Search

Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias have 3.2 million hospital stays annually, which is significantly more than older individuals without dementia. Hospitalized patients with dementia are at greater risk of delirium, falls, overwhelming functional decline that may extend the hospital stay, and prolonged or complicated rehabilitation. These risks highlight the need for staff education on the special care needs of this vulnerable population. This article describes a one-day education program, the Dementia Friendly Hospital Initiative, designed to teach staff how to provide the specialized care required by patients with dementia. Participants ( N = 355) from five different hospitals, including 221 nurses, completed a pretest-posttest evaluation for the program. Changes in participants’ attitudes and practices, confidence, and knowledge were evaluated. Scores indicated significant improvement on the posttest. The evaluation provides further evidence for recommending dissemination of the Dementia Friendly Hospital Initiative. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2014;45(9):416–424.

Background: Approximately 3.2 million hospital stays annually involve a person with dementia, leading to higher costs, longer lengths of stay, and poorer outcomes. Older adults with dementia are vulnerable when hospitals are unable to meet their special needs. Methods: We developed, implemented, and evaluated a training program for 540 individuals at 4 community hospitals. Pretest, posttest, and a 120-day delayed posttest were performed to assess knowledge, confidence, and practice parameters. Results: The mean age of the sample was 46 years; 83% were White, 90% were female, and 60% were nurses. Upon completion, there were significant gains (P's < 0.001) in knowledge and confidence in recognizing, assessing, and managing dementia. Attendees reported gains in communication skills and strategies to improve the hospital environment, patient safety, and behavioral management. At 120 days, 3 of 4 hospitals demonstrated maintenance of confidence. In the hospital that demonstrated lower knowledge and confidence scores, the sample was older and had more nurses and more years in practice. Conclusions: We demonstrate the feasibility of training hospital staff about dementia and its impact on patient outcomes. At baseline, there was low knowledge and confidence in the ability to care for dementia patients. Training had an immediate impact on knowledge, confidence, and attitudes with lasting impact in 3 of 4 hospitals. We identified targets for intervention and the need for ongoing training and administrative reinforcement to sustain behavioral change. Community resources, such as local chapters of the Alzheimer Association, may be key community partners in improving care outcomes for hospitalized persons with dementia.

Background: Although there is debate about the appropriate place of guidelines in clinical practice, guidelines can be seen as one way of assisting clinicians in decision-making. Given the likely diversity of opinion that any group of people may display when considering a topic, methods are needed for organising subjective judgements. Three principal methods (Delphi, nominal group technique, consensus development conference) exist which share the common objective of synthesising judgements when a state of uncertainty exists. Objectives: To identify the factors that shape and influence the clinical guidelines that emerge from consensus development methods and to make recommendations about best practice in the use of such methods. Methods: Five electronic databases were searched: Medline (1966-1996), PsychLIT (1974-1996), Social Science Citation Index (1990-1996), ABI Inform and Sociofile. From the searches and reference lists of articles a total of 177 empirical and review articles were selected for review. Results: The output from consensus development methods may be affected by: the way the task is set (choice of cues, recognition of contextual cues, the focus of the task, the comprehensiveness of the scenarios); the selection of participants (choice of individuals, degree of homogeneity of the group, their background, their number); the selection and presentation of scientific information (format, extent to which its quality and content is assessed); the way any interaction is structured (number of rating rounds, ensuring equitable participation, physical environment for meetings); and the method of synthesising individual judgements (definition of agreement, rules governing outliers, method of mathematical aggregation). Conclusions: Although a considerable amount of research has been carried out, many aspects have not been investigated sufficiently. For the time being at least, advice on those aspects has, therefore, to be based on the user's own commonsense and the experience of those who have used or participated in these methods. Even in the long term, some aspects will not be amenable to scientific study. Meanwhile, adherence to best practice will enhance the validity, reliability and impact of the clinical guidelines produced.