Stakeholder collaboration in long-term care of older people in Lithuania

Demographic situation, changes in the role of women in society and growing demand for long-term care (LTC) of older people have challenged the ability to meet the growing LTC needs in most developed countries. In countries where responsibility for LTC is still largely laid on families, it is, however, even more critical and calls for improvements in formal LTC systems. More intensive stakeholder collaboration in LTC policy development, organising and delivery are of primary importance in improving LTC systems. Such collaboration, however, is not always successful; thus, it is critical to understand what makes it effective and efficient. In this paper, we specifically look into multistakeholder collaboration in LTC in Lithuania, one of the fastest ageing countries in the EU, with the demand for LTC services growing fast and exceeding the supply despite rising business and NGO engagement. To determine facilitators of such collaboration, we build on the data obtained through eight focus group discussions with all key stakeholder representatives (LTC policymakers, organisers and service providers [public, private and NGOs], 54 participants in total). Our findings indicate that in addition to national and organisational level facilitators studied in prior research, there are important individual level factors, such as meaningfulness at work, concern and care for others, possibility for personal growth and development, satisfaction with supervision, a sense of belonging and role clarity. On the other hand, our results show that collaboration is constrained by a shortage of human resources, increased workload caused by growing LTC demand, bureaucratic requirements, legal restrictions, lack of awareness of LTC service availability among elder persons, and prevailing social norms and attitudes to institutionalised care. Interestingly, a lack of financial resources is not perceived as a major constraint.     

A comparison of the efficacy of textured insoles on balance performance in older people with versus without plantar callosities

BackgroundTextured insoles have been suggested to enhance foot sensation, which contributes to controlling upright balance. However, the interaction between plantar callosity and the textured surface has not been studied.Research questionFirstly, to compare the efficacy of textured insoles on balance performance and foot position sense between two groups of older people: one group had plantar callosity, and the other did not. Secondly, to investigate the efficacy of textured insoles within each study group.MethodsThirty older people with a history of falls (15 with plantar callosity and 15 without callosity) participated in this study. All participants underwent assessments of postural sway on a force plate, joint position sensation of the ankle with a slope box, and mobility using the "Timed Up and Go" test under three insole surface conditions: 1) smooth (control), 2) placebo and 3) textured surface. Two-way analyses of variance were used to compare the outcomes of the two groups and three conditions.ResultsOlder people with plantar callosity had worse ankle joint position sense and slower antero-posterior and mediolateral postural sway velocity than their peers who did not have plantar callosity. The textured insoles improved ankle joint position sense and mobility regardless of callus status in the plantar surface of older peoples’ feet. The insole-callosity interaction was not significant for any study outcome.SignificanceTextured insoles could be beneficial to older people with and without callosity as they have shown immediate improvements in ankle joint position sense and mobility.     

Evidence-based strategies to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium: a narrative review

Delirium is one of the most commonly occurring postoperative complications in older adults. It occurs due to the vulnerability of cerebral functioning to pathophysiological stressors. Identification of those at increased risk of developing delirium early in the surgical pathway provides an opportunity for modification of predisposing and precipitating risk factors and effective shared decision-making. No single delirium prediction tool is used widely in surgical settings. Multi-component interventions to prevent delirium involve structured risk factor modification supported by geriatrician input; these are clinically efficacious and cost effective. Barriers to the widespread implementation of such complex interventions exist, resulting in an ‘implementation gap’. There is a lack of evidence for pharmacological prophylaxis for the prevention of delirium. Current evidence suggests that avoidance of peri-operative benzodiazepines, careful titration of anaesthetic depth guided by processed electroencephalogram monitoring and treatment of pain are the most effective strategies to minimise the risk of delirium. Addressing postoperative delirium requires a collaborative, whole pathway approach, beginning with the early identification of those patients who are at risk. The research agenda should continue to examine the potential for pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent delirium while also addressing how successful models of delirium prevention can be translated from one setting to another, underpinned by implementation science methodology.     

Vasovagal reactions after COVID-19 vaccination in Japan

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine administration started in February 2021 in Japan. As of December 2021, approximately 75% of the population aged ≥12 years had received two doses of vaccine. We conducted a study to investigate vasovagal reactions (VVR) after COVID-19 vaccination using data on adverse events following immunization. The crude reporting rate of VVR (cases/1,000,000 doses) after vaccination was 9.6 in all age groups combined, and was more frequent in the younger age groups: 28.6 and 37.2 in individuals aged 10–19 years and 20–29 years, respectively. In individuals aged 10–29 years, the rate was similar in males and females (33.0 and 34.2, respectively, p = 0.53); but was higher after dose 1 than after dose 2 (57.4 and 8.8, respectively, p < 0.001). Based on these results, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating adolescents and young adults, especially with dose 1 of COVID-19 vaccines.