BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that an increase in baccalaureate-educated registered nurses (BRNs) leads to better quality of care in hospitals. For geriatric long-term care facilities such as nursing homes, this relationship is less clear. Most studies assessing the relationship between nurse staffing and quality of care in long-term care facilities are US-based, and only a few have focused on the unique contribution of registered nurses. In this study, we focus on BRNs, as they are expected to serve as role models and change agents, while little is known about their unique contribution to quality of care in long-term care facilities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 282 wards and 6,145 residents from 95 Dutch long-term care facilities. The relationship between the presence of BRNs in wards and quality of care was assessed, controlling for background characteristics, i.e. ward size, and residents' age, gender, length of stay, comorbidities, and care dependency status. Multilevel logistic regression analyses, using a generalized estimating equation approach, were performed. RESULTS: 57% of the wards employed BRNs. In these wards, the BRNs delivered on average 4.8 min of care per resident per day. Among residents living in somatic wards that employed BRNs, the probability of experiencing a fall (odds ratio 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.96) and receiving antipsychotic drugs (odds ratio 2.15; 95% CI 1.66-2.78) was higher, whereas the probability of having an indwelling urinary catheter was lower (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.53-0.91). Among residents living in psychogeriatric wards that employed BRNs, the probability of experiencing a medication incident was lower (odds ratio 0.68; 95% CI 0.49-0.95). For residents from both ward types, the probability of suffering from nosocomial pressure ulcers did not significantly differ for residents in wards employing BRNs. CONCLUSIONS: In wards that employed BRNs, their mean amount of time spent per resident was low, while quality of care on most wards was acceptable. No consistent evidence was found for a relationship between the presence of BRNs in wards and quality of care outcomes, controlling for background characteristics. Future studies should consider the mediating and moderating role of staffing-related work processes and ward environment characteristics on quality of care.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined what is actually done in the process of care by nursing staff in long-term institutional care. The applied instruments employed different terminologies, and psychometric properties were inadequately described. This study aimed to develop and test an observational instrument to identify and examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions in long-term institutional care using a standardized language.METHODS: The Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC) is based on the conceptual framework of the Nursing Interventions Classification. Developmental, validation, and reliability stages of the GO-LTIC included: 1) item generation to identify potential setting-specific interventions; 2) examining content validity with a Delphi panel resulting in relevant interventions by calculating the item content validity index; 3) testing feasibility with trained observers observing nursing assistants; and 4) calculating inter-rater reliability using (non) agreement and Cohen's kappa for the identification of interventions and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the amount of time spent on interventions. Bland-Altman plots were applied to visualize the agreement between observers. A one-sample student T-test verified if the difference between observers differed significantly from zero.RESULTS: The final version of the GO-LTIC comprised 116 nursing interventions categorized into six domains. Substantial to almost perfect kappa's were found for interventions in the domains basic (0.67-0.92) and complex (0.70-0.94) physiological care. For the domains of behavioral, family, and health system interventions, the kappa's ranged from fair to almost perfect (0.30-1.00). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the amount of time spent on interventions ranged from fair to excellent for the physiological domains (0.48-0.99) and poor to excellent for the other domains (0.00-1.00). Bland Altman plots indicated that the clinical magnitude of differences in minutes was small. No statistical significant differences between observers (p > 0.05) were found.CONCLUSIONS: The GO-LTIC shows good content validity and acceptable inter-rater reliability to examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions by nursing staff. This may provide managers with valuable information to make decisions about resource allocation, task allocation of nursing staff, and the examination of the costs of nursing services.
DOCUMENT
Background Clients facing decision-making for long-term care are in need of support and accessible information. Construction of preferences, including context and calculations, for clients in long-term care is challenging because of the variability in supply and demand. This study considers clients in four different sectors of long-term care: the nursing and care of the elderly, mental health care, care of people with disabilities, and social care. The aim is to understand the construction of preferences in real-life situations. Method Client choices were investigated by qualitative descriptive research. Data were collected from 16 in-depth interviews and 79 client records. Interviews were conducted with clients and relatives or informal caregivers from different care sectors. The original client records were explored, containing texts, letters, and comments of clients and caregivers. All data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Four cases showed how preferences were constructed during the decision-making process. Clients discussed a wide range of challenging aspects that have an impact on the construction of preferences, e.g. previous experiences, current treatment or family situation. This study describes two main characteristics of the construction of preferences: context and calculation. Conclusion Clients face diverse challenges during the decision-making process on long-term care and their construction of preferences is variable. A well-designed tool to support the elicitation of preferences seems beneficial.
DOCUMENT
As more and more older adults prefer to stay in their homes as they age, thereandapos;s a need for technology to support this. A relevant technology is Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven lifestyle monitoring, utilizing data from sensors placed in the home. This technology is not intended to replace nurses but to serve as a support tool. Understanding the specific competencies that nurses require to effectively use it is crucial. The aim of this study is to identify the essential competencies nurses require to work with AI-driven lifestyle monitoring in long-term care.
MULTIFILE
Purpose: Collaborative deliberation comprises personal engagement, recognition of alternative actions, comparative learning, preference elicitation, and preference integration. Collaborative deliberation may be improved by assisting preference elicitation during shared decision-making. This study proposes a framework for preference elicitation to facilitate collaborative deliberation in long-term care consultations. Methods: First, a literature overview was conducted comprising current models for the elicitation of preferences in health and social care settings. The models were reviewed and compared. Second, qualitative research was applied to explore those issues that matter most to clients in long-term care. Data were collected from clients in long-term care, comprising 16 interviews, 3 focus groups, 79 client records, and 200 online client reports. The qualitative analysis followed a deductive approach. The results of the literature overview and qualitative research were combined. Results: Based on the literature overview, five overarching domains of preferences were described: “Health”, “Daily life”, “Family and friends”, ”Living conditions”, and “Finances”. The credibility of these domains was confirmed by qualitative data analysis. During interviews, clients addressed issues that matter in their lives, including a “click” with their care professional, safety, contact with loved ones, and assistance with daily structure and activities. These data were used to determine the content of the domains. Conclusion: A framework for preference elicitation in long-term care is proposed. This framework could be useful for clients and professionals in preference elicitation during collaborative deliberation.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Oral health care of older people in long-term care facilities is insufficient, stressing the need for clear evidence-based implementation strategies to improve oral care. In 2013, a systematic review was performed and new evidence was published. This study aimed to gain insights into implementation strategies used to promote or improve oral health care for older people in long-term care facilities, explore their effectiveness and uncover strategy content in behavioral change techniques, and report the differences between the current results and those of the 2013 study. Methods: A systematic review of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines and meta-analyses of implementation strategies were performed. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and CINAHL databases were searched for papers published between 2011 and 2023. Strategies were identified using the Coding Manual for Behavioral Change Techniques. Meta-analyses of oral health outcomes (“plaque” and “denture plaque”) were performed with random-effects models using R language for statistical computing. Results: 16 studies were included in the current results; 20 studies were included in the 2013 findings. More high-quality studies (67 %) were included in this review than in 2013 (47 %). Dental care professionals were involved in 14 of the 16 studies. Fourteen of the 16 studies used and/ or combined five or more different implementation strategies: knowledge, intention, awareness, self-efficacy, attitude, and facilitation of behavior. Implementation positively affected the knowledge and attitudes of the nursing staff; however, the oral health of older people did not necessarily improve. In the 2013 review, more studies indicated combined oral health measurements were effective (71 %) than in the current review (20 %–33 %). Meta-analysis of four studies on dental plaque (0—3 scale) showed a significant, statistically small mean difference of -.21 (CI -.36; -.07, Cohen's d -.29) between the control and treatment group. Meta-analysis of three studies on denture plaque (0—4 scale), showed a significant, statistically large mean difference of -.76 (CI -1.48; -.05, Cohen's d -.88). Conclusions: In this review, more implementation strategies and combinations were used to implement oral care in long-term care. Implementation strategies positively affected the knowledge and attitudes of nursing staff; however, the oral health of older people did not necessarily improve. Meta-analyses on plaque showed that oral care implementations are effective; for denture plaque, the effect size was large and thus may have more clinical value than for dental plaque.
DOCUMENT
Background: During the process of decision-making for long-term care, clients are often dependent on informal support and available information about quality ratings of care services. However, clients do not take ratings into account when considering preferred care, and need assistance to understand their preferences. A tool to elicit preferences for long-term care could be beneficial. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative descriptive study is to understand the user requirements and develop a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in need of longterm care. Methods: We applied a user-centred design in which end-users influence the development of the tool. The included end-users were clients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018 by means of meetings with the development team consisting of four users, walkthrough interviews with 21 individual users, video-audio recordings, field notes, and observations during the use of the tool. Data were collected during three phases of iteration: Look and feel, Navigation, and Content. A deductive and inductive content analysis approach was used for data analysis. Results: The layout was considered accessible and easy during the Look and feel phase, and users asked for neutral images. Users found navigation easy, and expressed the need for concise and shorter text blocks. Users reached consensus about the categories of preferences, wished to adjust the content with propositions about well-being, and discussed linguistic difficulties. Conclusion: By incorporating the requirements of end-users, the user-centred design proved to be useful in progressing from the prototype to the finalized tool ‘What matters to me’. This tool may assist the elicitation of client’s preferences in their search for long-term care.
DOCUMENT
Background: Increasing life expectancy is resulting in a growing demand for long-term care; however, there is a shortage of qualified health care professionals (HCPs) to deliver it. If used optimally, technology can provide a solution to this challenge. HCPs play an important role in the use of technology in long-term care. However, technology influences several core aspects of the work that HCPs do, and it is therefore important to have a good understanding of their viewpoint regarding the use of technology in daily practice of long-term care. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify the factors that HCPs consider as relevant for using technology in daily practice of long-term care. Methods: In this qualitative study, 11 focus groups were organized with 73 HCPs. The focus group discussions were guided by an innovative game, which was specifically developed for this study. The content of the game was categorized into 4 categories: health care technology and me; health care technology, the patient, and me; health care technology, the organization, and me; and facilitating conditions. The perspectives of HCPs about working with technology were discussed based on this game. The focus groups were recorded and transcribed, followed by an inductive thematic analysis using ATLAS.ti 9x (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH). Results: Overall, 2 main domain summaries were developed from the data: technology should improve the quality of care and acceptance and use of technology in care. The first factor indicates the need for tailored and personalized care and balance between human contact and technology. The second factor addresses several aspects regarding working with technology such as trusting technology, learning to work with technology, and collaboration with colleagues. Conclusions: HCPs are motivated to use technology in daily practice of long-term care when it adds value to the quality of care and there is sufficient trust, expertise, and collaboration with colleagues. Their perspectives need to be considered as they play a crucial part in the successful use of technology, transcending their role as an actor in implementation. On the basis of the findings from this study, we recommend focusing on developing technology for situations where both efficiency and quality of care can be improved; redefining the roles of HCPs and the impact of technology hereon; involving HCPs in the design process of technology to enable them to link it to their daily practice; and creating ambassadors in care teams who are enthusiastic about working with technology and can support and train their colleagues.
MULTIFILE
In the Netherlands, client and family participation in care for people with intellectual disabilities has been in vogue for a long time, and increasingly receives attention (KPMG and Vilans 2017). However, the perspective and experiential knowledge of service users and relatives is often still insuBiciently used for the co-creation of care. The professional perspective is often still dominant. In addition, professionals mainly focus on clients and less on relatives, even though relatives often play an important role in the client’s (quality of) life (Wiersma 2017). The project ‘Inclusive Collaboration in Disability Care’[1] (ICDC) focusses on enhancing equal communication between people with intellectual disabilities, their relatives, and professional caregivers, and hence contributes to redressing power imbalances in longterm care. It investigates the question: “How can the triangle of client, relative and professional caregiver together co-create better care and support?”.
DOCUMENT
Background: Research into termination of long-term psychosocial treatment of mental disorders is scarce. Yearly 25% of people in Dutch mental health services receive long-term treatment. They account for many people, contacts, and costs. Although relevant in different health care systems, (dis)continuation is particularly problematic under universal health care coverage when secondary services lack a fixed (financially determined) endpoint. Substantial, unaccounted, differences in treatment duration exist between services. Understanding of underlying decisional processes may result in improved decision making, efficient allocation of scarce resources, and more personalized treatment.
DOCUMENT
