Table 1

Data extraction table

AuthorAimsStudy designSampleEvaluation toolsOutcomesEvaluation approachNumber of follow-ups—sustainabilitySource of evaluationResults
Mullins and Merriam14Measure impact of training programmeCRCT* with dissimilar levels of knowledge between groups4 nursing homes; 138 qualified and unqualified staffValidated instrument; adapted non-validated instrumentSpecialist knowledge, attitude change, death anxietyPre and post—query immediate?NoneStaffTest group knowledge increased, attitudes were unchanged, anxiety about death increased
Dowding and Homer15Measure impact of workshopUCBA†1 nursing home; 46 unqualified staffCustomised non-validated instrument; informal feedbackTraining satisfactionUnclearNoneEducators and organisationWorkshops were positively evaluated
Froggatt16Measure impact of education projectUCBA† with no baseline data4 nursing homes; 341 qualified and unqualified staffCustomised non-validated instrument; interviews and observationPatient care, training satisfaction, organisational systemPost (no baseline data)Follow-up postal survey after 12 months (end of 2-year project)Organisation, staff, patients and relativesOrganisational practice was changed, but individual practice was unchanged
Thulesius et al17Measure impact of programmeCBA‡2 nursing homes: 185 qualified and unqualified staffValidated instrumentAttitude change, death anxietyPre-test and post-test 1 year apartNoneStaffImproved attitudes towards end-of-life care and staff mental health well-being
Braun and Zir18Not statedUCBA4 nursing homes; 144 qualified and unqualified staffCustomised non-validated instrumentSpecialist knowledge, patient carePre and postNoneStaffSelf-rated knowledge increased after intervention
Parks et al19Measure impact of educational programmeUCBA with 12-month follow-up1 nursing home; 32 unqualified nurses, social workers and support staffCustomised non-validated instrumentSpecialist knowledge, attitude change, staff confidencePre course. Immediate post course1-year follow-up with same questionnaireStaffImproved knowledge and attitudes to end-of-life care
Easom et al20Measure impact of educational sessionsUCBANumber of nursing homes not disclosed; 9 nursing staffAdapted non-validated instrumentSpecialist knowledge and attitudesPre course. Immediate post courseNoneStaffThe course was positively evaluated and there was change in attitude to what constitutes ‘good death’
Knight et al21Assess impact of integrated care pathwayUCBA29 care homes; 320 nursing staffCustomised non-validated instrument; audit of case notesPatient careUnclearNoneStaffStaff perceptions at care was good, but this result was not corroborated by case note audit
Waldron et al22Assess impact of courseUCBANumber of nursing homes not disclosed; 30 nursing staffAdapted non-validated instrumentTraining satisfaction, specialist knowledgeUnclearNoneStaffThe course was well evaluated, but 83% staff had not cascaded education because of time pressures
Badger et al23Evaluation of gold standards frameworkUCBA95 nursing homes; number of staff unclearAudit of case notesPatient careUnclearNoneUnclearStatistically significant result
Arcand et al24Assess family satisfactionUCBA1 nursing home; number of staff unclearValidated instrumentsFamily satisfaction with carePre–postPost-intervention evaluation at 7 monthsRelativesNo significant difference
Dryden and Addicott25Measure impact of study dayUCBANumber of nursing homes not disclosed; 52 unqualified nurses and social workersCustomised non-validated instrument; interviewsKnowledge, staff confidence, training satisfactionPre and post—immediateTelephone follow-up interview—6 weeks post-interventionStaffSelf-reported knowledge and confidence increased, level of satisfaction with the study day was high
Hockley et al26Evaluate impact of two end-of-life packagesUCBA7 nursing homes; staff not disclosedAudit of case notes; interviewsPatient careUnclearNoneStaff, relativesImprovement in all outcome measures
Raunkiaen and Timm27Improving staff and organisational competenciesUnclearNumber of nursing homes not disclosed; 22 nursing staffFocus groupsSpecialist knowledgeUnclearNoneStaff and educatorsCompetencies in palliative care were reported to have increased and there was improvement in organisational purpose (not defined)
Gatchell et al28Increased use of care conceptsUCBA5 nursing homes; 124 qualified and unqualified nursing home staffCustomised non-validated instrumentPatient careImmediate post every sessionNoneStaffApplication of palliative care concepts increased and was better for staff attending three or more of a total of six sessions
Letizia and Jones29Evaluate an educational programmeUCBANumber of nursing homes not disclosed; 107 nursing staffAdapted validated instrumentKnowledge, staff confidence, training satisfactionPre and postNoneStaffKnowledge and confidence increased, self-reported changes in practice were documented, the programme was well evaluated
Finucane et al30Follow-up of Hockley et al26Follow-up of Hockley et al267 nursing homes; 20 qualified and unqualified staff including managers, GPs and support staffAudit of case notesPatient careThroughout interventionNoneUnclearQuality of care on all outcome measures declined
Lee et al31Impact of educational programmeUCBANumber of nursing homes not disclosed; 660 nursing staffCustomised non-validated instrumentSpecialist knowledge, attitude changePre and postNoneStaffKnowledge improved
Pitman32Measure impact of self-learning packageUCBA3 nursing homes; 33 nursing staffValidated instrumentKnowledge confidencePre and post6-Month postal follow-upStaffKnowledge and confidence increased
Augustsson et al33Evaluate workplace learning interventionUCBA with three follow-ups20 nursing homes; 240 support staffValidated instrumentStaff satisfaction, organisational systemPre and postQuestionnaires 6 and 12 months. Interview at 14 monthsStaff and organisationMixed results. No direct impact on end-of-life care measured
Farrington34Assess impact of an interventionUCBA1 nursing home; 21 unqualified nurses, clerical and support staffValidated instrument; audit of case notes, interviews and observationKnowledge, staff confidence, patient carePre and postNoneStaff, relatives and organisationConfidence and self-reported practice improved: advance care planning, anticipatory care and communication. It was not possible to assess changes in death in preferred place
  • *Cluster randomised control trial.

  • †Uncontrolled before and after study.

  • ‡Controlled before and after.