METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be guided by the smart technology adoption behaviours of elder consumers theoretical model (Elderadopt) by Golant and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. First, we will conduct an internet search for nursing homes and websites and databases related to the stakeholders to retrieve the definitions, concepts and criteria of a smart nursing home (phase 1). Second, we will conduct an additional systematic electronic database search for published articles on any measures of technological feasibility and integration of medical services in nursing home settings and their acceptability by nursing home residents and caregivers (phase 2). The electronic database search will be carried out from 1999 to 30 September 2020 and limited to works published in English and Chinese languages. For phase 2, the selection of literature is further limited to residents of nursing homes aged ≥60 years old with or without medical needs but are not terminally ill or bed-bound. Qualitative data analysis will follow the Framework Methods and thematic analysis using combined inductive and deductive approaches, conducted by at least two reviewers.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol is registered on osf.io (URL: https://osf.io/qtwz2/). Ethical approval is not necessary as the scoping review is not a primary study, and the information is collected from selected articles that are publicly available sources. All findings will be disseminated at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
OBJECTIVES: To review the literature on trials conducted among older adults residing in care homes within the UK and collate evidence on their methodological characteristics and outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic rapid review methodology was employed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in two incremental stages: stage 1 searched for oral health-related trials conducted within the UK care homes up to July 2021, whereas stage 2 sought for general health-related trials in the same setting from 2011 to 2021. The quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Findings were summarised descriptively.
RESULTS: Five oral health and 33 general health-related trials involving care home residents were included for analysis. The most common trial design was parallel group with two arms (n = 25) involving individual randomisation (n = 21). Consent was mainly obtained from residents and/or their proxies (n = 24), followed by residents only (n = 13) and care homes only (n = 1). Based on available data, the number needed to screen to recruit one participant ranged from 2 to 40 (median: 3; Q1-Q3: 2-9). Attrition rates ranged from 0% to 73% (median: 21%; Q1-Q3: 13%-32%) for follow-up periods between 1 and 52 weeks. The studies were of mixed methodological quality.
CONCLUSION: This rapid review outlines the methodological characteristics and outcomes of trials conducted among older adults in UK care homes. The findings of this review provide valuable information to assist in navigating and designing future research in this complex setting.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the translated Indonesian version of the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture (NHSOPSC-INA).
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional survey conducted using NHSOPSC-INA. A total of 258 participants from 20 NH in Indonesia were engaged. Participants included NH managers, caregivers, administrative staff, nurses and support staff with at least junior high school education. The SPSS 23.0 was used for descriptive data analysis and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) estimation. The AMOS (version 22) was used to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the questionnaire's dimensional structure.
RESULTS: The NHSOPSC CFA test originally had 12 dimensions with 42 items and was modified to eight dimensions with 26 items in the Indonesian version. The deleted dimensions were 'Staffing' (4 items), 'Compliance with procedure' (3 items), 'Training and skills' (3 items), 'non-punitive response to mistakes' (4 items) and 'Organisational learning' (2 items). The subsequent analysis revealed an accepted model with 26 NHSOPSC-INA items (root mean square error of approximation = 0.091, comparative fit index = 0.815, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.793, CMIN = 798.488, df = 291, CMIN/Df = 2.74, GFI = 0.782, AGFI = 0.737, p
METHODS: We used ten years combined mortality statistics from 2005 to 2014 and Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation rankings for each lower super output area. After accounting for the population's age, the number of deaths in Hospital, Hospice, Home, Care Home, Psychiatric Units, and Elsewhere were compared across deprivation quintiles.
RESULTS: Distribution of place of death was found to be concentrated in three places - hospital (60%), home (21%) and care home (13%). Results from this study shows a high number of hospital deaths, especially for more deprived areas, despite being the least preferred place of death.
CONCLUSION: This is the first Welsh study investigating place of death in relation to deprivation, which could be of major importance to academics, end of life care providers and policy makers interested in to reduce health care inequality in Wales.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and characterize the prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) in nursing home care in Malaysia as defined by Screening Tool of Older Peoples Prescriptions (STOPP) and Beers criteria.
SETTING: Four Nursing Homes situated in Penang, Malaysia.
METHODS: A multicenter and cross-sectional study was conducted over 2 months period at four large non-governmental organizations nursing homes in Penang, Malaysia. The study population included older residents (≥65 years old) taking at least one medication. Residents who had been diagnosed with dementia or taking anti dementia drugs, delirium, too frail or refused to give consent were excluded. Demographic, clinical data and concurrent medications were collected through direct interview and also by reviewing medical records. STOPP and Beers criteria were applied in the medical review to screen for PIMs.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Potentially Inappropriate Medication using STOPP and Beers criteria.
RESULTS: Two hundred eleven residents were included in the study with the median age of 77 (inter quartile range (IQR) 72-82) years. Median number of prescription medicines was 4 (IQR 1-14). STOPP identified less residents (50 residents, 23.7 %) being prescribed on PIMs compared with Beers criteria (69 residents, 32.7 %) (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the number of residents with PIMs detected by STOPP (23.7 %) and by Beers criteria (32.7 %), p < 0.001. The common identified PIMs by Beers criteria included nifedipine short acting, chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine. The STOPP identified first generation antihistamines, duplication of drug classes, glibenclamide and anticholinergic agents. Higher number of medications (OR = 1.405 [1.193-1.654]; OR = 1.447 [1.215-1.723]) and longer stay at nursing home (OR = 1.132 [1.045-1.226]; OR = 1.133 [1.034-1.241]) were identified as predictors for both Beers and STOPP PIMs.
CONCLUSION: Potentially inappropriate medications are highly prevalent among older residents living in the nursing homes and are associated with number of medications and longer nursing home stay. Further research is warranted to study the impact of PIMs towards health related outcomes in these elderly.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until September 2017; manual searches of reference lists of systematic reviews identified in the electronic search; and online trial registries for unpublished, ongoing, or planned trials. (PROSPERO CRD42016050028).
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trials in a nursing home setting that included participants of at least 60 years of age.
MEASURES: Falls, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and potentially inappropriate medication were assessed in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 41 randomized clinical studies (18,408 residents) that examined deprescribing (defined as either medication discontinuation, substitution, or reduction) in nursing were identified. Deprescribing interventions significantly reduced the number of residents with potentially inappropriate medications by 59% (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.89). In subgroup analysis, medication review-directed deprescribing interventions reduced all-cause mortality by 26% (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84), as well as the number of fallers by 24% (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other deprescribing interventions, medication review-directed deprescribing had significant benefits on older residents in nursing homes. Further research is required to elicit other clinical benefits of medication review-directed deprescribing practice.
DESIGN: This was a qualitative study comprising semi-structured face-to-face interviews guided by 10 open-ended questions. Interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved and no new ideas were formed. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed for themes. To derive themes, we employed directed content analysis of transcript data. Coding was completed using a combination of open, axial and selective coding.
SETTING: Four nursing homes in Singapore.
PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 17 participants (comprising 4 doctors, 4 pharmacists and 9 nurses).
RESULTS: Two key themes were identified, enablers and challenges. These were enablers and challenges faced by doctors, pharmacists and nurses towards deprescribing. The identified subthemes for enablers of deprescribing were: (1) awareness of medications that are unnecessary or could be targeted for deprescribing; (2) improving quality of life for patients with limited life expectancy; (3) improving communication between doctors, pharmacists and nurses; (4) systematic deprescribing practice and educational tools and (5) acknowledgement of possible benefits of deprescribing. The identified subthemes for challenges of deprescribing were: (1) symptoms not acknowledged as possibly drug-related; (2) lack of knowledge in patient's and family members' preferences; (3) lack of coordination between health professionals in hospitals and nursing homes and (4) limited tools for deprescribing. The development of a local guideline, mentoring nurses, case discussions, better shared decision-making and improving multidisciplinary communication, may help to support the process of deprescribing.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study highlighted that deprescribing in the nursing homes is perceived by health professionals to be challenging and future research could assess how routine case studies, mentoring and better multidisciplinary communication could improve deprescribing knowledge and process in the nursing homes.