Search

Background: Relocations within and between nursing homes often induce stress, anxiety, and depression in residents and cause additional workload for and burnout in staff. To prevent this, many nursing homes deploy pre-transition initiatives, bridging initiatives, and post-transition initiatives to support residents and staff during the relocation process. As little is known about these initiatives, this study aims to explore the pre-relocation, bridging and post-relocation initiatives used for relocations within and between nursing homes. Methods: In seven Dutch nursing homes, eight focus groups were conducted with two to six participants (N = 37) who were actively involved in relocation processes in different roles (i.e., managers, healthcare professionals, support staff, client council members, residents and family). The focus groups were conducted based on a predefined topic list and lasted approximately 60 min. The transcripts were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic coding. Results: Nursing homes had to be inventive in developing relocation initiatives as neither shared guidelines nor knowledge exchange on this topic were available. A total of thirty-seven relocation initiatives were identified in these seven nursing homes. Nineteen pre-relocation initiatives were identified, of which eight emphasized information and engagement, three highlighted training and practice and eight stressed orientation and visualization. Seven bridging initiatives were identified, of which four emphasized coordination and continuity and three highlighted entertainment and celebration. Eleven post-relocation initiatives were identified, of which seven emphasized evaluation and troubleshooting and four highlighted change and adjustment. Conclusion: The identified relocation initiatives were developed unassisted by nursing homes, due to a lack of shared guidelines, knowledge exchange and mutual learning on this topic. Therefore, it may be expedient and more effective to develop general guidelines for relocations within and between nursing homes in collaboration with nursing homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although apathy is common in people with dementia and has profound negative effects, it is rarely diagnosed nor specifically treated in nursing homes. The aim of this study is to explore experiences in identifying and managing apathy from the perspectives of people with dementia and apathy (PwA), family caregivers (FCs) and professional caregivers (PCs). Methods: Descriptive qualitative study with purposive sampling, comprising eleven semi-structured in-depth interviews with PwA, FCs or PCs and focus groups with twelve PCs in Dutch nursing homes. Seventeen additional in-depth interviews with caregivers were held, after signals of increasing apathy during the first Covid-19 lockdown. Using an inductive approach, data was analysed thematically to explore the experiences in identifying and managing apathy from the perspective of different stakeholders. Results: Three themes were identified: 1) the challenge to appraise signals, 2) the perceived impact on well-being, 3) applied strategies to manage apathy. Although participants described apathy in line with diagnostic criteria, they were unfamiliar with the term apathy and had difficulties in appraising signals of apathy. Also, the perceived impact of apathy varied per stakeholder. PwA had difficulties reflecting on their internal state. FCs and PCs experienced apathy as challenging when it reduced the well-being of PwA or when they themselves experienced ambiguity, frustration, insecurity, disappointment or turning away. Dealing with apathy required applying specific strategies that included stimulating meaningful contact, adjusting one's expectations, and appreciating little successes. Conclusions: When addressing apathy in nursing homes, it is important to consider that a) all stakeholders experience that appraising signals of apathy is challenging; b) apathy negatively influences the well-being of people with dementia and especially their FCs and PCs; and c) FCs and PCs can successfully, albeit temporarily, manage apathy by using specific strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nursing homes were disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccination was considered critical for the normalization of daily live of nursing home residents. The present study investigates the impact of the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic and the effect of vaccinations on the daily lives of residents and staff in Dutch nursing homes. Setting and participants: The sample consisted of 78 nursing homes that participated in the Dutch national pilot on nursing home visits after the COVID-19 pandemic. One contact person per nursing home was approached for participation in this mixed-methods cross-sectional study. Methods: Data was collected twice through questionnaires in April and December 2021. Quantitative questions focused on recent COVID-19 outbreaks, progress of vaccination, effects of vaccination on daily living in the nursing home and burden experienced by staff. Open-ended questions addressed the prolonged effect of the pandemic on residents, family members and staff. Results: The overall vaccination rate of residents across nursing homes appeared to be high among both residents and staff. However, daily living in the nursing home had not returned to normal concerning personal interactions, visits, the use of facilities and work pressure. Nursing homes continued to report a negative impact of the pandemic on residents, family members and staff. Conclusions: Restrictions to the daily lives of residents in nursing homes were stricter than restrictions imposed on society as a whole. Returning to a normal daily living and working was found to be complex for nursing homes. With the emergence of new variants of the virus, policies strongly focusing on risk aversion were predominantly present in nursing homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 restrictions in nursing homes resulted in a reduction in stimuli for residents. This study aimed to explore observed effects of changes in stimuli, both targeted (e.g., planned recreational activities) and untargeted (e.g., spontaneous noise), on challenging behavior in nursing home residents during COVID-19 anti-pandemic measures.Methods: In an online survey, nursing home healthcare professionals in the Netherlands provided their perspectives on the effects of the reduction in untargeted stimuli on residents with mild, advanced, or no dementia, and on different types of challenging behavior (i.e., psychotic, depressed, anxious, agitated, or apathetic behavior). Additionally, we asked participants' opinions about strategies for limiting untargeted stimuli and for adjusting targeted stimuli for optimal management of challenging behaviors.Results: In total, 199 professionals completed the survey. Residents with advanced dementia and those with psychotic and agitated behavior seemed to benefit from the reductions in stimuli not specifically targeted at the resident. In contrast, residents without dementia and those with depressive and apathetic behavior seemed to be negatively affected by reductions in untargeted stimuli. Participants would like to continue reducing untargeted stimuli in the future (e.g., limiting the use of corridors adjacent to residents' rooms) and to adapt existing or introduce new initiatives involving targeted stimuli (e.g., small-scale, individually tailored activities). Responses to open-ended questions revealed additional initiatives that could be useful in nursing home care.Conclusions: This study provided lessons to learn from the COVID-19 measures in nursing homes. While many residents may have been negatively affected by the restrictions imposed during the pandemic, specific resident groups may have benefitted from the reduction in untargeted stimuli and from the adjustments made to daily activities. Various strategies and initiatives used in nursing homes during the pandemic seem promising for meeting individual needs in managing challenging behavior. These findings suggest that certain stimuli may affect specific resident groups differently. This underlines the importance of finding the right balance between stimuli and tranquility, tailored to the needs of individual residents. It is important to consider the stimuli present in nursing homes, whether targeted or untargeted, when analyzing and treating challenging behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To protect nursing home residents, many governments around the world implemented blanket visitor bans in March and April 2020. As a consequence, family caregivers, friends, and volunteers were not allowed to enter nursing homes, while residents were not allowed to go out. Up until now, little is known on the long-term consequences and effects of visiting bans and re-opening of nursing homes. The aim of the study was to assess the long-term effects of the pandemic on residents, family members, and staff, and their preparedness for the next coronavirus wave.Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used, consisting of a questionnaire and analyses of documentation (local visiting protocols). Of the 76 nursing home locations that participated in a Dutch national pilot on welcoming visitors back into nursing homes, 64 participated in this follow-up study. Data were collected in September/October 2020. For each nursing home, one contact person completed the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative questionnaire data. Data on open-ended questions, as well as data from the documentation, were analyzed thematically.Results: The study demonstrated that the consequences of strict visiting bans do not disappear at the moment the visiting ban is lifted. Although in October 2020, daily life in nursing homes was more "back to normal," more than one-third of the respondents indicated that they still applied restrictions. Compared to the situation before the pandemic, fewer volunteers were working in the nursing homes, grandchildren visited their relative less often, and visits differed.Conclusions: Five months after the visiting ban in Dutch nursing homes had been lifted, it still had an impact on residents, family members, and staff. It is questionable whether nursing homes feel prepared for welcoming visitors in the case of new COVID-19 infections. Nursing homes indicated that they felt prepared for the next wave, while at the same time, they were particularly concerned about staff well-being and vitality. It seems wise to invest in staff well-being. In addition, it seems desirable to think about how to support nursing homes in seeking a balance between infection prevention and well-being of residents, family members, and staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pneumonia in people with dementia has been associated with severe discomfort. We sought to assess the effectiveness of a practice guideline for optimal symptom relief for nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia.Methods: A single-blind, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in 32 Dutch nursing homes. Outcomes were assessed on the patient level. The main outcome measures were discomfort and symptoms: discomfort (DS-DAT: Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type), (lack of) comfort (EOLD-CAD: End Of Life in Dementia-Comfort Assessment in Dying), pain (PAINAD: Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), and respiratory distress (RDOS: Respiratory Distress Observation Scale). Outcomes were scheduled daily from diagnosis until 10 days later and a final time between 13-15 days from diagnosis by trained observers who were blinded to the intervention and the residents' condition and treatment. In a pre-intervention phase, usual care was provided to all homes. In the intervention phase, matched clusters of homes were randomized to either the control (n = 16) or intervention condition (n = 16).Results: Between 1 January 2012 and 1 May 2015, 464 episodes of pneumonia were included. Outcomes were obtained for 399 episodes in 367 residents. Longitudinal multilevel linear regression analyses were performed on log-transformed outcomes, so coefficients should be interpreted as a ratio, and a coefficient of 1 means no difference. The practice guideline in the intervention phase did not reduce the level of discomfort and symptoms: DS-DAT: 1.11 (95 % CI 0.93-1.31), EOLD-CAD: 1.01 (95 % CI 0.98-1.05), PAINAD: 1.04 (95 % CI 0.93-1.15), RDOS: 1.11 (95 % CI 0.90-1.24). However, in both the intervention and control groups, lack of comfort and respiratory distress gradually decreased during the entire 3.5 years of data collection, and were lower in the intervention phase compared to the pre-intervention phase: DS-DAT: 0.93 (95 % CI 0.85-1.01), EOLD-CAD: 0.98 (95 % CI 0.97-1.00), PAINAD: 0.96 (95 % CI 0.91-1.01), RDOS: 0.92 (95 % CI 0.87-0.98).Conclusions: When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. However, discomfort and symptoms decreased gradually throughout the data collection in both the intervention homes and the control homes. An intervention that focuses on creating awareness may be more effective than a physician practice guideline.Trial Registration: The Netherlands National Trial Register (ID number NTR5071 . Registered 10 March 2015). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers. Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care. Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Challenging behavior exhibited by people with dementia can have adverse outcomes, like stress, low morale, low work satisfaction and absenteeism for nursing staff in long-term care settings. Training nursing staff to manage challenging behavior may reduce its impact. Although much of the research into training nursing staff shows methodological limitations, several studies find some effect of training programs on knowledge about and on management of challenging behavior. Effects on stress or burnout are almost not found. Methods/design: The TENSE-study is a randomized controlled study on 18 nursing home units (9 control, 9 intervention) investigating the effects of a continuous educational program for nursing staff about managing challenging behavior. Nursing staff of intervention units receive the program, nursing staff of control units do not and continue usual care. The primary outcome is stress experienced by nursing staff (N = 135). Secondary outcomes are: emotional workload, work satisfaction, stress reactions at work and knowledge about challenging behaviour of nursing staff; and frequency of challenging behavior, quality of life and social engagement of residents. Because there are many unknown factors influencing the effect of the training, a process evaluation to evaluate sampling-, implementation- and intervention quality as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation will also be included in the analysis. Nursing staff could not be blinded to the intervention, but were blinded for the outcomes. Discussion: Strengths of this study are the (good) description of the intervention complemented by a process evaluation and the tailoring of the intervention to the wishes and needs of the nursing homes at any moment during the study. Sustaining the effects of the intervention by using follow up sessions is another strength. Possible drawbacks may be dropout because of the frailty of the elderly population and because nursing staff might move to another job during the study. Trial registration NTR (Dutch Trial Registration) number NTR3620 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Geriatric stroke patients are generally frail, have an advanced age and co-morbidity. It is yet unclear whether specific groups of patients might benefit differently from structured multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs. Therefore, the aims of our study are 1) to determine relevant patient characteristics to distinguish groups of patients based on their admission scores in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and (2) to study the course of these particular patient-groups in relation to their discharge destination. Methods: This is a longitudinal, multicenter, observational study. We collected data on patient characteristics, balance, walking ability, arm function, co-morbidity, activities of daily living (ADL), neuropsychiatric symptoms, and depressive complaints of 127 geriatric stroke patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities with specific units for geriatric rehabilitation after stroke. Results: Cluster analyses revealed two groups: cluster 1 included patients in poor condition upon admission (n = 52), and cluster 2 included patients in fair/good condition upon admission (n = 75). Patients in both groups improved in balance, walking abilities, and arm function. Patients in cluster 1 also improved in ADL. Depressive complaints decreased significantly in patients in cluster 1 who were discharged to an independent- or assisted-living situation. Compared to 80% of the patients in cluster 2, a lower proportion (46%) of the patients in cluster 1 were discharged to an independent- or assisted-living situation. Conclusion: Stroke patients referred for rehabilitation to SNFs could be clustered on the basis of their condition upon admission. Although patients in poor condition on admission were more likely to be referred to a facility for long-term care, this was certainly not the case in all patients. Almost half of them could be discharged to an independent or assisted living situation, which implied that also in patients in poor condition on admission, discharge to an independent or assisted living situation was an attainable goal. It is important to put substantial effort into the rehabilitation of patients in poor condition at admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness and efficiency of nursing-home dementia care are suboptimal: there are high rates of neuropsychiatric symptoms among the residents and work-related stress among the staff. Dementia-care mapping is a person-centred care method that may alleviate both the resident and the staff problems. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dementia-care mapping in nursinghome dementia care. Methods/Design: The study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial, with nursing homes grouped in clusters. Studywise minimisation is the allocation method. Nursing homes in the intervention group will receive a dementia-care-mapping intervention, while the control group will receive usual care. The primary outcome measure is resident agitation, to be assessed with the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. The secondary outcomes are resident neuropsychiatric symptoms, assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory - Nursing Homes and quality of life, assessed with Qualidem and the EQ-5D. The staff outcomes are stress reactions, job satisfaction and job-stress-related absenteeism, and staff turnover rate, assessed with the Questionnaire about Experience and Assessment of Work, the General Health Questionnaire-12, and the Maastricht Job Satisfaction Scale for Health Care, respectively. We will collect the data from the questionnaires and electronic registration systems. We will employ linear mixed-effect models and cost-effectiveness analyses to evaluate the outcomes. We will use structural equation modelling in the secondary analysis to evaluate the plausibility of a theoretical model regarding the effectiveness of the dementia-care mapping intervention. We will set up process analyses, including focus groups with staff, to determine the relevant facilitators of and barriers to implementing dementia-care mapping broadly. Discussion: A novelty of dementia-care mapping is that it offers an integral person-centred approach to dementia care in nursing homes. The major strengths of the study design are the large sample size, the clusterrandomisation, and the one-year follow-up. The generalisability of the implementation strategies may be questionable because the motivation for person-centred care in both the intervention and control nursing homes is above average. The results of this study may be useful in improving the quality of care and are relevant for policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study is evaluating the (cost-) effectiveness of a multidisciplinary, evidence based care program to improve the management of depression in nursing home residents of somatic and dementia special care units. The care program is an evidence based standardization of the management of depression, including standardized use of measurement instruments and diagnostical methods, and protocolized psychosocial, psychological and pharmacological treatment. Methods/Design: In a 19-month longitudinal controlled study using a stepped wedge design, 14 somatic and 14 dementia special care units will implement the care program. All residents who give informed consent on the participating units will be included. Primary outcomes are the frequency of depression on the units and quality of life of residents on the units. The effect of the care program will be estimated using multilevel regression analysis. Secondary outcomes include accuracy of depression-detection in usual care, prevalence of depression-diagnosis in the intervention group, and response to treatment of depressed residents. An economic evaluation from a health care perspective will also be carried out. Discussion: The care program is expected to be effective in reducing the frequency of depression and in increasing the quality of life of residents. The study will further provide insight in the cost-effectiveness of the care program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]