OBJECTIVE: to gain insight into what older adults after hip fracture perceive as most beneficial to their recovery to everyday life.DESIGN: qualitative research approach.SETTING: six skilled nursing facilities.PARTICIPANTS: 19 older community dwelling older adults (aged 65-94), who had recently received geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture.METHODS: semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 older adults after hip fracture. Coding techniques based on constructivist grounded theory were applied.RESULTS: four categories were derived from the data: 'restrictions for everyday life', 'recovery process', 'resources for recovery' and 'performing everyday activities'. Physical and psychological restrictions are consequences of hip fracture that older adults have struggled to address during recovery. Three different resources were found to be beneficial for recovery; 'supporting and coaching', 'myself' and 'technological support'. These resources influenced the recovery process. Having successful experiences during recovery led to doing everyday activities in the same manner as before; unsuccessful experiences led to ceasing certain activities altogether.CONCLUSION: participants highlight their own role ('myself') as essential for recovery. Additionally, coaching provides emotional support, which boosts self-confidence in performing everyday activities. Furthermore, technology can encourage older adults to become more active and being engaged in the recovery process. The findings suggest that more attention should be paid to follow-up interventions after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation to support older adults in finding new routines in their everyday activities.A conceptual model is presented and provides an understanding of the participants' experiences and perspectives concerning their process of recovery after hip fracture to everyday life.
BackgroundMechanical ventilation affects the respiratory muscles, but little is known about long-term recovery of respiratory muscle weakness (RMW) and potential associations with physical functioning in survivors of critical illness. The aim of this study was to investigate the course of recovery of RMW and its association with functional outcomes in patients who received mechanical ventilation.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study with 6-month follow-up among survivors of critical illness who received ≥ 48 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation. Primary outcomes, measured at 3 timepoints, were maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP). Secondary outcomes were functional exercise capacity (FEC) and handgrip strength (HGS). Longitudinal changes in outcomes and potential associations between MIP/MEP, predictor variables, and secondary outcomes were investigated through linear mixed model analysis.ResultsA total of 59 participants (male: 64%, median age [IQR]: 62 [53–66]) were included in this study with a median (IQR) ICU and hospital length of stay of 11 (8–21) and 35 (21–52) days respectively. While all measures were well below predicted values at hospital discharge (MIP: 68.4%, MEP 76.0%, HGS 73.3% of predicted and FEC 54.8 steps/2m), significant 6-month recovery was seen for all outcomes. Multivariate analyses showed longitudinal associations between older age and decreased MIP and FEC, and longer hospital length of stay and decreased MIP and HGS outcomes. In crude models, significant, longitudinal associations were found between MIP/MEP and FEC and HGS outcomes. While these associations remained in most adjusted models, an interaction effect was observed for sex.ConclusionRMW was observed directly after hospital discharge while 6-month recovery to predicted values was noted for all outcomes. Longitudinal associations were found between MIP and MEP and more commonly used measures for physical functioning, highlighting the need for continued assessment of respiratory muscle strength in deconditioned patients who are discharged from ICU. The potential of targeted training extending beyond ICU and hospital discharge should be further explored.
MULTIFILE
Background: During hospitalization patients frequently have a low level of physical activity, which is an important risk factor for functional decline. Function Focused Care (FFC) is an evidencebased intervention developed in the United States to prevent functional decline in older patients. Within FFC, nurses help older patients optimally participate in functional and physical activity during all care interactions. FFC was adapted to the Dutch Hospital setting, which led to Function Focused Care in Hospital (FFCiH). FFCiH consists of four components: (1) ‘Environmental and policy assessment’; (2) ‘Education’; (3) ‘Goal setting with the patient’ and (4) ‘Ongoing motivation and mentoring’. The feasibility of FFCiH in the Dutch hospital setting needs to be assessed. Objective: Introduce FFCiH into Dutch hospital wards, to assess the feasibility of FFCiH in terms of description of the intervention, implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context. Design: Mixed method design Setting(s): A Neurological and a Geriatric ward in a Dutch Hospital. Participants: 56 Nurses and nursing students working on these wards. Methods: The implementation process was described and the delivery was studied in terms of dose, fidelity, adaptions, and reach. The mechanisms of impact were studied by the perceived facilitators and barriers to the intervention. Qualitative data were collected via focus group interviews, observations, and field notes. Quantitative data were collected via evaluation forms and attendance/participation lists. Results: A detailed description of FFCiH in terms of what, how, when, and by whom was given. 54 Nurses (96.4%) on both wards attended at least 1 session of the education or participated in bedside teaching. The nurses assessed the content of the education sessions with a mean of 7.5 (SD 0.78) on a 0–10 scale. The patient files showed that different short and long-term goals were set. Several facilitators and barriers were identified, which led to additions to the intervention. An important facilitator was that nurses experienced FFCiH as an approach that fits with the principles underpinning their current working philosophy. The experienced barriers mainly concern the implementation elements of the FFCiH-components ‘Education’ and ‘Ongoing motivation and mentoring’. Optimizing the team involvement, improving nursing leadership during the implementation, and enhancing the involvement of patients and their family were activities added to FFCiH to improve future implementation. Conclusions: FFCiH is feasible for the Dutch hospital setting. Strong emphasis on team involvement, nursing leadership, and the involvement of patients and their families is recommended to optimize future implementation of FFCiH in Dutch hospitals.
