Search

Objective: Virtual care (VC) is an accepted modality of care delivery, and shared decision‐making (SDM) benefits patients with rheumatologic and chronic conditions (RCCs). Unfortunately, research suggests reduced quality of SDM during VC. This study explores the benefits and shortcomings of SDM regarding RCCs during VC with suggestions for optimally using VC during SDM. Methods: Following Stiggelbout's framework for SDM, we conducted focus groups of patients with RCCs and providers to understand their experiences with SDM during VC, probing for facilitating and challenging factors. We conducted content analysis of the transcripts, defining themes, and inductively reasoned to identify relationships among themes. We summarized the facilitators, barriers, and opportunities for improving SDM during VC that participants proposed. Results: Virtual SDM shares several similarities with in‐person practice, as both draw upon trusting patient‐provider relationships, following the same general steps, and relying on effective communication. VC presents solutions for known barriers to in‐person SDM, expanding time for making decisions and access to care. Technology and virtual health systems introduce new barriers to SDM, and participants list opportunities for overcoming these concerns. Conclusion: VC is a tool that can enhance and even support superior SDM compared with in‐person visits when implemented successfully, a condition requiring the development of nuanced skills to correctly identify when and how to best use VC for SDM as well as technology and health care structures that integrate SDM into VC. Therefore, patients, providers, insurance carriers, and policy makers all contribute to the success of SDM among RCCs during VC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To assess what screening practices agencies use in hiring caregivers and how caregiver competency is measured before assigning responsibilities in caring for older adults. Design One-to-one phone interviews in which interviewers posed as prospective clients seeking a caregiver for an older adult relative. Setting Cross-sectional cohort of agencies supplying paid caregivers to older adults in Illinois, California, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Participants Four hundred sixty-two home care agencies were contacted, of which 84 were no longer in service, 165 offered only nursing care, and 33 were excluded; 180 agencies completed interviews. Measurements Agencies were surveyed about their hiring methods, screening measures, training practices, skill competencies assessments, and supervision. Two coders qualitatively analyzed open-ended responses. Results To recruit caregivers, agencies primarily used print and Internet (e.g., ) advertising (n = 69, 39.2%) and word-of-mouth referrals (n = 49, 27.8%). In hiring, agencies required prior 'life experiences' (n = 121, 68.8%) few of which (n = 33, 27.2%) were specific to caregiving. Screening measures included federal criminal background checks (n = 96, 55.8%) and drug testing (n = 56, 31.8%). Agencies stated that the paid caregiver could perform skills, such as medication reminding (n = 169, 96.0%). Skill competency was assessed according to caregiver self-report (n = 103, 58.5%), testing (n = 62, 35.2%), and client feedback (n = 62, 35.2%). General caregiver training length ranged from 0 to 7 days. Supervision ranged from none to weekly and included home visits, telephone calls, and caregivers visiting the central office. Conclusion Using an agency to hire paid caregivers may give older adults and their families a false sense of security regarding the background and skill set of the caregiver. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]