The influence of mutual spousal interrelations in domains such as health and wellbeing has been demonstrated, but little is known about the domain of everyday activities of couples in late life. In the present explorative study, we considered all of the activities participating couples talked about to be their everyday activities. Its aim was to understand, over time, changes in everyday activities as experienced by late-life community-dwelling couples. In a two-year period, 41 individual and joint interviews were conducted with 8 couples, who were purposefully selected from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. Analyses involved the construction of couple narratives and constant comparisons within and across couples. Changing everyday activities in late-life couples was interpreted to be a two-way process of (1) converging, and (2) keeping up, which occurred in three fluid phases. Converging was a slow inward movement with a shift towards diminished everyday activities performed in a smaller world. Keeping up was an outward movement in order to resist the converging process by using everyday activities as a means to keep fit, physically and mentally, and to connect with the wider social world. In the first phase, couples maintained their unique linked activity pattern. In the second phase, spouses resisted converging by keeping up. In the third phase, spouses co-performed everyday activities closely together. The findings support the need to develop couple-oriented interventions that aim to enhance the couples' functioning in the domain of everyday activities.
BACKGROUND: One-third of all medication errors causing harm to hospitalized patients occur in the medication preparation and administration phase, which is predominantly a nursing activity. To monitor, evaluate and improve the quality and safety of this process, evidence-based quality indicators can be used.OBJECTIVES: The aim of study was to identify evidence-based quality indicators (structure, process and outcome) for safe in-hospital medication preparation and administration.METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2015. Additionally, nine databases were searched to identify relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the method for quality indicator development combined a literature search with expert panel opinion, (2) the study contained quality indicators on medication safety, and (3) any of the quality indicators were applicable to hospital medication preparation and administration. A multidisciplinary team appraised the studies independently using the AIRE instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. Quality indicators applicable to in-hospital medication preparation and administration were extracted using a structured form.RESULTS: The search identified 1683 studies, of which 64 were reviewed in detail and five met the inclusion criteria. Overall, according to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose; most of them applied stakeholder involvement and used evidence reasonably; usage of the indicator in practice was scarcely described. A total of 21 quality indicators were identified: 5 structure indicators (e.g. safety management and high alert medication), 11 process indicators (e.g. verification and protocols) and 5 outcome indicators (e.g. harm and death). These quality indicators partially cover the 7 rights.CONCLUSION: Despite the relatively small number of included studies, the identified quality indicators can serve as an excellent starting point for further development of nursing specific quality indicators for medication safety. Especially on the right patient, right route, right time and right documentation there is room future development of quality indicators.
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Learning is essential for sustainable employability. However, various factors make work-related learning more difficult for certain groups of workers, who are consequently at a disadvantage in the labour market. In the long term, that in turn can have adverse health implications and can make those groups vulnerable. With a view to encouraging workers to continue learning, the Netherlands has a policy on work-related learning, which forms part of the 'Vitality Package'.Aim: A Health Impact Assessment with equity focus (HIAef) was undertaken to determine whether the policy on work-related learning affected certain groups of workers and their health in different ways, and whether the differences were avoidable.Methods: The HIAef method involved the standard phases: screening, scoping, appraisal and recommendations. Equity was the core principle in this method. Data were collected by means of both literature searches (e.g., Scopus, Medline) and interviews with experts and stakeholders (e.g., expertise regarding work, training and/or health).Results: The HIAef identified the following groups as potentially vulnerable in the field of work-related learning: the chronically sick, older people, less educated people, flexi-workers/the self-employed and lay carers (e.g., thresholds to learning). Published literature indicates that work-related learning may have a positive influence on health through (work-related) factors such as pay, employability, longer employment rate and training-participation. According to experts and stakeholders, work-related learning policy could be adapted to take more account of vulnerable groups through alignment with their particular needs, such as early support, informal learning and e-learning.Conclusion: With a view to reducing avoidable inequalities in work-related learning, it is recommended that early, low-threshold, accessible opportunities are made available to identified vulnerable groups. Making such opportunities available may have a positive effect on (continued) participation in the labour market and thus on the health of the relevant groups.
