IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v31y2022i1p5-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing the InterRAI Assessment Tool in Care Planning Processes for Long-Term Residents: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Iduye
  • Tracie Risling
  • Shelley McKibbon
  • Damilola Iduye

Abstract

The aim of this review was to chart and report on existing literature that discusses how the interRAI assessment tool drives care-planning processes for residents in long-term-care settings. This scoping review was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. Relevant studies were obtained from databases search of CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Database (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest). Of the 17 included studies, five (29.4%) addressed interRAI’s minimum dataset component as a clinical data-collection tool; five (29.4%) addressed interRAI’s assessment scales and its clinical-assessment protocols as viable health-assessment tools; four (23.5%) considered interRAI’s assessment scales in terms of whether this tool is capable of predicting residents’ health risks; one (5.9%) addressed the effects of interRAI’s care plans on residents’ health outcomes; and the remaining two studies (11.8%) used interRAI’s quality-indicator function for both the performance of and improvements in the quality of care. The scoping review finds that there is no substantial evidence that supports the implementation of interRAI care plans for consistent health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Iduye & Tracie Risling & Shelley McKibbon & Damilola Iduye, 2022. "Optimizing the InterRAI Assessment Tool in Care Planning Processes for Long-Term Residents: A Scoping Review," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 31(1), pages 5-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:31:y:2022:i:1:p:5-19
    DOI: 10.1177/10547738211020373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10547738211020373
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10547738211020373?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:31:y:2022:i:1:p:5-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.