Search

Introduction: In the past years, governments from several countries have shown interest in implementing integrated health information systems. The interRAI Suite of instruments fits this concept, as it is a set of standardised, evidence-based assessments, which have been validated for different care settings. The system allows the electronic transfer of information across care settings, enabling integration of care and providing support for care planning and quality monitoring. The main purpose of this research is to describe the recent implementation process of the interRAI instruments in seven countries: Belgium, Switzerland, France, Ireland, Iceland, Finland and New Zealand. Methods: The study applied a case study methodology with the focus on the implementation strategies in each country. Principal investigators gathered relevant information from multiple sources and summarised it according to specific aspects of the implementation process, comparing them across countries. The main implementation aspects are described, as well as the main advantages and barriers perceived by the users. Results: The seven case studies showed that adequate staffing, appropriate information technology, availability of hardware, professional collaboration and continuous training are perceived as important factors which can contribute to the implementation of the interRAI instruments. In addition, the use of electronic standardised assessment instruments such as the interRAI Suite provided evidence to improve decision-making and quality of care, enabling resource planning and benchmarking. Conclusion: In practice, the implementation of health information systems is a process that requires a cultural shift of policymakers and professional caregivers at all levels of health policy and service delivery. Information about the implementation process of the interRAI Suite in different countries can help investigators and policymakers to better plan this implementation. This research sheds light on the advantages and pitfalls of the implementation of the interRAI Suite of instruments and proposes approaches to overcome difficulties [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the impact of New Zealand's (NZ) first wave of COVID‐19, which included a nationwide lockdown, on the health and psychosocial well‐being of Māori, Pacific Peoples and NZ Europeans in aged residential care (ARC). Methods: interRAI assessments of Māori, Pacific Peoples and NZ Europeans (aged 60 years and older) completed between 21/3/2020 and 8/6/2020 were compared with assessments of the same ethnicities during the same period in the previous year (21/3/2019 to 8/6/2019). Physical, cognitive, psychosocial and service utilisation indicators were included in the bivariate analyses. Results: A total of 538 Māori, 276 Pacific Peoples and 11,322 NZ Europeans had an interRAI assessment during the first wave of COVID‐19, while there were 549 Māori, 248 Pacific Peoples and 12,367 NZ Europeans in the comparative period. Fewer Māori reported feeling lonely (7.8% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.021), but more NZ Europeans reported severe depressive symptoms (6.9% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.028) during COVID‐19. Lower rates of hospitalisation were observed in Māori (7.4% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.046) and NZ Europeans (8.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001) during COVID‐19. Conclusions: We found a lower rate of loneliness in Māori but a higher rate of depression in NZ European ARC populations during the first wave of COVID‐19. Further research, including qualitative studies with ARC staff, residents and families, and different ethnic communities, is needed to explain these ethnic group differences. Longer‐term effects from the COVID‐19 pandemic on ARC populations should also be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore how interRAI assessments could be used to identify opportunities to integrate palliative care into a plan of care. Methods: A population‐based, cross‐sectional design using unique identifiers to link deaths with a national interRAI database. Data were analysed using logistic regression models and chi‐square tests. Results: A total of 4869 people died over a 12‐month period in one district health board area; 50.9% (n = 2478) received one or more interRAI assessments in the year before death. Diagnosis impacted on the type and timing of interRAI assessments and the recognition of end‐stage disease. Conclusion: People in the last year of life experience frequent interRAI assessments. There are opportunities to identify people who might benefit from a palliative care approach. Future research is needed to understand how interRAI assessors can be supported in the application of assessment items related to palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]