April 21, 2020

This policy brief sets forth American Geriatrics Society (AGS) recommendations to guide federal, state, and local governments when making decisions about care for patients with COVID-19 in nursing homes (NHs) and other long-term care facilities (LTCFs). The AGS continues to review guidance set forth in peer-reviewed articles and editorials, as well as ongoing and updated guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other key agencies. This brief is based on the situation and any federal guidance/actions as of April 4, 2020. It is focused on NHs and other LTCFs, given their essential role in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

AHRQ is inviting public comments by April 21 on a draft systematic review, Care Interventions for People With Dementia and Their Caregivers. The review is intended to establish an evidence base of care and to assess the potential for broad dissemination and implementation of that evidence. The draft found little evidence that education, group discussion, in-home and phone support sessions, and caregiver feedback for informal caregiver support are effective.

The potential for spread of COVID-19 infections in Skilled Nursing Facilities and other Long-Term Care sites poses new challenges for Nursing Home Administrators to protect patients and staff. It is anticipated that as Acute Care Hospitals reach capacity, Nursing Homes may retain COVID-19 infected residents longer prior to transferring to an Acute Care Hospital. This article outlines 5 pragmatic steps that Long-Term Care facilities can take to manage airflow within resident rooms to reduce the potential for spread of infectious airborne droplets into surrounding areas including hallways and adjacent rooms, using strategies adapted from negative pressure isolation rooms in acute care facilities.; The potential for spread of COVID-19 infections in Skilled Nursing Facilities and other Long-Term Care sites poses new challenges for Nursing Home Administrators to protect patients and staff. It is anticipated that as Acute Care Hospitals reach capacity, Nursing Homes may retain COVID-19 infected residents longer prior to transferring to an Acute Care Hospital. This article outlines 5 pragmatic steps that Long-Term Care facilities can take to manage airflow within resident rooms to reduce the potential for spread of infectious airborne droplets into surrounding areas including hallways and adjacent rooms, using strategies adapted from negative pressure isolation rooms in acute care facilities.

The maintenance of well-being, healthcare, and social connection is crucial for older adults (OA) and has become a topic of debate as much of the world faces lockdown during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OAs have been advised to isolate themselves because they are at higher risk for developing serious complications from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Additionally, nursing homes and assisted-living facilities across the country have closed their doors to visitors to protect their residents. Mobile technology such as applications (apps) could provide a valuable tool to help families stay connected, and to help OAs maintain mobility and link them to resources that encourage physical and mental well-being. Apps could address cognitive, visual, and hearing impairments. Our objective was to narratively summarize 15 apps that address physical and cognitive limitations and have the potential to improve OAs’ quality of life, especially during social distancing or self-quarantine.

A total of 38 long-term care facilities within a region participated in a 3-month quality improvement initiative focused on environmental cleaning and disinfection. Significant improvements in daily and discharge cleaning were observed during the project period. Further study of the sustainability and clinical impact of this type of initiative is warranted.

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing us with many painful lessons particularly the vulnerability of individuals living with chronic conditions and the need for preparedness, coordination, and monitoring. Long-term care facilities, including nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities, provide care for some of the most vulnerable populations in society, including older people and those with chronic medical conditions. In the United Kingdom, there are about 17,000 people living in nursing and residential care homes and 200,000 Australians live or stay in residential aged care on any given day.

In addition to large scale initiatives that have been implemented to prevent international spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, we should advocate for local action targeted at preventing the deleterious health effects of social isolation as a consequence of contingency measures.

As hospitals and nursing homes gear up for expected increases in critically ill patients, they should examine all opportunities to expand their workforce capacity. Where the threat of postpandemic legal consequences hampers action to expand capacity, such barriers could be removed by governors enacting emergency orders that modify or temporarily rescind medical malpractice policies that inhibit health professionals’ ability to expand their scope of practice as required

The elderly in long-term care (LTC) and their caregiving staff are at elevated risk from COVID-19. Outbreaks in LTC facilities can threaten the health care system. COVID-19 suppression should focus on testing and infection control at LTC facilities. Policies should also be developed to ensure that LTC facilities remain adequately staffed and that infection control protocols are closely followed. Family will not be able to visit LTC facilities, increasing isolation and vulnerability to abuse and neglect. To protect residents and staff, supervision of LTC facilities should remain a priority during the pandemic.

We propose the following measures to protect those in long term care.

Extraordinarily, five older patients aged 98 years and over were discharged from hospitals, four of whom were in Wuhan—the epicenter of the global outbreak. Here we present their successful stories to inspire medical staff, patients, and the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately high mortality among older adults, particularly those with comorbidities. Nursing homes (NHs) are particularly vulnerable to widespread transmission and poor outcomes. The objectives of this study were (1) to understand preparedness among Michigan NHs in the midst of an ongoing pandemic, and (2) to compare with a 2007 survey on pandemic influenza preparedness in Michigan NHs

A severe course of COVID-19 illness is to be expected in particular in elderly patients with multimorbidity. Despite hospitalisation and intensive care, mortality in this group is very high: in the experience of intensive-care specialists, very few mechanically ventilated elderly patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) survive. For this reason, the question whether hospital admission is indicated for elderly COVID-19 patients with multimorbidity needs to be very carefully considered; it may only be appropriate in the event of complications of concurrent diseases. Most people would prefer to die, not in an intensive-care unit, but in their familiar environment. Accordingly, advance care planning is of crucial importance before, or at the latest when, the infection is diagnosed.

The fatality rates for COVID-19 patients over 80 years old are approximately 21.9% in China and 20.2% in Italy, which are much higher than those of patients without any underlying comorbidity. Overall, this suggests that elderly patients residing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) could be vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and at a high risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality.

Complications of COVID-19 have been particularly severe among older adults, who are the focus of this article. Public policy goals should prioritize pandemic preparedness in nursing homes, as well as civic and local government-based support programs for community-dwelling older adults, to ensure that risk of infection is mitigated while promoting wellness during a period of stress and uncertainty.

While we are fortunate in Ireland to have a number of geriatricians in senior leadership posts within the health service, they work in a system and society that still lags behind in appreciating the longevity dividend.

In the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, where the first case of novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in the United States was reported (1), a community-level outbreak is ongoing with evidence of rapid spread and high morbidity and mortality among older adults in long-term care skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (2,3). However, COVID-19 morbidity among residents of senior independent and assisted living communities, in which residents do not live as closely together as do residents in SNFs and do not require skilled nursing services, has not been described. During March 5-9, 2020, two residents of a senior independent and assisted living community in Seattle (facility 1) were hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection; on March 6, social distancing and other preventive measures were implemented in the community. UW Medicine (the health system linked to the University of Washington), Public Health – Seattle & King County, and CDC conducted an investigation at the facility. On March 10, all residents and staff members at facility 1 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and asked to complete a questionnaire about their symptoms; all residents were tested again 7 days later. Among 142 residents and staff members tested during the initial phase, three of 80 residents (3.8%) and two of 62 staff members (3.2%) had positive test results. The three residents had no symptoms at the time of testing, although one reported an earlier cough that had resolved. A fourth resident, who had negative test results in the initial phase, had positive test results 7 days later. This resident was asymptomatic on both days. Possible explanations for so few cases of COVID-19 in this residential community compared with those in several Seattle SNFs with high morbidity and mortality include more social distancing among residents and less contact with health care providers. In addition, early implementation of stringent isolation and protective measures after identification of two COVID-19 cases might have been effective in minimizing spread of the virus in this type of setting. When investigating a potential outbreak of COVID-19 in senior independent and assisted living communities, symptom screening is unlikely to be sufficient to identify all persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. Adherence to CDC guidance to prevent COVID-19 transmission in senior independent and assisted living communities (4) could be instrumental in preventing a facility outbreak.

In this audio interview conducted on April 1, 2020, the editors draw lessons from the early Covid-19 outbreak in Seattle and the growing crisis in New York City.

The COVID-19 outbreak has drawn heightened attention from public health scholars researching ways to limit its spread. Much of the research has been focused on minimizing transmission in hospitals and in the general community. However, a particularly vulnerable community that has received relatively little attention is elders residing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In this article we address this relative lack of attention, arguing that enhanced traffic control bundling (eTCB) can and should be adopted and implemented as a means of protecting LTCF residents and staff. Enhanced TCB has been widely applied in hospital settings and has proven effective at limiting droplet and fomite transmissions both within hospitals and between hospitals and the general community. By effectively adapting eTCB to LTCF conditions, particularly by incorporating compartmentalization within zones plus active surveillance, COVID-19 transmission into and throughout LTCFs can be minimized, thereby saving numerous lives among an especially vulnerable population.

Implementation science (IS) has the potential to serve an important role in encouraging the successful uptake of evidence-based interventions. The current state of IS awareness and engagement among health researchers, however, is relatively unknown.

Understanding the mechanisms of implementation strategies (i.e., the processes by which strategies produce desired effects) is important for research to understand why a strategy did or did not achieve its intended effect, and it is important for practice to ensure strategies are designed and selected to directly target determinants or barriers. This study is a systematic review to characterize how mechanisms are conceptualized and measured, how they are studied and evaluated, and how much evidence exists for specific mechanisms. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and CINAHL Plus for implementation studies published between January 1990 and August 2018 that included the terms “mechanism,” “mediator,” or “moderator.” Two authors independently reviewed title and abstracts and then full texts for fit with our inclusion criteria of empirical studies of implementation in health care contexts. Authors extracted data regarding general study information, methods, results, and study design and mechanisms-specific information. Authors used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess study quality. RESULTS: Search strategies produced 2277 articles, of which 183 were included for full text review. From these we included for data extraction 39 articles plus an additional seven articles were hand-entered from only other review of implementation mechanisms (total = 46 included articles). Most included studies employed quantitative methods (73.9%), while 10.9% were qualitative and 15.2% were mixed methods. Nine unique versions of models testing mechanisms emerged. Fifty-three percent of the studies met half or fewer of the quality indicators. The majority of studies (84.8%) only met three or fewer of the seven criteria stipulated for establishing mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers have undertaken a multitude of approaches to pursue mechanistic implementation research, but our review revealed substantive conceptual, methodological, and measurement issues that must be addressed in order to advance this critical research agenda. To move the field forward, there is need for greater precision to achieve conceptual clarity, attempts to generate testable hypotheses about how and why variables are related, and use of concrete behavioral indicators of proximal outcomes in the case of quantitative research and more directed inquiry in the case of qualitative research.

This exploratory, mixed-methods study analyzes characteristics of the emerging for-profit nursing home industry in the Netherlands and identifies the interrelated set of factors (context, trends, and sector conditions) that contribute to its growth. Until recently, the Dutch nursing home sector relied almost exclusively on nonprofit providers. Even though profit distribution in nursing home care is still banned, the for-profit nursing home sector is expanding. The study uses economic theory on nonprofit organizations and mixed-form markets to understand this expansion. We find that changes in the regulatory framework have unlocked the potential of the for-profit nursing home sector, enabling for-profit nursing homes to circumvent the for-profit ban. The expansion of the for-profit sector was mainly driven by the low responsiveness of the nonprofit sector to increased and changed demands. For-profit providers took advantage of this void. Moreover, they exploited “cream-skimming” potential in the market and used the wider care system to reduce their labor costs by relying on external specialist care. Another main driver was the access to financial capital from private investors (e.g., private equity firms).

Care home staff stress and burnout may be related to high turnover and associated with poorer quality care. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed studies reporting stress and burnout and associated factors in staff for people living with dementia in long-term care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science databases, and CINAHL database from January 2009 to August 2017. Two raters independently rated study validity using standardized criteria. We meta-analyzed burnout scores across comparable studies using a random effects model. RESULTS: 17/2854 identified studies met inclusion criteria. Eight of the nine studies reporting mean Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) scores found low or moderate burnout levels. Meta-analysis of four studies using the 22-item MBI (n = 598) found moderate emotional exhaustion levels (mean 18.34, 95% Confidence Intervals 14.59-22.10), low depersonalization (6.29, 2.39-10.19), and moderate personal accomplishment (33.29, 20.13-46.46). All three studies examining mental health-related quality of life reported lower levels in carer age and sex matched populations. Staff factors associated with higher burnout and stress included: lower job satisfaction, lower perceived adequacy of staffing levels, poor care home environment, feeling unsupported, rating home leadership as poor and caring for residents exhibiting agitated behavior. There was preliminary evidence that speaking English as a first language and working shifts were associated with lower burnout levels. CONCLUSIONS: Most care staff for long-term care residents with dementia experience low or moderate burnout levels. Prospective studies of care staff burnout and stress are required to clarify its relationship to staff turnover and potentially modifiable risk factors.

This study investigated barriers to fulfilling food preferences from nursing home (NH) residents’ perspectives, and the reasons preferences changed (situational dependencies). Interviews were completed with 255 residents in 28 NHs across greater Philadelphia, PA using six food items from the Preferences for Everyday Living Inventory-NH (PELI-NH). Participants were predominantly white (77%), female (67.8%), and widowed (44%) with high school educations (48%). Content analysis was used to identify n = 386 barriers and n = 57 situational dependencies. Participants reported provider policies and staff proficiency as environmental barriers to preference fulfillment regarding what, when, and where to eat. Perceived health and personal resources were barriers to obtaining snacks, take-out, and dining out. Situational dependencies resulted from residents’ perceived health and quality of family relationships. Results have implications for providers to centralize food preference fulfillment in care planning, and to use food preferences to address dining quality concerns.

To review the current literature related to the role of volunteers in dementia care in hospitals, aged care and resident homes. DESIGN: Integrative review method was used to identify and analyse current literature. METHOD: Data extracted included; author, methodology, sample, aims, data collection and analysis, findings, limitations, and comments. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2011, was used to appraise the quality of the final articles. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched included CINAHL, Medline, ProQuest Central and PubMed. Keywords and MeSH terms: dementia, cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, volunteers, volunteering, voluntary workers, hospital, acute care, aged care, residents. RESULTS: 14 articles reviewed, and three major themes revealed: volunteer motivation, volunteer involvement, and understanding roles. Recommendations to assist with future volunteer programs in dementia care are presented. CONCLUSION: Volunteer programs are beneficial to patients, family, volunteers, health care, and staff. Research of volunteers’ needs, motivations and role required, aiming to improve support and training.

The aim of this cross-sectional study is to address whether health literacy (HL) and vaccine confidence are related with influenza vaccination uptake among staff of nursing homes (NHs). It was conducted in Tuscany (Italy) in autumn 2018, including the staff of 28 NHs. A questionnaire was used to collect individual data regarding influenza vaccination in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons; the intention to be vaccinated in 2018-2019; as well as demographic, educational, and health information. It included also the Italian Medical Term Recognition (IMETER) test to measure HL and eight Likert-type statements to calculate a Vaccine Confidence Index (VCI). The number of employees that fulfilled the questionnaire was 710. The percentage of influenza vaccination uptake was low: only 9.6% got vaccinated in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 and intended to vaccinate in 2018-2019. The VCI score and the IMETER-adjusted scores were weakly correlated (Rho = 0.156). At the multinomial logistic regression analysis, the VCI was a positive predictor of vaccination uptake. In conclusion, vaccine confidence is the strongest predictor of influenza vaccination uptake among the staff of NHs. The development of an adequate vaccine literacy measurement tool could be useful to understand whether skills could be related to vaccine confidence.

This review aims to (1) examine existing definitions of omissions of care in the healthcare environment and associated characteristics and (2) outline adverse events that may be attributable to omissions of care among nursing home populations. DESIGN: Nonsystematic review. A literature search for published articles on care omissions in nursing home settings and related adverse events was performed using the databases PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Academic Search Premier, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) until January 2019. Articles were excluded if they were published in a language other than English or included samples that were not relevant to nursing home settings. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult samples in nursing home settings or settings likely to include nursing homes as part of the continuum of care. MEASURES: Articles must provide a definition of missed or omitted care relevant to nursing home settings or include adverse events that can be attributed to care omissions. RESULTS: From a total of 2155 articles retrieved, 34 were retained for thematic synthesis. Key themes included broad agreement that any delay or failure of care is an omission; diverse views on including consideration of risks or occurrence of adverse events within the definition; diverse approaches to including components of care delivery systems in the definition; recognition that care in nursing homes includes both clinical and psychosocial care; and awareness that insufficient or inadequate resources to meet care demands can cause omissions. For research on adverse events attributable to omissions, 327 of 8385 articles were included for review. Nineteen adverse events were identified and omissions contributing to their incidence are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Definitions of omissions of care for nursing homes vary in scope and level of detail. Substantial evidence connects omissions of care with an array of adverse events in nursing home populations.

Continuous information exchange between healthcare professionals is facilitated by individualized care plans. Compliance with the planned care as documented in care plans is important to provide person-centered care which contributes to the continuity of care and quality of care outcomes. Using the Nursing Interventions Classification, this study examined the consistency between documented and actually provided interventions by type of nursing staff with 150 residents in long-term institutional care. The consistency was especially high for basic (93%) and complex (79%) physiological care. To a lesser extent for interventions in the behavioral domain (66%). Except for the safety domain, the probability that documented interventions were provided was high for all domains (>/= 91%, p > 0.05). NAs generally provided the interventions as documented. Findings suggest that HCAs worked beyond there scope of practice. The results may have implications for the deployment of nursing staff and are of importance to managers.

Mouth care is increasingly recognized as an important component of care in nursing homes (NHs), yet is known to be deficient. To promote quality improvement and inform research efforts, it is necessary to have valid measures of staff self-efficacy and attitudes to provide mouth care. DESIGN: A self-administered questionnaire completed by NH staff, information about the NH obtained from the administrator, and oral hygiene assessments of NH residents. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 434 staff in 14 NHs in North Carolina who were participating in a cluster randomized pragmatic trial of Mouth Care Without a Battle (MCWB). METHODS: Staff in MCWB homes completed the questionnaire at baseline; staff in control homes completed it at 2-year follow-up. The 35-item questionnaire used new items and those from previous measures, many of which were modified for the NH setting. Factorial, construct, and criterion validity were assessed. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis identified a 3-factor 11-item self-efficacy scale (promoting oral hygiene, providing mouth care, obtaining cooperation) named “Self-Efficacy for Providing Mouth Care” (SE-PMC), and a 2-factor 11-item attitudes scale (care of residents’ teeth, care of own teeth), named Attitudes for Providing Mouth Care (A-PMC). Scores varied significantly across NHs and differentiated them based on profit status, age, and, for the A-PMC, NH size. Scores also differentiated among staff based on age and, for the SE-PMC, years of experience. In NHs where staff scored more highly, residents featured better oral hygiene (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The SE-PMC and A-PMC are valid, parsimonious, and useful measures for quality improvement and research to improve mouth care in NHs that can be used jointly or individually. Preliminary evidence suggests that these scales may be associated with resident-level plaque and gingival hygiene, making them useful tools to assess promotion of mouth care.

Functional decline in seniors admitted to hospital is due in part to lack of mobilization. Many Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives targeting mobilization of the elderly population in acute care exist; however, their long-term effectiveness is not well-documented. Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE) was a grant-funded initiative that started in Ontario and spread to Alberta. The primary objective of this project was to ascertain the sustainability of the MOVE project 1 year post implementation at two hospital sites in Alberta, Canada. Qualitative and quantitative cross-sectional data were gathered from multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. Our findings suggest MOVE was not well-sustained one year post implementation. Examination of specific survey questions provided an indication of strengths and weaknesses of the MOVE QI. Sustainable and cost-effective QI targeted at this elderly patient demographic could alleviate some of the demand on the healthcare system. Modifications to improve the sustainability of MOVE are summarized.

Quality Improvement (QI) may be a promising approach to improve the quality of care in nursing homes, and nurse training is a key step in a successful QI practice. The implementation of training measures may be related to the quality of QI practice. Little is known about the quality of QI practice or effective nurse training measures that affect the quality of QI interventions in nursing homes. AIMS: The aim of this review was to assess the quality of available QI intervention designs and present effective nurse training measures that contribute to a high-quality QI intervention. METHODS: We searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published before March 2019. QI intervention quality was evaluated using a standardized assessment tool. Descriptive synthesis was used for the analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Checklist was used for transparency. RESULTS: We included 12 articles, 1 was rated as perfect quality and 7 good quality. Out of these 8 studies, 3 features primarily reflected differences in quality: compliance, sustainability and replication ability of the interventions. They were affected by measures included provision of advanced training, available training resources, feedback process, building QI teams, setting up mentors, and nursing leadership training. Other recommended measures included external cooperation, and leadership empowerment. CONCLUSION: A high-quality QI intervention should consider how to improve compliance, sustainability and replication ability. Adapting measures that are compatible with nurse training may ensure a successful implementation of QI programmes that are conducive to the effective improvement of service quality. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: QI programmes should take into account measures that are compatible with nursing staff training. These measures should help improve the quality of interventions and promote care service of nursing homes.

The electronic medication administration record (eMAR) has been used in hospitals and acute care facilities in Canada for over a decade. Unfortunately, the Canadian continuing care sector has been slow to adopt eMAR usage. Medication delivery in long-term care has traditionally been through paper-based orders and manual documentation in the paper medication administration record. The effectiveness of this manual system as it relates to medication incidents, patient safety and nursing efficiency is not well understood because most of the information is based on anecdotal evidence. Peer-reviewed scientific literature supports the premise that the eMAR, compared to the MAR, is more efficient, significantly reduces medication incidents, promotes patient safety and improves workflow efficiency. In April 2016, the Brenda Strafford Foundation committed to implementing the eMAR at each of our three long-term care facilities to improve medication delivery, reducing and eliminating medication incidents and evaluating the benefits of the electronic system. Under the direction of the clinical team, including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and the software provider/vendor, an electronic system was developed and new processes for medication delivery were instituted within eight months of starting the project. Since the past year, the evaluation of the eMAR at the Brenda Strafford Foundation demonstrated a reduction in medication delivery time allowing for more time for direct care and a decrease in medication incidents, which directly affects resident health and safety. Nursing and the healthcare aides trained in medication management were surveyed and indicated that the eMAR provides a holistic view of the resident and provides important information readily available to improve the quality of resident care.

Management, culture and systems for better quality and patient safety in hospitals have been widely studied in Norway. Nursing homes and home care, however have received much less attention. An increasing number of people need health services in nursing homes and at home, and the services are struggling with fragmentation of care, discontinuity and restricted resource availability. The aim of the study was to explore the current challenges in quality and safety work as perceived by managers and employees in nursing homes and home care services. METHOD: The study is a multiple explorative case study of two nursing homes and two home care services in Norway. Managers and employees participated in focus groups and individual interviews. The data material was analyzed using directed content analysis guided by the theoretical framework ‘Organizing for Quality’, focusing on the work needed to meet quality and safety challenges. RESULTS: Challenges in quality and safety work were interrelated and depended on many factors. In addition, they often implied trade-offs for both managers and employees. Managers struggled to maintain continuity of care due to sick leave and continuous external-facilitated change processes. Employees struggled with heavier workloads and fewer resources, resulting in less time with patients and poorer quality of patient care. The increased external pressure affected the possibility to work towards engagement and culture for improvement, and to maintain quality and safety as a collective effort at managerial and employee levels. CONCLUSION: Despite contextual differences due to the structure, size, nature and location of the nursing homes and home care services, the challenges were similar across settings. Our study indicates a dualistic contextual dimension. Understanding contextual factors is central for targeting improvement interventions to specific settings. Context is, however, not independent from the work that managers do; it can be and is acted upon in negotiations and interactions to better support managers’ and employees’ work on quality and safety in nursing homes and home care.

The implementation of evidence-based interventions for people with dementia is complex and challenging. However, successful implementation might be a key element to ensure evidence-based practice and high quality of care. There is a need to improve implementation processes in dementia care by better understanding the arising challenges. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify recent knowledge concerning barriers and facilitators to implementing nurse-led interventions in dementia care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review using the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley. Studies explicitly reporting on the implementation process and factors influencing the implementation of a nurse-led intervention in dementia care in all settings were included. We searched eight databases from January 2015 until January 2019. Two authors independently selected the studies. For data analysis, we used an inductive approach to build domains and categories. RESULTS: We included 26 studies in the review and identified barriers as well as facilitators in five domains: policy (e.g. financing issues, health insurance), organisation (e.g. organisational culture and vision, resources, management support), intervention/implementation (e.g. complexity of the intervention, perceived value of the intervention), staff (e.g. knowledge, experience and skills, attitude towards the intervention), and person with dementia/family (e.g. nature and stage of dementia, response of persons with dementia and their families). CONCLUSIONS: Besides general influencing factors for implementing nursing interventions, we identified dementia-specific factors reaching beyond already known barriers and facilitators. A pre-existing person-centred culture of care as well as consistent team cultures and attitudes have a facilitating effect on implementation processes. Furthermore, there is a need for interventions that are highly flexible and sensitive to patients’ condition, needs and behaviour.

Pain management in nursing homes is challenging and pain prevalence remains high. The objective of this study was to improve the pain situation of nursing home residents following a nursing-related educational intervention within a cluster-randomized controlled trial (2016-2018). Participants: Clusters were nursing homes from one nursing home operator in Bavaria, Germany. Nursing home residents who were permanently registered in the facilities, at least 60 years of age, and who themselves or their legal guardians provided informed consent were included. Intervention: In addition to the implementation of pain nurses and pain care assistants, staff of the intervention group received an educational intervention in pain management, containing classroom (quality circles) and web-based training for nurses. Methods: Based on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), residents were either interviewed (MMSE 10-30) using self-report instruments or observed (MMSE 0-9) by proxy assessment. The primary outcome in residents able to self-report was maximum pain intensity according to Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); in those not able to self-report treatment-relevant pain above cut-off (>/=2) on the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD). Results: Out of 20 randomly selected clusters, 9 nursing homes from the control, and 6 nursing homes from the intervention group participated. Multilevel linear (n=347 residents, MMSE 10-30) and logistic regression (n=222 residents, MMSE 0-9) analyses were conducted. Maximum pain intensity was higher after intervention (B=1.32, p<0.01), decreased with a better quality of life (B=-0.07, p<0.001), and was lower when dementia diagnoses were present (B=-1.12, p<0.01). PAINAD scores before and after intervention did not differ significantly (OR=0.89, p=0.724), but chances to exhibit treatment-related pain were higher with decreasing MMSE (OR=0.94, p<0.05). Conclusion: While no significant positive intervention effect was measured, findings suggest nurses’ raised awareness towards pain management. Overall results indicate that large-scale educational interventions seem to be less effective in complex nursing home settings without also including specific individual-based intervention measures.

To examine the effectiveness of a pressure injury prevention program for private for-profit nursing homes. DESIGN: This study was a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Ten private for-profit nursing homes made up the clusters. METHODS: The participants were nursing home residents who aged 60 or above regardless of whether or not having pre-existing pressure injuries and also three types of nursing home assistants who provided direct care to the residents from ten private for-profit nursing homes. These ten nursing homes were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group. There were 477 and 536 resident participants and 51 and 62 nursing assistant participants in the experimental and control groups respectively. The residents were the study participants and the nursing assistant participants were the interveners. The experimental group had the pressure injury prevention program implemented while the control group received the usual care. The primary study outcome which was the pressure injury incidence was analysed by GEE. Significance was set at a p-value of <=0.05. The data were collected between September 2017 – March 2018. RESULT: There were significant interactive effects of time and group on the incidence of pressure injuries (p=0.0015) and on the skill performance of the nursing assistant participants (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: An evidence-based pressure injury prevention program reduced the development of the pressure injuries and improved the skill performance of the nursing assistant participants. It is highly recommended that private for-profit nursing homes with high proportion of non-professional nursing assistants and insufficient nurses adopt this program for improving the prevention care of pressure injuries. IMPACT: This research has an impact on prevention care of pressure injury in private for-profit nursing homes with high proportion non-professional nursing assistants which have the similar characteristics as the nursing homes studied in various regions and countries.

A psychosocial dementia care programme for challenging behaviour (DEMBASE((R)) ) was developed in collaboration with a Swedish BPSD-registry team for in-home care services use in Japan. The programme consisted of a web-based tool for the continued assessment of challenging behaviours and interdisciplinary discussion meetings. Effectiveness of the adapted programme was verified through a cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government provided municipal funding to introduce the programme into daily practice beginning in April 2018. OBJECTIVES: To investigate both facilitators and barriers associated with programme implementation. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of qualitative and quantitative data. SETTINGS: Data were collected in naturalistic long-term care settings from April 2018 to March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 138 professionals and 157 people with dementia participated in the programme. METHODS: Challenging behaviour in persons with dementia was assessed by professionals using a total Neuropsychiatric Inventory score. Data on expected facilitators and barriers were extracted for qualitative analysis from a debriefing meeting between professionals. RESULTS: Of the 157 persons with dementia, 81 (51.6%) received follow-up behavioural evaluations by March 2019. The average level of challenging behaviour was significantly reduced for 81 persons from baseline to their most recent follow-up evaluations. Facilitators included ‘programme available for care managers’, ‘visualised feedback on professionals’ work’, ‘affordable for providers and professionals’ and ‘media coverage’. Barriers included ‘professionals from different organisations’, ‘unpaid work’, ‘operation requirement for municipalities’ and ‘conflict with daily benefit-oriented framework’. CONCLUSIONS: A follow-up evaluation was not fully achieved. Further strategies to address barriers may include the development of a benefit-rewarding scheme for interdisciplinary discussion meetings, an e-learning system capable of substituting training course portions and a cross-municipality training course.

Nursing Home Compare (NHC) publishes composite quality ratings of nursing homes based on a five-star rating system, a system that has been subject to controversy about its validity. Using in-depth interviews, we assess the views of nursing home administrators and staff on NHC and unearth strategies used to improve ratings. Respondents revealed conflicting goals and strategies. Although nursing home managers monitor the ratings and expend effort to improve scores, competing goals of revenue maximization and avoidance of litigation often overshadow desire to score well on NHC. Some of the improvement strategies simply involve coding changes that have no effect on resident outcomes. Many respondents doubted the validity of the self-reported staffing data and stated that lack of risk adjustment biases ratings. Policy makers should consider nursing home incentives when refining the system, aiming to improve the validity of the self-reported domains to provide incentives for broader quality improvement.

To examine whether an optimized intervention is a more cost-effective option than treatment as usual (TAU) for improving agitation and quality of life in nursing home residents with clinically significant agitation and dementia. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis within a cluster-randomized factorial study in 69 care homes with 549 residents was conducted. Each cluster was randomized to receive either the Well-being and Health for people with Dementia (WHELD) intervention or TAU for nine months. Health and social care costs, agitation, and quality of life outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Improvements in agitation and quality of life were evident in residents allocated to the WHELD intervention group. The additional cost of the WHELD intervention was offset by the higher health and social care costs incurred by TAU group residents (mean difference, pound2103; 95% confidence interval, -13 to 4219). DISCUSSION: The WHELD intervention has clinical and economic benefits when used in residents with clinically significant agitation.

Quality report cards addressing information asymmetry in the health care market have become a popular strategy used by policymakers to improve the quality of care for older people. Using individual level data from the largest German sickness fund merged with institutional level data, we examine the relationship between reported nursing home quality, as measured by recently introduced report cards, nursing home prices, nursing home’s location, and the individual choice of nursing homes. Report cards were stepwise introduced as of 2009, and we use a sample of 2010 that includes both homes that had been evaluated at that time and that had not yet been. Thus, we can distinguish between institutions with above and below average ratings as well as nonrated nursing homes. We find that the probability of choosing a nursing home decreases in distance and price. However, we find no economically significant effect of reported quality on individuals’ choice of nursing homes.

Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population.Method: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome.Results: DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was pound289 and pound60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43.0%) mainly (87.2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle.Conclusion: No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.

Low-value care initiatives are rapidly growing; however, it is not clear how members of the public should be involved. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically examine the literature describing public involvement in initatives to reduce low-value care. METHODS: Evidence sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to November 26, 2019, grey literature (CADTH Tool), reference lists of included articles, and expert consultation. Citations were screened in duplicate and included if they referred to the public’s perception and/or involvement in reducing low-value care. Public included patients or citizens without any advanced healthcare knowledge. Low-value care included medical tests or treatments that lack efficacy, have risks that exceed benefit, or are not cost-effective. Extracted data pertained to study characteristics, low-value practice, clinical setting, and level of public involvement (i.e., patient-clinician interaction, research, or policy-making). RESULTS: The 218 included citations were predominantly original research (n = 138, 63%), published since 2010 (n = 192, 88%), originating from North America (n = 146, 67%). Most citations focused on patient engagement within the patient-clinician interaction (n = 156, 72%), using tools that included shared decision-making (n = 66, 42%) and patient-targeted educational materials (n = 72, 46%), and reported both reductions in low-value care and improved patient perceptions regarding low-value care. Fewer citations examined public involvement in low-value care policy-making (n = 33, 15%). Among citations that examined perspectives regarding public involvement in initiatives to reduce low-value care (n = 10, 5%), there was consistent support for the utility of tools applied within the patient-clinician interaction and less consistent support for involvement in policy-making. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts examining public involvement in low-value care concentrate within the patient-clinician interaction, wherein patient-oriented educational materials and shared decision-making tools have been commonly studied and are associated with reductions in low-value care. This contrasts with inclusion of the public in low-value care policy decisions wherein tools to promote engagement are less well-developed and involvement not consistently viewed as valuable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).

Precious memories (PM) is a life review intervention for depression in older adults with no to mild cognitive decline that has been implemented in multiple nursing homes (NHs) in the Netherlands. Previous research suggested its relevance but questioned its applicability. Therefore, this research aimed to (1) investigate the applicability of PM, and (2) increase its applicability, if necessary. Intervention mapping (IM) was used to achieve these goals: process evaluation through semi-structured interviews with psychologists (n = 11) and clients (n = 2) to identify potential improvements for PM and to set an improvement goal (IM-step 1); three focus groups with stakeholders (n = 20) to specify behaviors necessary to reach the improvement goal (IM-step 2); and selection of behavior change techniques and applications to facilitate attainment of these behaviors (IM-step 3). Results showed that psychologists perceived a high drop-out rate, which was partly due to PM being provided to clients that did not belong to the target group. Although PM was generally considered relevant, psychologists articulated its longer-term effects should be improved. To improve PM’s applicability, concrete maintenance strategies were developed aiming to maintain clients’ well-being by stimulating positive contact with others. Future research must pilot, implement and evaluate these strategies.

There is accumulating evidence for the value of collective and shared approaches to leadership. However, relatively little research has explored collective leadership in healthcare and thus, there is a lack understanding of the mechanisms that promote or inhibit the practice of collective leadership in healthcare teams. This study describes the development of an initial programme theory (IPT) to provide insight into the mechanisms underpinning the enactment of collective leadership. METHODS: This IPT was informed by a multiple-method data collection process. The first stage involved a realist synthesis of the literature on collective leadership interventions in healthcare settings (n = 21 studies). Next, we presented initial findings to receive feedback from a realist research peer support group. Interviews with members of teams identified as working collectively (n = 23) were then conducted and finally, we consulted with an expert panel (n = 5). Context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) were extrapolated to build and iteratively refine the programme theory and finalise it for testing. RESULTS: Twelve CMOCs were extrapolated from these data to form the initial programme theory and seven were prioritised by the expert panel for focused testing. Contextual conditions that emerged included team training on-site, use of collaborative/co-design strategies, dedicated time for team reflection on performance, organisational and senior management support, inclusive communication and decision-making processes and strong supportive interpersonal relationships within teams. Mechanisms reported include motivation, empowerment, role clarity, feeling supported and valued and psychological safety which led to outcomes including improvements in quality and safety, staff and patient satisfaction, enhanced team working, and greater willingness to share and adopt leadership roles and responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified preliminary support for the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes underpinning the practice of collective leadership. However, it must be noted that while they may appear linear in presentation, in reality they are independent and interlinked and generative of additional configurations. This paper contributes to the nascent literature through addressing an identified gap in knowledge by penetrating below the surface level inputs and outputs of an intervention to understand why it works or doesn’t work, and for whom it may work.

Large-scale adverse events (LSAEs) involve unsafe clinical practices stemming from system issues that may affect multiple patients. Although literature suggests a supportive organizational culture may protect against system-related adverse events, no study has explored such a relationship within the context of LSAEs. This study aimed to identify whether staff perceptions of organizational culture were associated with LSAE incidence. METHODS: The team conducted an exploratory analysis using the 2008-2010 data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) All Employee Survey (AES). LSAE incidence was the outcome variable in two facilities where similar infection control practice issues occurred, leading to LSAEs. For comparison, four facilities where LSAEs had not occurred were selected, matched on VA-assigned facility complexity and geography. The AES explanatory factors included workgroup-level (civility, employee engagement, leadership, psychological safety, resources, rewards) and hospital-level Likert-type scales for four cultural factors (group, rational, entrepreneurial, bureaucratic). Bivariate analyses and logistic regressions were performed, with individual staff as the unit of analysis from the anonymous AES data. RESULTS: Responses from 209 AES participants across the six facilities in the sample indicated that the four comparison facilities had significantly higher mean scores compared to the two LSAE facilities for 9 of 10 explanatory factors. The adjusted analyses identified that employee engagement significantly predicted LSAE incidence (odds ratio=0.58, 95% confidence interval=0.37-0.90). CONCLUSION: Staff at the two exposure facilities in this study described their organizational culture to be less supportive. Lower scores in employee engagement may be a contributing factor for LSAEs.

To identify the facilitating and complicating factors for the prevention and treatment of pressure injury (PI) in the management of hospitalized patient care. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, conducted with 197 nursing professionals in three public hospitals. RESULTS: Among the identified factors, it is noteworthy that 59% of respondents are unaware of the PI prevention protocol, 27% do not use clinical evaluation for daily sizing of professionals, more than 52% believe that no facilitating elements exist, and 76% argue that there are complicating elements for the prevention of PI. As for the treatment, a little over 60% reported that the patient and the injury are evaluated by nurses, with 54% of the procedures being prescribed by the physician and 46% of the therapy being performed by nursing technicians. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the prevention and treatment of PI require shared management, with integrated actions among the care executors.

Broadly, the Readiness Spark Project aimed to recommend one or more pathways forward for Ariadne in incorporating readiness into our implementation work in the future. From October 2017 to August 2018, we combined an extensive (though non-systematic) literature review on organizational readiness theory and tools in the healthcare and business literature and interviews with experts (researchers and practitioners) in the field of organizational readiness. We synthesized a series of conceptual and practical recommendations, attempting to balance our focus between immediately applicable work (e.g. choosing an assessment tool) and longer term contributions to the field (e.g. exploring all of the conceptual possibilities). Additionally, we interviewed key members of Ariadne programs and platforms (“teams”) to determine the needs and priorities around readiness across the organization and held multiple internal retreats to elicit feedback on our progress and refine our conclusions.

The way research is, and should be, funded by the public sphere is the subject of renewed interest for sociology, economics, management sciences, and more recently, for the philosophy of science. In this contribution, I propose a qualitative, epistemological criticism of the funding by lottery model, which is advocated by a growing number of scholars as an alternative to peer review. This lottery scheme draws on the lack of efficiency and of robustness of the peer-review-based evaluation to argue that the majority of public resources for basic science should be allocated randomly. I first differentiate between two distinct arguments used to defend this alternative funding scheme based on considerations about the logic of scientific research. To assess their epistemological limits, I then present and develop a conceptual frame, grounded on the notion of ‘system of practice’, which can be used to understand what precisely it means, for a research project, to be interesting or significant. I use this epistemological analysis to show that the lottery model is not theoretically optimal, since it underestimates the integration of all scientific projects in densely interconnected systems of conceptual, experimental, or technical practices which confer their proper interest to them. I also apply these arguments in order to criticize the classical peer-review process. I finally suggest, as a discussion, that some recently proposed models that bring to the fore a principle of decentralization of the evaluation and selection process may constitute a better alternative, if the practical conditions of their implementation are adequately settled.

Modeling studies to inform the design of complex health services interventions often involves elements that differ from the intervention’s ultimate real-world use. These “hypothetical” elements include pilot participants, materials, and settings. Understanding the conditions under which studies with “hypothetical” elements can yield valid results would greatly help advance health services research. Our objectives are: 1) to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify factors affecting the relationship between hypothetical decisions and real-world behaviours, and 2) to summarise and organize these factors into a preliminary framework. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search using PsycINFO and Medline on November 30th, 2015, updated March 7th, 2019. We also conducted a supplemental snowball search on December 9th 2015 and a reverse citation search using Scopus and Web of Science. Studies were eligible to be included in this review if they clearly addressed the consistency between some type of hypothetical decision and a corresponding real decision or behaviour. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized data collection form developed through an iterative consensus-based process. We extracted basic study information and data about each study’s research area, design, and research question. Quotations from the articles were extracted and summarized into standardized factor statements. RESULTS: Of the 2444 articles that were screened, 68 articles were included in the review. The articles identified 27 factors that we grouped into 4 categories: decision maker factors, cognitive factors, task factors, and matching factors. CONCLUSIONS: We have summarized a large number of factors that may be relevant when considering whether hypothetical health services pilot work can be expected to yield results that are consistent with real-world behaviours. Our descriptive framework can serve as the basis for organizing future work exploring which factors are most relevant when seeking to develop complex health services interventions.

Although some advances have been made in recent years, the lack of measures remains a major challenge in the field of implementation research. This results in frequent adaptation of implementation measures for different contexts-including different types of respondents or professional roles-than those for which they were originally developed and validated. The psychometric properties of these adapted measures are often not rigorously evaluated or reported. In this study, we examined the internal consistency, factor structure, and structural invariance of four well-validated measures of inner setting factors across four groups of respondents. The items in these measures were adapted as part of an evaluation of a large-scale organizational change in a rehabilitation hospital, which involved transitioning to a new building and a new model of patient care, facilitated by a significant redesign of patient care and research spaces. METHODS: Items were tailored for the context and perspective of different respondent groups and shortened for pragmatism. Confirmatory factor analysis was then used to test study hypotheses related to fit, internal consistency, and invariance across groups. RESULTS: The survey was administered to approximately 1208 employees; 785 responded (65% response rate) across the roles of clinician, researcher, leader, support staff, or dual clinician and researcher. For each of the four scales, confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated adequate fit that largely replicated the original measure. However, a few items loaded poorly and were removed from the final models. Internal consistencies of the final scales were acceptable. For scales that were administered to multiple professional roles, factor structures were not statistically different across groups, indicating structural invariance. CONCLUSIONS: The four inner setting measures were robust for use in this new context and across the multiple stakeholder groups surveyed. Shortening these measures did not significantly impair their measurement properties; however, as this study was cross sectional, future studies are required to evaluate the predictive validity and test-retest reliability of these measures. The successful use of adapted measures across contexts, across and between respondent groups, and with fewer items is encouraging, given the current emphasis on designing pragmatic implementation measures.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of older adults die in residential aged care facilities, yet little is known about the characteristics of and how best to optimise medication use in the last year of life. AIM: The aim of this review was to map characteristics of medication use in aged care residents during the last year of life in order to examine key concepts related to medication safety and draw implications for further research and service provision. DESIGN: A scoping review following Arskey and O’Malley’s framework was conducted using a targeted keyword search, followed by assessments of eligibility based on title and content of abstracts and full papers. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the scoping review protocol was prospectively registered to the Open Science Framework on 27 November 2018. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane databases to identify peer-reviewed studies published between 1937 and 2018, written in English and looking at medication use in individuals living in aged care facilities within their last year of life. RESULTS: A total of 30 papers were reviewed. Five key overarching themes were derived from the analysis process: (1) access to medicines at the end of life, (2) categorisation and classes: medicines and populations, (3) polypharmacy and total medication numbers, (4) use of symptomatic versus preventive medications and (5) ‘inappropriate’ medications. CONCLUSION: Number of prescriptions or blunt categorisations of medications to assess their appropriateness are unlikely to be sufficient to promote well-being and medication safety for older people in residential aged care in the final stages of life.

Medication administration is a complex and time-consuming task in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Understanding the time associated with each administration step may help identify opportunities to optimize medication management in RACFs. This study aimed to investigate the time taken to administer medications to residents, including those with complex care needs such as cognitive impairment and swallowing difficulties. METHOD: A time-and-motion study was conducted in three South Australian RACFs. A representative sample of 57 scheduled medication administration rounds in 14 units were observed by a single investigator. The rounds were sampled to include different times of day, memory support units for residents living with dementia and standard units, and medication administration by registered and enrolled nurses. Medications were administered from pre-prepared medication strip packaging. The validated Work Observation Method By Activity Timing (WOMBAT) software was used to record observations. RESULTS: Thirty nurses were observed. The average time spent on scheduled medication administration rounds was 5.2 h/unit of average 22 residents/day. The breakfast medication round had the longest duration (1.92 h/unit). Resident preparation, medication preparation and provision, documentation, transit, communication, and cleaning took an average of 5 minutes per resident per round. Medication preparation and provision comprised 60% of overall medication round time and took significantly longer in memory support than in standard units (66 vs 49 seconds per resident per round for preparation, 79 vs 58 for provision; P < .001 for both). Almost half (42%) of tablets/capsules were crushed in memory support units. The time taken for medication administration was not significantly different among registered and enrolled nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses took an average of 5 minutes to administer medications per resident per medication round. Medication administration in memory support units took an additional minute per resident per round, with almost half of tablets and capsules needing to be crushed.

To investigate the effect of a social robot intervention on depression, loneliness, and quality of life of older adults in long-term care (LTC) and to explore participants’ experiences and perceptions after the intervention. DESIGN: A mixed-methods approach consisting of a single group, before and after quasi-experimental design, and individual interview. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty older adults with depression from four LTC facilities in Taiwan were recruited. INTERVENTION: Each participant participated in 8 weeks of observation and 8 weeks of intervention. In the observation stage, participants received usual care or activities without any research intervention. In the intervention stage, each participant was given a Paro (Personal Assistive RobOt) to keep for 24 hours, 7 days a week. MEASUREMENTS: The Geriatric Depression Scale, the UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire for older adults were administered at four time points. Individual qualitative interviews with thematic analysis followed. RESULTS: A repeated multivariate analysis of variance and Friedman’s test showed no significant changes during the observation stage between T1 and T2 for depression and quality of life (p >.5). For the intervention stage, statistically significant changes in decreasing depression and loneliness and improving quality of life over time were identified. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (i) humanizing Paro through referring to personal experiences and engagement; (ii) increased social interaction with other people; and (iii) companionship resulting in improved mental well-being. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant improvements in mental well-being in using Paro. Further research may help us to understand the advantages of using a Paro intervention as depression therapy.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey involving 349 older adults, family members, and long-term services and supports (LTSS) professionals in Minnesota to assess their views on priorities for residential LTSS quality. We found considerable agreement among the three groups on the highest priorities to ensure the wellbeing of older adults who use LTSS: safety, dignity, and staffing. Relationships were also viewed as a high priority. However, older adults prioritized the physical environment over professionals, and they expressed more varied opinions on priorities overall. Older adults also consistently rated autonomy/choice as less important than other quality domains, a finding worth further exploration.

To examine the frequency and severity of pain and use of pain therapies among long-term care residents with moderate to severe dementia and to explore the factors associated with increased pain severity. DESIGN: Prospective individual data were collected over 1 to 3 days for each participant. SETTING: Sixteen long-term care facilities in Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. PARTICIPANTS: Residents with moderate to severe cognitive impairment residing in a long-term care facility for at least 7 days were enrolled (N = 205). Residents were 47% female, predominantly white (69%), and 84 years old, on average (SD = 10 years). MEASUREMENTS: A comprehensive pain assessment protocol was used to evaluate pain severity and characteristics through medical record review, interviews with nursing home staff, physical examinations, as well as pain observation tools (Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia Pain Scale and Pain Intensity Measure for Persons With Dementia). Known correlates were also assessed (agitation, depression, and sleep). RESULTS: Experts’ pain evaluations indicated that residents’ usual pain was mild (mean = 1.6/10), and most experienced only intermittent pain (70%). However, 45% of residents experienced moderate to severe worst pain. Of residents, 90% received a pain therapy, with acetaminophen (87%) and opioids (32%) commonly utilized. Only 3% had a nondrug therapy documented in the medical record. The only resident characteristic that was significantly associated with pain severity was receipt of an opioid in the past week. CONCLUSION: Using a comprehensive pain assessment protocol, we found that most nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia had mild usual, intermittent pain and the vast majority received at least one pain therapy in the previous week. Although these findings reflect improvements in pain management compared with older studies, there is still room for improvement in that 45% of the sample experienced moderate to severe pain at some point in the previous week. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:794-802, 2020.

Over the last two decades guidelines have been published on the subject of the care and liberalised nutrition management of older adults with diabetes in residential aged care, recognising that they may have different needs to those older adults in their own home. This study aimed to scope and appraise these guidelines using the AGREE II tool. Overall physician developed guidelines were more robust, but there was discordance in their recommendations compared to guidelines developed by dietitians; particularly regarding the use of therapeutic diets. A lack of standardised approach has implications for optimal dietary management of diabetes in aged care.

To report on the conceptualisation of a model for residential aged care in Australia. METHODS: Three-stage approach involving initial model conceptualisation; extensive consultation with stakeholders to test and develop the model for feasibility and acceptability; and examination of whether the model addresses circumstances that arise in scenarios of organisational failure. RESULTS: A model consisting of five domains relevant to the experience of older adults living in residential aged care-health care; social inclusion; rights; personal care and re-ablement; and dementia management. CONCLUSIONS: This proposed model of residential aged care takes as its purpose the provision of person-centred care to older people with complex health issues, requiring end-of-life care, and/or living with dementia. This includes supporting dignity of risk and quality of life and enabling older adults to thrive.

The STAR-VA program in Veterans Health Administration Community Living Centers (CLCs, nursing home settings) trains teams to implement a psychosocial intervention with residents with behavioral symptoms of dementia (BSD). METHODS: Across 71 CLCs, 302 residents selected as training cases had target behaviors categorized into one of 5 types: physically aggressive (PA), physically nonaggressive, verbally aggressive, verbally nonaggressive, and behavior deficit (BD). RESULTS: Across all groups, there were significant declines in team-rated behavior frequency (36%) and severity (44%), agitation (10%), distress behaviors (42%), depression (17%), and anxiety (20%). The magnitude of changes varied across behavior category. For example, those with a PA target behavior experienced a greater percentage decline in agitation and distress behavior scores, and those with a BD target behavior experienced a greater percentage decline in depressive and anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: STAR-VA, a multicomponent intervention, is generally effective across various types of behavioral symptoms associated with dementia.

To examine racial and ethnic differences in knowledge about one’s dementia status. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The 2000 to 2014 Health and Retirement Study. PARTICIPANTS: Our sample included 8,686 person-wave observations representing 4,065 unique survey participants, aged 70 years or older, with dementia, as identified by a well-validated statistical prediction model based on individual demographic and clinical characteristics. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measure was knowledge of one’s dementia status, as reported in the survey. Patient characteristics included race/ethnicity, age, sex, survey year, cognition, function, comorbidity, and whether living in a nursing home. RESULTS: Among subjects identified as having dementia by the prediction model, 43.5% to 50.2%, depending on the survey year, reported that they were informed of the dementia status by their physician. This proportion was lower among Hispanics (25.9%-42.2%) and non-Hispanic blacks (31.4%-50.5%) than among non-Hispanic whites (47.7%-52.9%). Our fully adjusted regression model indicated lower dementia awareness among non-Hispanic blacks (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.94) and Hispanics (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.43-0.85), compared to non-Hispanic whites. Having more instrumental activity of daily living limitations (OR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.56-1.75) and living in a nursing home (OR = 2.78; 95% CI = 2.32-3.32) were associated with increased odds of subjects reporting being told about dementia by a physician. CONCLUSION: Less than half of individuals with dementia reported being told by a physician about the condition. A higher proportion of non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics with dementia may be unaware of their condition, despite higher dementia prevalence in these groups, compared to non-Hispanic whites. Dementia outreach programs should target diverse communities with disproportionately high disease prevalence and low awareness.

Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine are approved for Alzheimer disease in Canada. Regional drug reimbursement policies are associated with cross-provincial variation in ChEI use, but it is unclear how these policies influence predictors of use. Using standardized data from two provinces with differing policies, we compared resident-level characteristics associated with dementia pharmacotherapy at long-term care (LTC) admission. Methods: Using linked clinical and administrative databases, we examined characteristics associated with dementia pharmacotherapy use among residents with dementia and/or significant cognitive impairment admitted to LTC facilities in Saskatchewan (more restrictive reimbursement policies; n = 10,599) and Ontario (less restrictive; n = 93,331) between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2015. Multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to assess resident demographic, functional, and clinical characteristics associated with dementia pharmacotherapy. Results: On admission, 8.1% of Saskatchewan residents were receiving dementia pharmacotherapy compared to 33.2% in Ontario. In both provinces, residents with severe cognitive impairment, aggressive behaviors, and recent antipsychotic use were more likely to receive dementia pharmacotherapy; while those who were unmarried, admitted in later years, had a greater degree of frailty, and recent hospitalizations were less likely. The direction of the association for older age, rural residency, medication number, and anticholinergic therapy differed between provinces. Conclusions: While more restrictive criteria for dementia pharmacotherapy coverage in Saskatchewan resulted in fewer residents entering LTC on dementia pharmacotherapy, there were relatively few differences in the factors associated with use across provinces. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess how differences in prevalence and characteristics associated with use impact patient outcomes.

Non-pharmacological interventions for Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) have been developed; however, a systematic review on the effectiveness of this type of intervention from a perspective of ergonomics is lacking. According to ergonomics, the capabilities of Persons with Dementia (PwD) should be considered in the interventions for the outcomes to be reliable. We aimed to systematically review the non-pharmacological interventions for BPSD in nursing home residents with an additional assessment criterion based on ergonomics, specifically, capability consideration. METHODS: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for non-pharmacological interventions treating BPSD in nursing homes. The interventions were categorized according to the capabilities of PwD required to participate. Study quality was assessed by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) evidence hierarchy and the capability consideration. RESULTS: Sixty-four clinical trials met the inclusion criteria; 41 trials reported a significant reduction in at least one BPSD symptom; 20 trials reported no significant reduction in BPSD symptoms; three trials reported adverse effects after the intervention. Interventions were categorized into sensory-, cognition-, and movement-oriented. Capabilities of PwD were not considered in 28 trials, especially for sensory capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the clinical trials reported a significant reduction in BPSD. The quality of evidence for nonpharmacological interventions in these trials is low due to the lack of capability consideration, data inhomogeneity, and inadequate study design and reporting. Future studies should focus on improving the quality of evidence by including capability consideration and examining if a relationship between capability consideration and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions exists.

In long-term residential care (LTRC), caregivers’ attempts to provide person-centered care can be challenging when assisting residents living with a communication disorder (eg, aphasia) and/or a language-cultural barrier. Mobile communication technology, which includes smartphones and tablets and their software apps, offers an innovative solution for preventing and overcoming communication breakdowns during activities of daily living. There is a need to better understand the availability, relevance, and stability of commercially available communication apps (cApps) that could support person-centered care in the LTRC setting. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) systematically identify and evaluate commercially available cApps that could support person-centered communication (PCC) in LTRC and (2) examine the stability of cApps over 2 years. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches of the Canadian App Store (iPhone Operating System platform) in 2015 and 2017 using predefined search terms. cApps that met the study’s inclusion criteria underwent content review and quality assessment. RESULTS: Although the 2015 searches identified 519 unique apps, only 27 cApps were eligible for evaluation. The 2015 review identified 2 augmentative and alternative cApps and 2 translation apps as most appropriate for LTRC. Despite a 205% increase (from 199 to 607) in the number of augmentative and alternative communication and translation apps assessed for eligibility in the 2017 review, the top recommended cApps showed suitability for LTRC and marketplace stability. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended existing cApps included some PCC features and demonstrated marketplace longevity. However, cApps that focus on the inclusion of more PCC features may be better suited for use in LTRC, which warrants future development. Furthermore, cApp content and quality would improve by including research evidence and experiential knowledge (eg, nurses and health care aides) to inform app development. cApps offer care staff a tool that could promote social participation and person-centered care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/10.2196/17136.

What should reporters be asking geriatricians, long term care administrators and policy makers about managing risk, mitigating infections and improving testing and treatment in this patient population? What can nursing home inspection reports tell us when it comes to keeping the institutionalized older population safer?

States and localities across the U.S. are seeking effective ways to provide high-quality care to as many nursing home patients as is possible without transporting them to the hospital, while ensuring nursing home staff have the appropriate personal protective equipment and are trained how to use—and in many cases reuse—this equipment, and how to implement infection prevention and control measures on site.

By the end of this session, participants will:
• Understand the basic concepts and definitions in cost effectiveness
• Understand the distinction between different types of cost effectiveness
• Know what kind of methods are used for calculating effectiveness
• Understand the interpretation of cost effectiveness results
The workshop will be of particular interest to health researchers, students and health policy organizations.

This webinar is the second of a two part series offered in partnership with ASC / CCNA (part one took place on March 31, 2020; a recording can be found here. This second webinar will use case examples to highlight some common challenges that arise when issues of intimacy arise in persons with dementia and strategies will be offered to help us support meaningful relationships. (Participants who didn’t / couldn’t attend part one, are welcome to attend part two).

A new dataset is now available as a result of an exploratory initiative to enhance the use and harmonization of open data from municipal, regional, provincial, territorial and federal sources. An outcome of this exploratory work is the first version of the Open Database of Health Facilities (ODHF), which contains data on approximately 9,000 health care facilities across Canada. The purpose of this database is to contribute to the availability of harmonized and comprehensive open microdata on health care facilities in Canada.

Health facilities in the ODHF are classified into one of three facility types: ambulatory health care services, hospitals, and nursing and residential care facilities. The ODHF contains the following information for each health facility: name of the facility, source facility type (as contained in the data source), ODHF facility type, data provider, address of facility, city, province or territory, latitude and longitude, and an index number for each record.

Data were collected from November 2019 to March 2020. The database leverages both open and publicly available data.

The Director, Knowledge Mobilization (Director, KMb), will be responsible for leading CCSA’s knowledge mobilization portfolio. The Director, KMb, brings a specialized knowledge in the field and provides guidance and leadership to the team of knowledge brokers. The Director collaborates with other colleagues within CCSA and external partners to support organizational priorities and mobilize the latest evidence in substance use and addiction. The Director, KMb, is a member of CCSA’s Senior Leadership Team as well as its Operations Committee.