Search

Background: Dementia Care Navigators (DCNs) are professionals without clinical training, who provide individualised emotional and practical support to people living with dementia, working alongside clinical services. Navigator services have been implemented but the service offered vary without a consistent overview provided. The aim of this narrative systematic review was to describe and compare existing service formats, and to synthesise evidence regarding their implementation and impacts. Methods: The review was registered on PROSPERO [CRD42021292518]. Three electronic databases were searched and included studies reported on a DCN service, defined as a service in which non‐clinically trained workers provide personalised advice and support to people with dementia and/or carers in the community. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and titles and read through full papers for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Standard Quality Assessment QualSyst. Results: We included 14 papers reporting on six studies. All services were US‐based and only varied by integration and training provided. Studies reported different degrees of impact on service utilisation and on symptoms and mental well‐being of people with dementia and their carers, with too little evidence to draw substantial/meaningful conclusions and studies employing different outcome measures. One study evidenced greater impacts on people with more advanced dementia compared to earlier stages. Conclusions: DCN services have the potential to effectively provide non‐clinical support to people with dementia and carers from the point of diagnosis. Further research from countries other than the USA, focusing on the impact on social care and social support service access and utilisation, and utilising similar established outcome measures are required. Key points: Evidence on the impact of Dementia Care Navigators (DCNs) is limited but shows promising benefits for people living with dementia and their carers.More research needs to be conducted in countries other than the US, where all evidence was reported, and with similar outcome measures to allow comparison.DCNs are a highly useful professional group without medical training, who can navigate people living with dementia and their carers to support and provide support themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions.Data Source/study Setting: Primary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations.Study Design: An adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Stakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2).Principal Findings: In Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3).Conclusions: There are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) experience numerous vulnerabilities during transitions from hospital to home during their first year of life. This paper examines the parents' responses to the situations they experience during the initial interstage transition as described through illness blogs. Design and methods: A qualitative descriptive design through inductive theme development using thematic analysis was performed for this study. Text data were used from publically available blogs written by parents of HLHS children on their feelings and experiences during transitions between hospital‐ and home‐care during the interstage period. Results: Six blogs were analyzed. Overall, the lack of difference in normalcy for these parents and their families was apparent. Major themes included: thoughts and feelings when discharged from the hospital, difficulties with hospital readmissions, protecting their child from infection, and developing a support system. Conclusions: Parents looked forward to going home and learned all they could about properly caring for their child before going home. They were disappointed and frustrated when returning to the hospital for either emergency or scheduled admissions and were not prepared to see their child in the intensive care unit environment again. Many parents isolated themselves and avoided the hospital as much as possible to avoid their child developing an infection. All parents had support systems through family and/or friends and found an unexpected sense of support through their blog families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]