scholarly journals Between Restrictive and Supportive Devices in the Context of Physical Restraints: Findings from a Large Mixed-Method Study Design

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (23) ◽  
pp. 12764
Author(s):  
Alvisa Palese ◽  
Jessica Longhini ◽  
Angela Businarolo ◽  
Tiziana Piccin ◽  
Giuliana Pitacco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Physical Restraint ◽  
Mixed Method Study ◽  
Physical Restraints ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Hospital Units ◽  
Increased Risk

Physical restraints are still a common problem across healthcare settings: they are triggered by patient-related factors, nurses, and context-related factors. However, the role of some devices (e.g., bed rails), and those applied according to relatives’/patients’ requests have been little investigated to date. A mixed-method study in 2018, according to the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study criteria was performed. In the quantitative phase, patients with one or more physical restraint(s) as detected through observation of a single index day in 37 Italian facilities (27 long-term, 10 hospital units, =4562 patients) were identified. Then, for each patient with one or more restraint(s), the nurse responsible was interviewed to gather purposes and reasons for physical restraints use. A thematic analysis of the narratives was conducted to (a) clarify the decision-making framework that had been used and (b) to assess the differences, if any, between hospital and long-term settings. The categories ‘Restrictive’ and ‘Supportive’ devices aimed at ‘Preventing risks’ and at ‘Promoting support’, respectively, have emerged. Reasons triggering ‘restrictive devices’ involved patients’ risks, the health professionals’ and/or the relatives’ concerns. In contrast, the ‘supportive’ ones were triggered by patients’ problems/needs. ‘Restrictive’ and ‘Supportive’ devices were applied based on the decision of the team or through a process of shared decision-making involving relatives and patients. According to the framework that emerged, long-term care patients are at increased risk of being treated with ‘restrictive devices’ (Odds Ratio 1.87, Confidence Interval 95% 1.44; 2.43; p < 0.001) as compared to those hospitalized. This study contributes to the improvement in knowledge of the definition, classification and measurement of physical devices across settings.

scholarly journals Variation of the Occurrence of Physical Restraint Use in the Long-Term Care: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 11918
Author(s):  
Elisa Ambrosi ◽  
Martina Debiasi ◽  
Jessica Longhini ◽  
Lorenzo Giori ◽  
Luisa Saiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Physical Restraint ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Physical Restraints ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Restraint Use

Physical restraints in the long-term care setting are still commonly used in several countries with a prevalence ranging from 6% to 85%. Trying to have a broad and extensive overlook on the physical restraints use in long-term care is important to design interventions to prevent and/or reduce their use. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to analyze the range of occurrence of physical restraint in nursing homes, long-term care facilities, and psychogeriatric units. Pubmed, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO- databases were searched for studies with concepts about physical restraint use in the European long-term care setting published between 2009 and 2019, along with a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies. Data on study design, data sources, clinical setting and sample characteristics were extracted. A total of 24 studies were included. The median occurrence of physical restraint in the European long-term care setting was still high (26.5%; IQR 16.5% to 38.5%) with a significant variability across the studies. The heterogeneity of data varied according to study design, data sources, clinical setting, physical restraint’s definition, and patient characteristics, such as ADLs dependence, presence of dementia and psychoactive drugs prescription.

Issues of Capacity and Decision-Making in the Context of Delirium

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 140-145
Author(s):  
Kevin R. Patterson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cognitive Change ◽  
Treatment Team ◽  
Precipitating Factors ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Fundamental Consideration

Decision-making capacity is a fundamental consideration in working with patients in a clinical setting. One of the most common conditions affecting decision-making capacity in patients in the inpatient or long-term care setting is a form of acute, transient cognitive change known as delirium. A thorough understanding of delirium — how it can present, its predisposing and precipitating factors, and how it can be managed — will improve a speech-language pathologist's (SLPs) ability to make treatment recommendations, and to advise the treatment team on issues related to communication and patient autonomy.

scholarly journals Online Opioid Stewardship Training for Long-Term Care Staff

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 533-533
Author(s):  
Linda Edelman ◽  
Troy Andersen ◽  
Cherie Brunker ◽  
Nicholas Cox ◽  
Jorie Butler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staff Training ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Care Staff ◽  
Video Content ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Pain Management Strategy

Abstract Opioids are often the first-line chronic pain management strategy for long-term care (LTC) residents who are also at increased risk for opioid-related adverse events. Therefore, there is a need to train LTC providers and staff about appropriate opioid use and alternative treatment strategies. Our interdisciplinary team worked with LTC partners to identify staff educational needs around opioid stewardship. Based on this need’s assessment, we developed eight modules about opioid use and risks for older adults, including those with dementia, recommendations for de-prescribing including other pharmacological and non-pharmacological alternatives, SBIRT, and motivational interviewing to determine “what matters”. Each 20-minute module contains didactic and video content that is appropriate for group staff training or individuals and provides rural LTC facilities access to needed training in their home communities. Within the first month of launching online, the program received over 1100 hits and LTC partners are incorporating modules into clinical staff training schedules.

scholarly journals Impact of oral self-care on incident functional disability in elderly Japanese: the Ohsaki Cohort 2006 study

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shino Bando ◽  
Yasutake Tomata ◽  
Jun Aida ◽  
Kemmyo Sugiyama ◽  
Yumi Sugawara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Functional Disability ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Tooth Brushing ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Long Term Care Insurance ◽  
Elderly Japanese

ObjectivesTo assess whether oral self-care (tooth brushing, regular dental visits and use of dentures) affects incident functional disability in elderly individuals with tooth loss.DesignA 5.7-year prospective cohort study.SettingOhsaki City, Japan.Participants12 370 community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older.Primary outcome measuresIncident functional disability (new long-term care insurance certification).ResultsThe 5.7-year incidence rate of disability was 18.8%. In comparison with participants who had ≥20 teeth, the HRs (95% CIs) for incident functional disability among participants who had 10–19 and 0–9 teeth were 1.15 (1.01–1.30) and 1.20 (1.07–1.34), respectively (p trend<0.05). However, the corresponding values for those who brushed their teeth ≥2 times per day were not significantly higher in the ‘10–19 teeth’ and ‘0–9 teeth’ groups (HRs (95% CI) 1.05 (0.91–1.21) for participants with 10–19 teeth, and 1.09 (0.96–1.23) for participants with 0–9 teeth), although HRs for those who brushed their teeth <2 times per day were significantly higher (HRs (95% CI) 1.32 (1.12–1.55) for participants with 10–19 teeth, and 1.33 (1.17–1.51) for participants with 0–9 teeth). Such a negating association was not observed for other forms of oral self-care.ConclusionsTooth brushing may partially negate the increased risk of incident functional disability associated with having fewer remaining teeth.

Association of Dementia-Related Psychosis With Long-term Care Use and Death

Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 96 (12) ◽  
pp. e1620-e1631
Author(s):  
James B. Wetmore ◽  
Yi Peng ◽  
Heng Yan ◽  
Suying Li ◽  
Muna Irfan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Proportional Hazard ◽  
Comorbid Conditions ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazard ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazard Regression

ObjectiveTo determine the association of dementia-related psychosis (DRP) with death and use of long-term care (LTC); we hypothesized that DRP would be associated with increased risk of death and use of LTC in patients with dementia.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed. Medicare claims from 2008 to 2016 were used to define cohorts of patients with dementia and DRP. Outcomes were LTC, defined as nursing home stays of >100 consecutive days, and death. Patients with DRP were directly matched to patients with dementia without psychosis by age, sex, race, number of comorbid conditions, and dementia index year. Association of DRP with outcomes was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model.ResultsWe identified 256,408 patients with dementia. Within 2 years after the dementia index date, 13.9% of patients developed DRP and 31.9% had died. Corresponding estimates at 5 years were 25.5% and 64.0%. Mean age differed little between those who developed DRP (83.8 ± 7.9 years) and those who did not (83.1 ± 8.7 years). Patients with DRP were slightly more likely to be female (71.0% vs 68.3%) and white (85.7% vs 82.0%). Within 2 years of developing DRP, 16.1% entered LTC and 52.0% died; corresponding percentages for patients without DRP were 8.4% and 30.0%, respectively. In the matched cohort, DRP was associated with greater risk of LTC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.36, 2.29–2.44) and death (HR 2.06, 2.02–2.10).ConclusionsDRP was associated with a more than doubling in the risk of death and a nearly 2.5-fold increase in risk of the need for LTC.

scholarly journals Case–control study to estimate odds of death within 28 days of positive test for SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination for residents of long-term care facilities in England, 2020–2021

2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2021-218135
Author(s):  
Karthik Paranthaman ◽  
Hester Allen ◽  
Dimple Chudasama ◽  
Neville Q Verlander ◽  
James Sedgwick
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Positive Test ◽  
Mortality Data ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Care Facilities

BackgroundPersons living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are presumed to be at higher risk of adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection due to increasing age and frailty, but the magnitude of increased risk is not well quantified.MethodsAfter linking demographic and mortality data for cases with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 2020 and January 2021 in England, a random sample of 6000 persons who died and 36 000 who did not die within 28 days of a positive test was obtained from the dataset of 3 020 800 patients. Based on an address-matching process, the residence type of each case was categorised into one of private home and residential or nursing LTCF. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted.ResultsMultivariable analysis showed that an interaction effect between age and residence type determined the outcome. Compared with a 60-year-old person not living in LTCF, the adjusted OR (aOR) for same-aged persons living in residential and nursing LTCFs was 1.77 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.6, p=0.0017) and 3.95 (95% CI 2.77 to 5.64, p<0.0001), respectively. At 90 years of age, aORs were 0.87 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, p=0.21) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.9, p=0.001), respectively. The model had an overall accuracy of 94.2% (94.2%) when applied to the full dataset of 2 978 800 patients.ConclusionThis study found that residents of LTCFs in England had higher odds of death up to 80 years of age. Beyond 80 years, there was no difference in the odds of death for LTCF residents compared with those in the wider community.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document