Evaluating the Implementation of the Individualized Positive Psychosocial Interaction (IPPI) as a Quality Improvement Project in Nursing Homes

12Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: The Individualized Positive Psychosocial Interaction (IPPI) is a non-pharmacological, person-centered, intervention for nursing home (NH) residents living with moderate to severe dementia. The purpose of this study was to assess the pragmatic implementation of the IPPI by leveraging Ohio’s Nursing Home Quality Improvement Program (QIP). Methods: Implementation teams collected resident mood ratings pre- and post-IPPI and completed virtual interviews to assess their Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change as well as the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of the IPPI. Implementation strategies included: providing ongoing consultation; identifying and preparing champions; assessing for readiness and identifying barriers; and developing and distributing effective educational materials. Results: Fifteen NHs completed the QIP (65% completion rate) and reported high organizational commitment to change and high change efficacy. NHs engaged n = 65 residents in n = 638 IPPIs. Residents experienced a positive mood change after 47% of IPPIs. NHs found the IPPI program to be highly acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. Conclusions: Overall, 65% of NHs successfully implemented the IPPI QIP with people living with moderate to severe dementia. Clinical Implications: Given the positive mood changes and high staff satisfaction, results suggest that these brief, individualized activities can be effective strategies to address the communication of distress among PLWD.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kasler, K., Heppner, A., Van Haitsma, K., & Abbott, K. M. (2024). Evaluating the Implementation of the Individualized Positive Psychosocial Interaction (IPPI) as a Quality Improvement Project in Nursing Homes. Clinical Gerontologist, 47(5), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2024.2317403

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free