Search

Background: Empirical research investigating older adult homicide is sparse and rarely accumulated for greater insights. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantifies the prevalence and characteristics of homicide victimization among older adults (65 years and older) compared with younger adults (18–64 years). Method: We searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published before December 31, 2018 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration: CRD42017054536). Included were English-language, original, peer-reviewed studies describing the homicide of older adults. Excluded were studies not meeting age criteria, residence as an institution, or with insufficient outcome variables. The review included 39 studies; 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Data were extracted via open access or from study authors. Heterogeneity was assessed through study-level random effects estimates. Results: Pooled homicide rates per 100,000 population were 2.02 (95% CI [1.23, 3.33]) for older adults (n = 35,325) and 3.98 (95% CI [2.42, 6.53]) for younger adults (n = 607,224; rate ratio =.51, 95% CI [0.37, 0.70], p <.001). Proportion estimates for older adults: victim female 46.3%, location home 71.4%, offender familiar 25.2%, compared to stranger, 24.2%, motive argument 36.1%, compared to felony 30.8%, and weapon firearm 24.5%. Older adults were significantly different to younger adult victims (p = <.001) for female (OR = 2.5, 95% CI [2.02, 3.10]), home (3.87, 95% CI [3.45, 4.35]), stranger (1.81, 95% CI [1.66, 1.98]), argument (0.33, 95% CI [0.28, 0.39]), felony (2.78, 95% CI [2.58, 2.99]), and firearm (0.38, 95% CI [0.36, 0.40]). Conclusions: Homicide against older adults differs from younger adults and warrants specific research and tailored prevention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety has again focussed attention on the failings of the Australian aged care system. Residential aged care in Australia has become increasingly market-driven since the major reforms of 1997. The aims of increased marketisation include providing residents with greater choice, higher quality services, and increasing providers' efficiency and innovation. However, marketisation is not meeting these aims, predominantly due to asymmetries of knowledge and power between residents and aged care providers. These asymmetries arise from inadequate provision of information, geographic disparities, urgency for care as needs arise acutely, and issues surrounding safety, including cultural safety. We propose a human rights framework, supported by responsive regulation, to overcome the failings of the current system and deliver an improved aged care system which is fit for purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Emergency management responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in nursing homes lacked preparation and nuance; moving forward, responses must recognize nursing homes are not generic organizations or services, and individually appreciate each's unique nature, strengths, and limitations. The objective of this study was to describe an approach to stratifying nursing homes according to risk for COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: Population-based cross-sectional study of all accredited nursing homes in Victoria (n = 766), accommodating 48,824 permanent residents. We examined each home's facility structure, governance history, socio-economic status, proximity to high-risk industry, and proximity and size of local acute public hospital, stratified by location, size, and organizational structure. Results: Privately owned nursing homes tend to be larger and metropolitan-based, and publicly owned homes regionally based and smaller in size. The details reveal additional nuance, eg, privately owned metropolitan-based medium- to large-sized facilities tended to have more regulatory noncompliance, no board of governance, and fewer Chief Executive Officers with clinical background. In contrast, the smaller, publicly owned, remote facilities perform better on those same metrics. Conclusions: Nursing homes should not be regarded as generic entities, and there is significant underlying heterogeneity. Stratification of nursing homes according to risk level is a viable approach to informing more nuanced policy direction and resource allocation for emergency management responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]