Guidance to (Re)integrate Caregivers as Essential Care Partners Into the LTC Setting: A Rapid Review

ObjectivesThis rapid review aimed to identify the strategies used to (re)integrate essential caregivers (ECs) into the LTC setting, particularly pertaining to principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion. In addition, this rapid review aimed to identify the strategies used during prior infectious disease threats, when similar blanket visitor restrictions were implemented in LTC homes. The review was part of a larger effort to support LTC homes in Ontario.DesignA rapid review was conducted in accordance with principles from the Canadian National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.Setting and ParticipantsECs, residents, staff, and policy decision makers in long-term care home settings.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched for academic and gray literature using predefined search terms. Selected documents met inclusion criteria if they included policy guidance or an intervention to (re)integrate ECs into LTC homes at the local, national, and/or international level.ResultsIn total, 15 documents met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All documents retrieved focused on the context of COVID-19. Documents were either policy guidance (n = 13) or primary research studies (n = 2). Documents differed in these notable ways: Definition of EC; the degree to which an EC is recognized for her or his role in the care of the resident; the degree to which ECs are (re)integrated into the LTC setting is prioritized; response to community spread of COVID-19; visitation during an outbreak or if a resident is symptomatic; the reliance on equity, diversity, and inclusion principles; and lastly, monitoring and improving the process.Conclusions and ImplicationsUsing an equity, diversity, and inclusion lens, we posit promising practices for (re)integration. It is clear from the rapid review that more research is needed to understand the efficacy of policies and guidelines to (re)integrate ECs into the LTC setting. Until such evidence is available, expert opinion will drive best care practices.     

Exploring variation in rates of polypharmacy across long term care homes

ObjectiveUse of multiple, concurrent drug therapies, often referred to as polypharmacy, is a concern in the long term care (LTC) setting, where frail older adults are particularly at risk for adverse events. We quantified the scope of this practice by exploring variation in the use of nine or more drug therapies across LTC homes.DesignCross-sectional analysis of LTC home census data.SettingAll LTC homes in Ontario, Canada.ParticipantsA total of 64,394 LTC residents aged 66 years and older residing in 589 LTC homes in the fall of 2005.MeasurementsFacility-level rates of polypharmacy were compared with rates of use of Beers criteria and antipsychotic drug therapies. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess predictors of polypharmacy across residents and LTC homes.ResultsNine or more drug therapies were dispensed concurrently to 10,007 (15.5%) of LTC home residents. Compared with those dispensed fewer drugs, residents receiving 9 or more drug therapies were more likely to have multiple comorbidities. There was threefold variation in polypharmacy rates across homes (26.2% versus 7.9%) and facility-level rates of polypharmacy were modestly correlated with rates of use of Beers criteria drugs (r = 0.27, P < .001) and antipsychotic drug therapies (r = 0.16, P < .001). Controlling for resident factors, those living in LTC homes with high polypharmacy rates were more likely to receive 9 or more drug therapies (odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.7–2.0).ConclusionResidents in Ontario LTC homes commonly received nine or more concurrent drug therapies, particularly residents with multiple chronic conditions. The threefold variation in rate across homes suggests a role for this measure in guiding drug review at the facility level.     

Social Connection in Long-Term Care Homes: A Scoping Review of Published Research on the Mental Health Impacts and Potential Strategies During COVID-19

ObjectivesGood social connection is associated with better health and wellbeing. However, social connection has distinct considerations for people living in long-term care (LTC) homes. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize research literature linking social connection to mental health outcomes, specifically among LTC residents, as well as research to identify strategies to help build and maintain social connection in this population during COVID-19.DesignScoping review.Settings and ParticipantsResidents of LTC homes, care homes, and nursing homes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Embase and Embase Classic (Ovid), Emcare Nursing (Ovid), and AgeLine (EBSCO) for research that quantified an aspect of social connection among LTC residents; we limited searches to English-language articles published from database inception to search date (July 2019). For the current analysis, we included studies that reported (1) the association between social connection and a mental health outcome, (2) the association between a modifiable risk factor and social connection, or (3) intervention studies with social connection as an outcome. From studies in (2) and (3), we identified strategies that could be implemented and adapted by LTC residents, families and staff during COVID-19 and included the articles that informed these strategies.ResultsWe included 133 studies in our review. We found 61 studies that tested the association between social connection and a mental health outcome. We highlighted 12 strategies, informed by 72 observational and intervention studies, that might help LTC residents, families, and staff build and maintain social connection for LTC residents.Conclusions and ImplicationsPublished research conducted among LTC residents has linked good social connection to better mental health outcomes. Observational and intervention studies provide some evidence on approaches to address social connection in this population. Although further research is needed, it does not obviate the need to act given the sudden and severe impact of COVID-19 on social connection in LTC residents.     

Process Evaluation of a Workplace Integrated Care Intervention for Workers with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Purpose To perform a process evaluation of the implementation of a workplace integrated care intervention for workers with rheumatoid arthritis to maintain and improve work productivity. The intervention consisted of integrated care and a participatory workplace intervention with the aim to make adaptations at the workplace. Methods The implementation of the workplace integrated care intervention was evaluated with the framework of Linnan and Steckler. We used the concepts recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and satisfaction with the intervention. Data collection occurred through patient questionnaires and medical records. Results Participants were recruited by sending a letter including a reply card from their own rheumatologist. In total, we invited 1973 patients to participate. We received 1184 reply cards, and of these, 150 patients eventually participated in the study. Integrated care was delivered according to protocol for 46.7 %, while the participatory workplace intervention was delivered for 80.6 %. Dose received was nearly 70 %, which means that participants implemented 70 % of the workplace adaptations proposed during the participatory workplace intervention. The fidelity score for both integrated care and the participatory workplace intervention was sufficient, although communication between members of the multidisciplinary team was limited. Participants were generally satisfied with the intervention. Conclusions This process evaluation shows that our intervention was not entirely implemented as intended. The integrated care was not delivered to enough participants, but for the intervention components that were delivered, the fidelity was good. Communication between members of the multidisciplinary team was limited. However, the participatory workplace intervention was implemented successfully, and participants indicated that they were satisfied with the intervention.     

Building Long-Term Care Staff Capacity During COVID-19 Through Just-in-Time Learning: Evaluation of a Modified ECHO Model

ObjectivesThe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly challenged the capacity of long-term care (LTC) homes in Canada, resulting in new, pressing priorities for leaders and health care providers (HCPs) in the care and safety of LTC residents. This study aimed to determine whether Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) Care of the Elderly Long-Term Care (COE-LTC): COVID-19, a virtual education program, was effective at delivering just-in-time learning and best practices to support LTC teams and residents during the pandemic.DesignMixed methods evaluation.Setting and ParticipantsInterprofessional HCPs working in LTC homes or deployed to work in LTC homes primarily in Ontario, Canada, who participated in 12 weekly, 60-minute sessions.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative surveys assessing reach, satisfaction, self-efficacy, practice change, impact on resident care, and knowledge sharing.ResultsOf the 252 registrants for ECHO COE-LTC: COVID-19, 160 (63.4%) attended at least 1 weekly session. Nurses and nurse practitioners represented the largest proportion of HCPs (43.8%). Overall, both confidence and comfort level working with residents who were at risk, confirmed, or suspected of having COVID-19 increased after participating in the ECHO sessions (effect sizes ≥ 0.7, Wilcoxon signed rank P < .001). Participants also reported impact on intent to change behavior, resident care, and knowledge sharing.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe results demonstrate that ECHO COE-LTC: COVID 19 effectively delivered time-sensitive information and best practices to support LTC teams and residents. It may be a critical platform during this pandemic and in future crises to deliver just-in-time learning during periods of constantly changing information.     

Optimizing Prescribing of Antipsychotics in Long-Term Care (OPAL): A Stepped-Wedge Trial

BackgroundInappropriate antipsychotic prescribing is a key quality indicator by which clinical outcomes might be monitored and improved in long-term care (LTC), but limited evidence exists on the most effective strategies for reducing inappropriate antipsychotic use.ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to evaluate a multicomponent approach to reduce inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics in LTC.DesignA prospective, stepped-wedge study design was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention.Settings and participantsInterdisciplinary staff at 10 Canadian LTC facilities.MethodsThe intervention consisted of an educational in-service, provision of evidence-based tools to assess and monitor neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia, and monthly interprofessional team meetings. The primary outcome was the proportion of residents receiving an antipsychotic without a diagnosis of psychosis using a standardized antipsychotic quality indicator.ResultsThe weighted mean change in inappropriate antipsychotic prescribing rate from baseline to 12-month follow-up was −4.6% [standard deviation (SD) = 2.8%, P < .0001], representing a 16.1% (SD = 17.0) relative reduction. After adjusting for site, the odds ratio for the inappropriate antipsychotic prescribing quality indicator at 12 months compared to baseline was 0.73 (95% confidence interval = 0.48-0.94; chi-square = 6.59; P = .01). There were no significant changes in related quality indicators, including falls, restraint use, or behavioral symptoms.Conclusions and implicationsThis multicomponent intervention was effective in reducing inappropriate antipsychotic prescribing in LTC without adversely affecting other domains related to quality of care, and offers a practical means by which to improve the care of older adults with dementia in LTC.     

Sampling Challenges in Nursing Home Research

BackgroundResearch on end-of-life care in nursing homes is hampered by challenges in retaining facilities in samples through study completion. Large-scale longitudinal studies in which data are collected on-site can be particularly challenging.ObjectivesTo compare characteristics of nursing homes that dropped from the study to those that completed the study.MethodsOne hundred two nursing homes in a large geographic 2-state area were enrolled in a prospective study of end-of-life care of residents who died in the facility. The focus of the study was the relationship of staff communication, teamwork, and palliative/end-of-life care practices to symptom distress and other care outcomes as perceived by family members. Data were collected from public data bases of nursing homes, clinical staff on site at each facility at 2 points in time, and from decedents’ family members in a telephone interview.ResultsSeventeen of the 102 nursing homes dropped from the study before completion. These non-completer facilities had significantly more deficiencies and a higher rate of turnover of key personnel compared to completer facilities. A few facilities with a profile typical of non-completers actually did complete the study after an extraordinary investment of retention effort by the research team.ConclusionNursing homes with a high rate of deficiencies and turnover have much to contribute to the goal of improving end-of-life care, and their loss to study is a significant sampling challenge. Investigators should be prepared to invest extra resources to maximize retention.     

Effects of Copayment in Long-Term Care Insurance on Long-Term Care and Medical Care Expenditure

ObjectiveThis study aimed to clarify the difference in (1) long-term care (LTC) usage and expenditure and (2) medical care service usage and expenditure before and after the change in the copayment limit for qualifying individuals from 10% to 20%.Setting and ParticipantsThis quasi-experimental longitudinal design used the database from 1 prefecture of Japan that included 570,434 person-month records of 23,879 insured individuals (in August 2014) who used LTC services between August 2014 and July 2015 and were aged 65 years and older on August 1, 2014.MethodsWe conducted difference-in-difference estimations to compare “before” and “after” outcome differences between insured individuals whose LTC copayment increased to 20% and those whose copayment remained at 10%. Sex, age, Care Needs Level, subsidy, and public assistance were adjusted in the models, along with robustness checks.ResultsDifferences in both insurer's payment and insured's copayment indicated statistical significance between those whose copayment increased and those whose copayment did not increase. We found no significant difference in the number of minutes of home care service use, days of facility care service use, and LTC expenditures among those with copayment increases as well as those with no increase in copayment following the insured's copayment increase policy implementation. In contrast, the policy implementation caused significant differences in the number of days of hospitalization, medical care expenditures, and total expenditures.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe increase in insured individuals' copayment decreased LTC insurer's payment. However, total LTC expenditure increased over time although the increase trend slowed down in the treatment group after the copayment increase policy implemented. Besides, medical care expenditure increased consistently among insured individuals whose copayment increased. As there appears to be a “balloon effect” between LTC and medical care services, it is important to discuss the medical care system while considering the LTC insurance system comprehensively.     

Structured Care Protocols to Reduce Behavior That Challenges in People With Dementia: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesPeople with dementia often express behavior that challenges, such as agitation and aggression. Structured care protocols aim to identify common causes of behavior and facilitate the selection of appropriate treatments. The protocols comprise different steps including specific assessments and related nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments. We aim to assess the effects of such protocols to reduce behavior that challenges.DesignSystematic review according to the methods of Cochrane and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020155706).Setting and ParticipantsPeople with dementia living in nursing homes.MethodsThe systematic search (September 2020) included databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) and other sources. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment for all included studies. A narrative synthesis was conducted owing to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of instruments.ResultsFour studies with 596 participants were included. Three studies compared a version of the Serial Trial Intervention, with control groups receiving education about behavior that challenges. One study compared 2 versions of the intervention. The methodologic quality was moderate. For behavior that challenges, there was little to no effect of structured care protocols (4 studies). Two studies found little to no effect on pain and quality of life. Structured care protocols may reduce discomfort (2 studies). None of the studies reported adverse effects. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate. Implementation fidelity of the structured care protocols was limited, although this was not assessed in all of the studies.Conclusion and ImplicationsStructured care protocols seem not to be more beneficial than education for reducing behavior that challenges or pain, but may reduce discomfort in people with dementia in nursing homes. Based on the small number of studies, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further research should focus on the feasibility and implementation of structured care protocols.     

Quality Indicators as Predictors of Future Inspection Performance in Ontario Nursing Homes

ObjectivesThere are several mechanisms for monitoring the quality of care in long-term care (LTC), including the use of quality indicators derived from resident assessments and formal inspections. The LTC inspection process is time and resource-intensive, and there may be opportunities to better target inspections. In this study, we aimed to examine whether quality indicators could predict future inspection performance in LTC homes across Ontario, Canada.Setting and ParticipantsIn total, 594 LTC homes across Ontario.MethodsUsing a database compiling detailed inspection reports for the period from 2017 to 2018, we classified each home into 1 of 3 categories (in good standing, needing improvement, needing significant improvement). Machine learning techniques were used to examine whether publicly available Resident Assessment Instrument‒Minimum Data Set quality indicators for the period 2016‒2017 could predict facility classification based on inspection results.ResultsAfter running a wide range of models, only a weak relationship was found between quality indicators and future inspection performance. The best-performing model was able to achieve a classification accuracy of 40.1%. Feature analysis was performed on the final model to identify which quality indicators were most indicative of predicted poor performance. Experiencing worsened pain, restraint use, and worsened pressure ulcers were correlated with homes predicted as needing significant improvement. Counterintuitively, improved physical functioning had an inverse relationship with homes predicted as being in good standing.Conclusions and implicationsMost quality indicators are poor predictors of inspection performance. Further work is required to explore the limited relationship between these 2 measures of LTC quality, and to identify other quality measures that may be useful as predictors of facilities facing difficulty in meeting quality standards.     

Randomized multilevel intervention to improve outcomes of residents in nursing homes in need of improvement

ObjectivesA comprehensive multilevel intervention was tested to build organizational capacity to create and sustain improvement in quality of care and subsequently improve resident outcomes in nursing homes in need of improvement.Design/Setting/ParticipantsIntervention facilities (N = 29) received a 2-year multilevel intervention with monthly on-site consultation from expert nurses with graduate education in gerontological nursing. Attention control facilities (N = 29) that also needed to improve resident outcomes received monthly information about aging and physical assessment of elders.InterventionThe authors conducted a randomized clinical trial of nursing homes in need of improving resident outcomes of bladder and bowel incontinence, weight loss, pressure ulcers, and decline in activities of daily living. It was hypothesized that following the intervention, experimental facilities would have higher quality of care, better resident outcomes, more organizational attributes of improved working conditions than control facilities, higher staff retention, similar staffing and staff mix, and lower total and direct care costs.ResultsThe intervention did improve quality of care (P = .02); there were improvements in pressure ulcers (P = .05) and weight loss (P = .05). Organizational working conditions, staff retention, staffing, and staff mix and most costs were not affected by the intervention. Leadership turnover was surprisingly excessive in both intervention and control groups.Conclusion and ImplicationsSome facilities that are in need of improving quality of care and resident outcomes are able to build the organizational capacity to improve while not increasing staffing or costs of care. Improvement requires continuous supportive consultation and leadership willing to involve staff and work together to build the systematic improvements in care delivery needed. Medical directors in collaborative practice with advanced practice nurses are ideally positioned to implement this low-cost, effective intervention nationwide.     

The evaluation of an interdisciplinary pain protocol in long term care

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of (1) dissemination strategies to improve clinical practice behaviors (eg, frequency and documentation of pain assessments, use of pain medication) among health care team members, and (2) the implementation of the pain protocol in reducing pain in long term care (LTC) residents.DesignA controlled before-after design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the pain protocol, whereas qualitative interviews and focus groups were used to obtain additional context-driven data.SettingFour LTC facilities in southern Ontario, Canada; 2 for the intervention group and 2 for the control group.ParticipantsData were collected from 200 LTC residents; 99 for the intervention and 101 for the control group.InterventionImplementation of a pain protocol using a multifaceted approach, including a site working group or Pain Team, pain education and skills training, and other quality improvement activities.MeasurementsResident pain was measured using 3 assessment tools: the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors with Limited Ability to Communicate, the Pain Assessment in the Communicatively Impaired Elderly, and the Present Pain Intensity Scale. Clinical practice behaviors were measured using a number of process indicators; for example, use of pain assessment tools, documentation about pain management, and use of pain medications. A semistructured interview guide was used to collect qualitative data via focus groups and interviews.ResultsPain increased significantly more for the control group than the intervention group over the 1-year intervention period. There were significantly more positive changes over the intervention period in the intervention group compared with the control group for the following indicators: the use of a standardized pain assessment tool and completed admission/initial pain assessment. Qualitative findings highlight the importance of reminding staff to think about pain as a priority in caring for residents and to be mindful of it during daily activities. Using onsite champions, in this case advanced practice nurses and a Pain Team, were key to successfully implementing the pain protocol.ConclusionsThese study findings indicate that the implementation of a pain protocol intervention improved the way pain was managed and provided pain relief for LTC residents.     

Nursing Home Staff Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing a Quality Improvement Intervention

ObjectivesQuality improvement (QI) may be a promising approach for staff to improve the quality of care in nursing homes. However, little is known about the challenges and facilitators to implementing QI interventions in nursing homes. This study examines staff perspectives on the implementation process.DesignWe conducted semistructured interviews with staff involved in implementing an evidence-based QI intervention (“LOCK”) to improve interactions between residents and staff through targeted staff behavior change. The LOCK intervention consists of 4 practices: (1) Learn from the bright spots, (2) Observe, (3) Collaborate in huddles, and (4) Keep it bite sized.Setting and participantsWe interviewed staff members in 6 Veterans Health Administration nursing homes [ie, Community Living Centers (CLCs)] via opportunistic and snowball sampling.MeasuresThe semistructured interviews were grounded in the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model of behavior change and covered staff experience, challenges, facilitators, and lessons learned during the implementation process. The interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis.ResultsOverall, staff accepted the intervention and appreciated the focus on the positives. Challenges fell largely within the categories of capability and opportunity and included difficulty finding time to complete intervention activities, inability to interpret data reports, need for ongoing training, and misunderstanding of study goals. Facilitators were largely within the motivation category, including incentives for participation, reinforcement of desired behavior, feasibility of intervention activities, and use of data to quantify improvements.Conclusions/ImplicationsAs QI programs become more common in nursing homes, it is critical that interventions are tailored for this unique setting. We identified barriers and facilitators of our intervention's implementation and learned that no challenge was insurmountable or derailed the implementation of LOCK. This ability of frontline staff to overcome implementation challenges may be attributed to LOCK's inherently motivational features. Future nursing home QI interventions should consider including built-in motivational components.     

The Development and Test of an Intervention to Improve ADR Screening in Nursing Homes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to develop and test the effect of an instrument, Pharmanurse, to facilitate nurse-driven adverse drug reaction (ADR) screening as an input for interdisciplinary medication review in nursing homes.DesignIntervention study with a pre-posttest designParticipantsAll residents of a convenience sample of 8 nursing homes of more than 80 beds were eligible if they resided at least 1 month in the nursing home and took 4 or more different medications. Residents receiving palliative care were excluded.InterventionThe intervention consisted of interdisciplinary medication review, prepared by nurse observations of potential ADRs using personalized screening lists generated by the Pharmanurse software. Pharmanurse is specifically adapted to use by nurses and to use in nursing homes.MeasurementsOutcome parameters were the number of ADRs detected by nurses, ADRs confirmed by general practitioners, and medication changes. After the intervention, health care professionals involved completed a questionnaire to evaluate the value and the feasibility of the intervention.ResultsNurses observed 1527 potential ADRs in 81% of the 418 residents (mean per resident 3.7). Physicians confirmed 821 ADRs in 60% of the residents (mean per resident 2.0). As a result, 214 medication changes were planned in 21% of the residents (mean per resident 0.5) because of ADRs. Health care professionals gave the Pharmanurse intervention a score of 7 of 10 for the potential to improve pharmacotherapy and 83% of the physicians were satisfied about nurses' screening for ADRs.ConclusionsThe Pharmanurse intervention supports nurses in ADR screening and may have the potential to improve pharmacotherapy.     

Process evaluation to explore internal and external validity of the "Act in Case of Depression" care program in nursing homes

BackgroundA multidisciplinary, evidence-based care program to improve the management of depression in nursing home residents was implemented and tested using a stepped-wedge design in 23 nursing homes (NHs): “Act in case of Depression” (AiD).ObjectiveBefore effect analyses, to evaluate AiD process data on sampling quality (recruitment and randomization, reach) and intervention quality (relevance and feasibility, extent to which AiD was performed), which can be used for understanding internal and external validity. In this article, a model is presented that divides process evaluation data into first- and second-order process data.MethodsQualitative and quantitative data based on personal files of residents, interviews of nursing home professionals, and a research database were analyzed according to the following process evaluation components: sampling quality and intervention quality.SettingNursing home.ResultsThe pattern of residents’ informed consent rates differed for dementia special care units and somatic units during the study. The nursing home staff was satisfied with the AiD program and reported that the program was feasible and relevant. With the exception of the first screening step (nursing staff members using a short observer-based depression scale), AiD components were not performed fully by NH staff as prescribed in the AiD protocol.ConclusionAlthough NH staff found the program relevant and feasible and was satisfied with the program content, individual AiD components may have different feasibility. The results on sampling quality implied that statistical analyses of AiD effectiveness should account for the type of unit, whereas the findings on intervention quality implied that, next to the type of unit, analyses should account for the extent to which individual AiD program components were performed. In general, our first-order process data evaluation confirmed internal and external validity of the AiD trial, and this evaluation enabled further statistical fine tuning. The importance of evaluating the first-order process data before executing statistical effect analyses is thus underlined.