Abstract Background: Frail older adults who are hospitalized, are more likely to experience missed nursing care (MNC) due to high care needs, communication problems, and complexity of nursing care. We conducted a qualitative study to examine the factors affecting MNC among hospitalized frail older adults in the medical units. Methods: This qualitative study was carried using the conventional content analysis approach in three teaching hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 nurses through purposive and snowball sampling. The inclusion criteria for the nurses were: at least two years of clinical work experience on a medical ward, caring for frail older people in hospital and willingness to participate. Data were analyzed in accordance with the process described by Graneheim and Lundman. In addition, trustworthiness of the study was assessed using the criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba. Results: In general, 20 interviews were conducted with nurses. A total of 1320 primary codes were extracted, which were classified into two main categories: MNC aggravating and moderating factors. Factors such as “age-unfriendly structure,” “inefficient care,” and “frailty of older adults” could increase the risk of MNC. In addition, factors such as “support capabilities” and “ethical and legal requirements” will moderate MNC. Conclusions: Hospitalized frail older adults are more at risk of MNC due to high care needs, communication problems, and nursing care complexity. Nursing managers can take practical steps to improve the quality of care by addressing the aggravating and moderating factors of MNC. In addition, nurses with a humanistic perspective who understand the multidimensional problems of frail older adults and pay attention to their weakness in expressing needs, can create a better experience for them in the hospital and improve patient safety.
Expectations are high with regards to smart home technology. In particular, smart home technology is expected to support or enable independent living by older adults. This raises the question: can smart home technology contribute to independent living, according to older adults themselves? This chapter aims to answer this question by reviewing and discussing older adults’ perspectives on independence and their views on smart home technology. Firstly, older adults’ opinions on independence and aging in place are discussed. Secondly, this chapter will review to what extent smart home technology can support older adults’ independence. Thirdly, it will be explained how community-dwelling older adults’ concept of independence entails three distinct types or modes, and how these modes are related to their perceptions and acceptance of technology. In the last section of this chapter, an overview of key points is presented, and recommendations for technology designers, policy makers, and care providers are postulated.
LINK
Aim: There is often a gap between the ideal of involving older persons iteratively throughout the design process of digital technology, and actual practice. Until now, the lens of ageism has not been applied to address this gap. The goals of this study were: to voice the perspectives and experiences of older persons who participated in co-designing regarding the design process; their perceived role in co-designing and intergenerational interaction with the designers; and apparent manifestations of ageism that potentially influence the design of digital technology. Methods: Twenty-one older persons participated in three focus groups. Five themes were identified using thematic analysis which combined a critical ageism ‘lens’ deductive approach and an inductive approach. Results: Ageism was experienced by participants in their daily lives and interactions with the designers during the design process. Negative images of ageing were pointed out as a potential influencing factor on design decisions. Nevertheless, positive experiences of inclusive design pointed out the importance of “partnership” in the design process. Participants defined the “ultimate partnership” in co-designing as processes in which they were involved from the beginning, iteratively, in a participatory approach. Such processes were perceived as leading to successful design outcomes, which they would like to use, and reduced intergenerational tension. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential role of ageism as a detrimental factor in how digital technologies are designed. Viewing older persons as partners in co-designing and aspiring to more inclusive design processes may promote designing technologies that are needed, wanted and used.
