Search

Medical providers in long-term care (LTC) use a unique skillset in delivering comprehensive resident care. Publicly reported quality measures (QMs) do not directly emphasize medical provider competency and their role in care. The impact of providers is understudied and to a large extent, unknown. Our objective was to define, test, and validate QMs to pragmatically measure the practice-based quality of medical providers in a pilot study. We included 7 North American LTC homes with data from practicing medical providers for LTC residents. We engaged in a 4-phased approach. In phase 1, experts rated 95 candidate QMs using 5 pragmatic-focused criteria in a RAND-modified Delphi process. Phase 2 involved specifying 37 QMs for collection (4 QMs were dropped during pilot testing). We created an abstraction manual and data collection tool for all QMs. Phase 3 involved a retrospective chart review in 7 LTC homes on 33 QMs with trained data abstractors. Data were sufficient to analyze performance for 26 QMs. Lastly, in phase 4 results and psychometric properties were reviewed with an expert panel. They ranked the tested measures for validity and feasibility for use by a nonphysician auditor to evaluate medical provider performance based on medical record review. In total, we examined data from 343 resident charts from 7 LTC homes and 49 providers. Our process yielded 10 QMs as being specified for measurement, feasible to collect, and had good test performance. This is the only study to systematically identify a subset of QMs for feasible collection from the medical record by various data collectors. This pragmatic approach to measuring practice-based quality and quantifying select medical provider competencies allows for the evaluation of individual and facility-level performance and facilitates quality improvement initiatives. Future work should perform broader testing and validate and refine operationalized QMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The researchers aimed to (1) explore the occurrence of psychological resilience in the face of a major life stressor and conflict in older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), and (2) identify factors associated with resilience in this population. Longitudinal cohort study using the Dutch InterRAI-LTCF cohort. Older residents (≥60 years old) of 21 LTCFs in the Netherlands. The researchers selected 2 samples of residents who had at least 2 assessments surrounding (1) an incident major life stressor, or (2) incident conflict with other resident or staff. A resilient outcome was operationalized as not having clinically meaningful mood symptoms at the post-stressor assessment and equal or fewer mood symptoms at the post-stressor relative to the pre-stressor assessment. The researchers used 2 resilience outcomes per stressor: 1 based on observer-reported mood symptoms and 1 based on self-reported mood symptoms. The most important factors from among 21 potential resilience factors for each of the 4 operationalizations of resilience were identified using a backward selection procedure with 2-level generalized estimating equations analyses. Forty-eight percent and 50% of residents were resilient in the face of a major life stressor, based on observer-reported (n = 248) and self-reported (n = 211) mood, respectively. In the face of conflict, 26% and 51% of the residents demonstrated resilience, based on the observer-reported (n = 246) and self-reported (n = 183) mood, respectively. Better cognitive functioning, a strong and supportive relationship with family, participation in social activities, and better self-reported health were most strongly associated with resilience in the face of a major life stressor. Better communicative functioning, absence of psychiatric diagnoses, a strong and supportive relationship with family, not being lonely, social engagement, and not reminiscing about life were most strongly associated with resilience in the face of conflict. Factors with a social aspect appear to be particularly important to psychological resilience in older LTCF residents, and provide a potential target for intervention in the LTCF setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to explore the effects of the Dutch COVID-19 lockdown (March 20–May 25, 2020) on mood, behavior, and social and cognitive functioning of older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) prospectively. Mixed methods: historically controlled longitudinal cohort study and focus groups. Residents of Dutch LTCFs. Residents who were assessed during and prior to the lockdown were compared to residents of the same wards with 2 assessments prior to the lockdown. We used mixed models and generalized estimating equation analyses to explore differences in changes in mood, withdrawal and aggressive behavior, loneliness and conflict, and cognition and delirium. We also explored whether the effect of the lockdown differed for different subgroups. In 2 online focus groups, LTCF care professionals, ranging from care staff to physicians, reflected on their experiences of the effect of the lockdown and the cohort study results. The lockdown group of 298 residents was compared to the control group of 625 residents. Self-reported mood symptoms showed a slightly greater increase during the lockdown. During the first half of the lockdown, the level of conflict with other residents decreased whereas it increased in the control group. The subgroup with moderate-severe cognitive impairment showed a decrease in withdrawal during the lockdown, whereas the group with no-mild cognitive impairment showed a statistically nonsignificant relative increase. Professionals described great individual variation in the effects of the lockdown on residents. Facilities attempted to preserve the experienced positive effects, for example, by promoting tranquility in shared rooms and continuing to organize individualized ward-based activities. We did not find clinically relevant negative effects of the lockdown on mood, behavior, and social and cognitive functioning in older residents of LTCFs at the group level. Possibly, staff mitigated the negative effects at the group level. Meanwhile, they learned lessons that they continue to apply to enhance resident well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]