Development and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Mealtime Scan for Long-Term Care

Keller, Heather; Chaudhury, Habib; Pfisterer, Kaylen J.; Slaughter, Sarah

doi:10.1093/geront/gnw264

Cited by 24 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To understand impact of CHOICE on mealtime processes and interactions among residents and team members, several mealtime observations were conducted every two months using a standardized tool. Mealtime audits were completed with the Mealtime Scan [MTS] [ 25 ]. This observational tool is a construct valid and reliable assessment that measures the psychosocial environment, as well as physical aspects of a dining environment that impact the mealtime experience [ 25 , 26 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mealtime audits were completed with the Mealtime Scan [MTS] [ 25 ]. This observational tool is a construct valid and reliable assessment that measures the psychosocial environment, as well as physical aspects of a dining environment that impact the mealtime experience [ 25 , 26 ]. Observations are conducted at the dining room level, and not at the individual resident level, to attain an overall impression and summary of key aspects of the observed meal.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of this developmental evaluation, a modified version of MTS was trialed to determine its responsiveness to the intervention. Modifications as recommended after extensive use [ 11 , 25 ] included more detailed tracking of social interactions and improved scaling of items (i.e. dichotomous items changed to a 0–4 scale) that are intended to promote responsiveness to change over time.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The physical environment meter (e.g. temperature, sound, humidity, and illumination) was removed from the original tool, as the protocol to collect these data was potentially disruptive to mealtimes [ 25 ]. In addition to the physical, social and person/relationship-centred summative scales included on the original MTS, a summative scale was also created to capture the overall quality of the dining environment; preliminary data demonstrated good inter-rater reliability of this summative scale (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.76; unpublished).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Maximum score for these four MTS summative scales was 8. Further details on the MTS are described in Keller et al, 2018 [ 25 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mixed methods developmental evaluation of the CHOICE program: a relationship-centred mealtime intervention for long-term care

Morrison

Dunn-Ridgeway

et al. 2018

BMC Geriatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMealtimes are important to quality of life for residents in long-term care (LTC). CHOICE (which stands for Connecting, Honouring dignity, Offering support, supporting Identity, Creating opportunities, and Enjoyment) is a multi-component intervention to improve relationship-centred care (RCC) and overall mealtime experience for residents. The objective of this developmental evaluation was to determine: a) if the dining experience (e.g. physical, social and RCC practices) could be modified with the CHOICE Program, and b) how program components needed to be adapted and/or if new components were required.MethodsA mixed methods study conducted between April–November 2016 included two home areas (64 residents; 25 care staff/home management) within a single LTC home in Ontario. Mealtime Scan (MTS), which measures mealtime experience at the level of the dining room, was used to evaluate the effectiveness of CHOICE implementation at four time points. Change in physical, social, RCC dining environment ratings and overall quality of the mealtime experience over time was determined with linear mixed-effects analyses (i.e., repeated measures). Semi-structured interviews (n = 9) were conducted with home staff to identify what components of the intervention worked well and what improvements could be made.ResultsPhysical and overall mealtime environment ratings showed improvement over time in both areas; one home area also improved social ratings (p < 0.05). Interviews revealed in-depth insights into the program and implementation process: i) Knowing the context and culture to meet staff and resident needs; ii) Getting everyone on board, including management; iii) Keeping communication lines open throughout the process; iv) Sharing responsibility and accountability for mealtime goals and challenges; v) Empowering and supporting staff’s creative mealtime initiatives.ConclusionsThis developmental evaluation demonstrated the potential value of CHOICE. Findings suggest a need to: extend the time to tailor program components; empower home staff in change management; and provide increased coaching.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0964-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%