a period shaped by the pandemic and the Australian Royal Commission, so context may have influenced responses. A different co-design process or different participants might have produced a different model. Participants were recruited in Australia, so the model may not transfer directly to other countries. The model has not been tested, so it does not show that these principles improve care.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by Maridulu Budyari Gumal, the Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise (SPHERE).
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that the model improves care for older people. It was co-designed from stakeholder views and has not been tested.