Search

Objectives: On May 11, the Dutch Government allowed 26 nursing homes to welcome 1 visitor per resident, after 2 months of lockdown. The study aimed to monitor in-depth the feasibility of the regulations and their impact on the well-being of residents, their visitors, and healthcare staff.Design: Mixed-methods study in 5 of the 26 facilities; the facilities were affiliated to an academic network of nursing homes.Participants: Visitors and healthcare professionals.Intervention: Allowing visitors using local regulations based on national guidelines.Measurements: Digital questionnaire, analyzing documentation such as infection prevention control protocols, attending meetings of COVID-19 crisis teams, in-depth telephone or in-person interviews with visitors and healthcare professionals, and on-site observations.Results: National guidelines were translated with great variety into local care practice. Healthcare professionals agreed that reopening would increase the well-being of the residents and their loved ones. However, there were also great worries for increasing workload, increasing the risk of emotional exhaustion, and the risk of COVID-19 infections. Compliance with local regulations was generally satisfactory, but maintaining social distance and correctly wearing face masks appeared to be difficult. Care staff remained ambivalent for fear of infections. In general, allowing visitors was experienced as having a positive impact on the well-being of all stakeholders. Nevertheless, some residents with dementia showed negative effects.Conclusion: The complete lockdown of Dutch nursing homes had a substantial impact on the well-being of the residents. The reopening was welcomed by all stakeholders, but provided a high organizational workload as well as feelings of ambivalence among care staff. In the second wave, a more tailored approach is being implemented. However, facilities are sometimes still struggling to find the right balance between infection control and well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Before drawing conclusions on the contribution of an effective intervention to daily practice and initiating dissemination, its quality and implementation in daily practice should be optimal. The aim of this process evaluation was to study these aspects alongside a randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of a multidisciplinary biannual medication review in long-term care organizations (NTR3569).Design: Process evaluation with multiple measurements.Setting: Thirteen units for people with dementia in six long-term care organizations in the Netherlands.Participants: Physicians, pharmacists, and nursing staff of participating units.Intervention: The PROPER intervention is a structured and biannually repeated multidisciplinary medication review supported by organizational preparation and education, evaluation, and guidance.Measurements: Web-based questionnaires, interviews, attendance lists of education sessions, medication reviews and evaluation meetings, minutes, evaluation, and registration forms.Results: Participation rates in education sessions (95%), medication reviews (95%), and evaluation meetings (82%) were high. The intervention's relevance and feasibility and applied implementation strategies were highly rated. However, the education sessions and conversations during medication reviews were too pharmacologically oriented for several nursing staff members. Identified barriers to implementation were required time, investment, planning issues, and high staff turnover; facilitators were the positive attitude of professionals toward the intervention, the support of higher management, and the appointment of a local implementation coordinator.Conclusion: Implementation was successful. The commitment of both higher management and professionals was an important factor. This may partly have been due to the subject being topical; Dutch long-term-care organizations are pressed to lower inappropriate psychotropic drug use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Psychotropic drugs are frequently and sometimes inappropriately used for the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia, despite their limited efficacy and side effects. Interventions to address neuropsychiatric symptoms and psychotropic drug use are multifactorial and often multidisciplinary. Suboptimal implementation of these complex interventions often limits their effectiveness. This systematic review provides an overview of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of complex interventions targeting neuropsychiatric symptoms and psychotropic drug use in long-term care.Design: To identify relevant studies, the following electronic databases were searched between 28 May and 4 June: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and CINAHL. Two reviewers systematically reviewed the literature, and the quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. The frequency of barriers and facilitators was addressed, followed by deductive thematic analysis describing their positive of negative influence. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data synthesis.Results: Fifteen studies were included, using mostly a combination of intervention types and care programs, as well as different implementation strategies. Key factors to successful implementation included strong leadership and support of champions. Also, communication and coordination between disciplines, management support, sufficient resources, and culture (e.g. openness to change) influenced implementation positively. Barriers related mostly to unstable organizations, such as renovations to facility, changes toward self-directed teams, high staff turnover, and perceived work and time pressures.Conclusions: Implementation is complex and needs to be tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of the organization in question. Champions should be carefully chosen, and the application of learned actions and knowledge into practice is expected to further improve implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Geriatric stroke patients are generally frail, have an advanced age and co-morbidity. It is yet unclear whether specific groups of patients might benefit differently from structured multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs. Therefore, the aims of our study are 1) to determine relevant patient characteristics to distinguish groups of patients based on their admission scores in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and (2) to study the course of these particular patient-groups in relation to their discharge destination. Methods This is a longitudinal, multicenter, observational study. We collected data on patient characteristics, balance, walking ability, arm function, co-morbidity, activities of daily living (ADL), neuropsychiatric symptoms, and depressive complaints of 127 geriatric stroke patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities with specific units for geriatric rehabilitation after stroke. Results Cluster analyses revealed two groups: cluster 1 included patients in poor condition upon admission (n = 52), and cluster 2 included patients in fair/good condition upon admission (n = 75). Patients in both groups improved in balance, walking abilities, and arm function. Patients in cluster 1 also improved in ADL. Depressive complaints decreased significantly in patients in cluster 1 who were discharged to an independent- or assisted-living situation. Compared to 80% of the patients in cluster 2, a lower proportion (46%) of the patients in cluster 1 were discharged to an independent- or assisted-living situation. Conclusion Stroke patients referred for rehabilitation to SNFs could be clustered on the basis of their condition upon admission. Although patients in poor condition on admission were more likely to be referred to a facility for long-term care, this was certainly not the case in all patients. Almost half of them could be discharged to an independent or assisted living situation, which implied that also in patients in poor condition on admission, discharge to an independent or assisted living situation was an attainable goal. It is important to put substantial effort into the rehabilitation of patients in poor condition at admission.

We investigated the 2-week prevalence and correlates of very frequent physical aggression (PA) and vocalizations in nursing home (NH)-residents with dementia. This cross-sectional study used combined data of 2074 NH-residents from four studies, collected from 119 dementia special care units in 26 Dutch NH. Very frequent PA was defined as scoring 6 or 7 on the items 'hitting', pushing', 'biting' and 'kicking' of the Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory; very frequent vocalizations as scoring 6 or 7 on 'screaming' and 'making strange noises'. We compared NH-residents with very frequent PA or vocalizations with residents with less frequent PA or vocalizations, assessing correlates using univariate and multivariate multilevel logistic regression analyses. We found a 2-week prevalence of 2.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.63–2.89) of very frequent PA and 11.5% of very frequent vocalizations (95% CI: 10.23–12.98). Very frequent PA was only associated with apathy (odds ratio (OR)=1.93, 95% CI: 1.04–3.61). Correlates of very frequent vocalizations were age (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.951–0.998), dementia severity (overall p-value 0.020), antipsychotic drug use (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.08–2.26), antiepileptic drug use (OR = 2.75, 95% CI: 1.34–5.68) and euphoria (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.22–3.31). Characteristics of NH-residents with very frequent PA or very frequent vocalizations differ from those of NH-residents with less frequent PA or vocalizations. Frontal lobe damage, boredom, pain and/or external factors may explain several of the found associations, but further research is necessary. Our findings may contribute to better care for these residents and thereby to improving their quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the perspective of the nursing home (NH) practitioners, to gain understanding of (1) whether challenging behavior in NH residents changed during the COVID-19 measures, (2) whether the practitioners' involvement in the treatment of challenging behavior changed, (3) what can be learned from the experience of NH staff. A mixed methods study with a survey in 323 NH practitioners (psychologists, elderly care physicians, nurse practitioners) in the Netherlands, and in-depth interviews in 16 NH practitioners. Nonparametric analyses were used to compare estimated proportions of residents with increased and with decreased challenging behavior. Content analyses were conducted for open-ended questions and in-depth interviews. Participants reported changes in challenging behavior with slightly higher proportions for increased (Q1/Mdn/Q3: 12.5%, 21.7%, 30.8%) than for decreased (8.7%, 14.8%, 27.8%, Z = –2.35, p =.019) challenging behavior. Half of the participants reported that their work load increased and work satisfaction worsened during the measures. Different strategies were described to respond to the effects of COVID-19 measures, such as video calls, providing special areas for residents to meet their loved ones, adjusting activities, and reducing the exposure to negative news. Because COVID-19 measures resulted in both increased and decreased challenging behavior in NH residents, it is important to monitor for their potential long lasting effects. Increased work load and worsened work satisfaction of the NH staff, together with the changes in type of challenging behavior, indicate that the harmful effects of the anti-pandemic measures should be taken seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Care for older adults should preferably be provided in a person-centred way that includes goal planning. The aim of the present cohort study is to gain an insight into the results of goal planning, in a person-centred care setting for community-living older adults. Within Embrace, a person-centred and integrated care service, older adults set goals with the aim to improve health-related problems. For every goal, they rated severity scores ranging from 0 (no problem) to 10 (extremely severe): a baseline score, a target score and, within one year, an end score to evaluate these goals. The differences between baseline and end scores (goal progress) and target and end scores (goal attainment), and the percentage of goals attained were calculated and compared between health-related domains (i.e., mental health, physical health, mobility, and support). Among 233 older adults, 836 goal plans were formulated of which 74% (95% Confidence Interval: 71–77) were attained. Goals related to physical health were the most likely to be attained and goals for mobility and pain the least likely. Older adults are able to attain health-related goals through collaborative goal planning. We recommend future integrated care programmes for older adults to incorporate goal-planning methods to achieve person-centred care. Older adults experiencing frailty or complex care needs and receiving individual support within an integrated care setting are able to formulate and attain goals using goal planning with severity scores. Goal plans of community-living older adults mostly aim at improving health-related problems concerning physical health, mobility, or support. Goals related to physical health are the most likely to be attained, while goals for mobility and pain are the least likely to be attained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]