Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Due to the gradual loss of function, it is crucial for persons with dementia to discuss advance care planning in due course. However, nursing home staff, residents and their families feel uncomfortable to start this type of conversation, resulting in unknown (care) preferences. ‘We DECide optimized’ will provide tools to nursing home staff for discussing advance care planning. The primary objective is to enhance the level of shared decision-making in advance care planning conversations. We hypothesize that the training will enhance the perception of the importance, competence and frequency in which participants engage in advance care planning conversations. The secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators in the implementation of advance care planning policies at the ward level. Methods ‘We DECide optimized’ will consist of two four-hour workshops and a homework assignment between sessions. Training components will include information on advance care planning and shared decision-making, role-play exercises and group discussions on implementation barriers at the ward level. Participating wards will receive supporting materials to stimulate residents and their families to initiate conversations. The study uses a cluster randomized controlled design, with 65 Flemish nursing home wards taking part (311 staff members). Data will be collected through a pretest-posttest model, with measurements up to 9 months after training. The RE-AIM framework will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation. Quantitative and qualitative data at the clinical, organizational and resident level will be collected. Discussion This study describes a hands-on, in-depth and multi-level training approach to improve shared decision-making in advance care planning conversations. By providing tools to ward staff, engaging the management and informing residents and their families, ‘We DECide optimized’ aims to decrease evidence-based barriers and to provide all stakeholders with incentives to engage in conversations about (care) preferences in an informative and participatory manner.

Despite widespread adoption of surveillance testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) among staff members in skilled nursing facilities, evidence is limited regarding its relationship with outcomes among facility residents. Using data obtained from 2020 to 2022, we performed a retrospective cohort study of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among staff members in 13,424 skilled nursing facilities during three pandemic periods: before vaccine approval, before the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant wave, and during the omicron wave. We assessed staff testing volumes during weeks without Covid-19 cases relative to other skilled nursing facilities in the same county, along with Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents during potential outbreaks (defined as the occurrence of a case after 2 weeks with no cases). We reported adjusted differences in outcomes between high-testing facilities (90th percentile of test volume) and low-testing facilities (10th percentile). The two primary outcomes were the weekly cumulative number of Covid-19 cases and related deaths among residents during potential outbreaks. During the overall study period, 519.7 cases of Covid-19 per 100 potential outbreaks were reported among residents of high-testing facilities as compared with 591.2 cases among residents of low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -71.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -91.3 to -51.6). During the same period, 42.7 deaths per 100 potential outbreaks occurred in high-testing facilities as compared with 49.8 deaths in low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -7.1; 95% CI, -11.0 to -3.2). Before vaccine availability, high- and low-testing facilities had 759.9 cases and 1060.2 cases, respectively, per 100 potential outbreaks (adjusted difference, -300.3; 95% CI, -377.1 to -223.5), along with 125.2 and 166.8 deaths (adjusted difference, -41.6; 95% CI, -57.8 to -25.5). Before the omicron wave, the numbers of cases and deaths were similar in high- and low-testing facilities; during the omicron wave, high-testing facilities had fewer cases among residents, but deaths were similar in the two groups. Greater surveillance testing of staff members at skilled nursing facilities was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents, particularly before vaccine availability.

More than 30 years after the Nursing Home Reform Act, the United States still fails to protect nursing home residents and provide them with high-quality care. The Covid-19 pandemic’s devastating effect on nursing homes reminds us that further reforms are sorely needed.

Introduction Hospital‐to‐skilled nursing facility (SNF) transitions have been characterised as fragmented and having poor quality. The drivers, or the factors and actions, that directly lead to these poor experiences are not well described. It is essential to understand the drivers of these experiences so that specific improvement targets can be identified. This study aimed to generate a theory of contributing factors that determine patient and caregiver experiences during the transition from the hospital to SNF. Methods We conducted a grounded theory study on the Medicine Service at an academic medical centre (AMC) and a short‐term rehabilitation SNF. We conducted individual in‐depth interviews with patients, caregivers and clinicians, as well as ethnographic observations of hospital and SNF care activities. We analysed data using dimensional analysis to create an explanatory matrix that identified prominent dimensions and considered the context, conditions and processes that result in patient and caregiver consequences and experiences. Results We completed 41 interviews (15 patients, 5 caregivers and 15 AMC and 6 SNF clinicians) and 40 h of ethnographic observations. ‘They were talking to each other, but not to me’ was the dimension with the greatest explanatory power regarding patient and caregiver experience. Patients and caregivers consistently felt disconnected from their care teams and lacked sufficient information leading to uncertainty about their SNF admission and plans for recovery. Key conditions driving these outcomes were patient and care team processes, including interdisciplinary team‐based care, clinical training and practice norms, pressure to maintain hospital throughput, patient behaviours, the availability and provision of information, and patient's physical and emotional vulnerability. The relationships between conditions and processes were complex, dynamic and, at times, interrelated. Conclusion This study has conceptualised the root causes of poor‐quality experiences within the hospital‐to‐SNF care transition. Our theory generation identifies targets for clinical practice improvement, tailored intervention development and medical education innovations. Patient or Public Contribution We partnered with the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN) Patient and Family Advisory Council during all stages of this study.

Background Availability of nursing home care has declined and national efforts have been initiated to improve the quality of nursing home care in the U.S. Yet, data are limited on whether there are geographic variations in declines of availability and quality of nursing home care, and whether variations persist over time. We sought to assess geographic variation in availability and quality of nursing home care. Methods Retrospective study using Medicaid/Medicare-certified nursing home data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 1996–2016. Outcomes were 1) availability of all nursing home care (1996–2016), measured by the number of Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds for a given county per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years, regardless of nursing home star rating; 2) availability of 5-star nursing home care, measured by the number of Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds provided by 5-star nursing homes; and 3) utilization of nursing home beds, defined as the rate of occupied Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds among the total Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds. Results From 1999 to 2016, availability of all nursing home care declined from 4882 (standard deviation: 931) to 3480 (912) beds, per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years. Persistent geographic variation in availability of nursing home care was observed; the correlation coefficient of county-specific availabilities from 1996 to 2016 was 0.78 (95% CI 0.77–0.79). From 2011 to 2016, availability of 5-star nursing home beds increased from 658 (303) to 895 (661) per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years. The correlation coefficient for county-specific availabilities from 2011 to 2016 was 0.54 (95% CI 0.51–0.56). Availability and quality of nursing home care were not highly correlated. In 2016, the correlation coefficient for county-specific availabilities between all nursing home and 5-star nursing home beds was 0.33 (95% CI 0.30–0.36). From 1996 to 2016, the utilization of certified beds declined from 78.5 to 72.2%. This decline was consistent across all census divisions, but most pronounced in the Mountain division and less in the South-Atlantic division. Conclusion We observed persistent geographic variations in availability and quality of nursing home care. Availability of all nursing home care declined but availability of 5-star nursing home care increased. Availability and quality of nursing home care were not highly correlated.

Background Nursing home residents (NHR) are characterized by increasing frailty, multimorbidity and care dependency. These conditions result in frequent hospital transfers which can lead to negative effects on residents’ health status and are often avoidable. Reasons for emergency department (ED) visits or hospital admissions are complex. Prior research indicated factors influencing transfer decisions in view of nursing staff and general practitioners. The aim of this systematic review is to explore how family members experience and influence transfers from nursing home (NH) to hospital and how they are involved in the transfer decision. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline via PubMed, Ebsco Scopus and CINAHL in May 2018. Studies were eligible if they contained information a) about the decision to transfer NHR to hospital and b) the experiences or influence of family members. The review followed Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) approach for qualitative systematic reviews. Screening, selection and quality appraisal of studies were performed independently by two reviewers. Synthesis of qualitative data was conducted through meta-aggregation. Results After screening of n  = 2863 articles, in total n  = 10 qualitative studies were included in the review. Results indicate that family members of NHR experience decision-making before hospitalization differently. They mainly reported NH-related, hospital-related, and family/resident-related factors influencing the transfer decision. The involvement of family members in the decision-making process varies - from no involvement to insistence on a decision in favor of their personal preferences. However, hospital transfer decisions and other treatment decisions (e.g. advance care planning (ACP) discussions) were commonly discussed with physicians and nurses. Conflicts between family members and healthcare providers mostly arose around the interpretation of resident’s best interest. In general, family members perceive discussions as challenging thus leading to emotional stress and discomfort. Conclusion The influence of NHR family members concerning hospital transfer decisions varies. Family members are an important link for communication between resident and medical staff and for communication between NH and hospital. Interventions aiming to reduce hospitalization rates have to take these findings into account.

Background Several studies have highlighted the need for improvement in palliative care delivered to older people long-term care facilities. However, the available evidence on how to improve palliative care in these settings is weak, especially in Europe. We describe the protocol of the PACE trial aimed to 1) evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ‘PACE Steps to Success’ palliative care intervention for older people in long-term care facilities, and 2) assess the implementation process and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation in different countries. Methods We will conduct a multi-facility cluster randomised controlled trial in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and England. In total, 72 facilities will be randomized to receive the ‘Pace Steps to Success intervention’ or to ‘care as usual’. Primary outcome at resident level: quality of dying (CAD-EOLD); and at staff level: staff knowledge of palliative care (Palliative Care Survey). Secondary outcomes: resident’s quality of end-of-life care, staff self-efficacy, self-perceived educational needs, and opinions on palliative care. Economic outcomes: direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Measurements are performed at baseline and after the intervention. For the resident-level outcomes, facilities report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over a previous four-month period and structured questionnaires are sent to (1) the administrator, (2) staff member most involved in care (3) treating general practitioner, and (4) a relative. For the staff-level outcomes, all staff who are working in the facilities are asked to complete a structured questionnaire. A process evaluation will run alongside the effectiveness evaluation in the intervention group using the RE-AIM framework. Discussion The lack of high quality trials in palliative care has been recognized throughout the field of palliative care research. This cross-national cluster RCT designed to evaluate the impact of the palliative care intervention for long-term care facilities ‘PACE Steps to Success’ in seven countries, will provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness as well as the preconditions for optimal implementation of palliative care in nursing homes, and this within different health care systems. Trial registration The study is registered at www.isrctn.com – ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) Registration date: July 30, 2015.

Background. Reducing hospital readmissions, including preventable healthcare-associated infections, is a national priority. The proportion of readmissions due to infections is not well-understood. Better understanding of hospital risk factors for readmissions and infection-related readmissions may help optimize interventions to prevent readmissions. Methods. Retrospective cohort study of California acute care hospitals and their patient populations discharged between 2009 and 2011. Demographics, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status were entered into a hierarchical generalized linear mixed model predicting all-cause and infection-related readmissions. Crude verses adjusted hospital rankings were compared using Cohen's kappa. Results. We assessed 30-day readmission rates from 323 hospitals, accounting for 213 879 194 post-discharge person-days of follow-up. Infection-related readmissions represented 28% of all readmissions and were associated with discharging a high proportion of patients to skilled nursing facilities. Hospitals serving populations with high proportions of males, comorbidities, prolonged length of stay, and populations living in a federal poverty area, had higher all-cause and infection-related readmission rates. Academic hospitals had higher all-cause and infection-related readmission rates (odds ratio 1.24 and 1.15, respectively). When comparing adjusted vs crude hospital rankings for infection-related readmission rates, adjustment revealed 31% of hospitals changed performance category for infection-related readmissions. Conclusions. Infection-related readmissions accounted for nearly 30% of all-cause readmissions. High hospital infection-related readmissions were associated with serving a high proportion of patients with comorbidities, long lengths of stay, discharge to skilled nursing facility, and those living in federal poverty areas. Preventability of these infections needs to be assessed.

Introduction This paper details a subset of the findings from a participatory action research project exploring a palliative intervention in long-term care sites across Canada. The findings presented in this paper relate to understanding compassion within the context of a palliative approach to long-term care. Methods Findings presented are drawn from qualitative interviews and focus groups with residents, family members, healthcare providers, and managers from 4 long-term care sites across 4 provinces in Canada. In total, there were 117 individuals (20 residents, 16 family members, 72 healthcare providers, and 9 managers) who participated in one of 19 focus groups. Data was analyzed by multiple members of the research team in accordance with thematic analysis. Individual concepts were organized into themes across the different focus groups and the results were used to build a conceptual understanding of compassion within Long Term Care . Findings Two themes, each comprised of 5 sub-themes, emerged from the data. The first theme 'Conceptualizing Compassion in Long-Term Care generated a multidimensional understanding of compassion that was congruent with previous theoretical models. 'Organizational Compassion: resources and staffing', the second major theme, focused on the operationalization of compassion within the practice setting and organizational culture. Organizational Compassion subthemes focused on how compassion could support staff to enact care for the residents, the families, one another, and at times, recognizing their pain and supporting it through grief and mourning. Conclusions Results suggest that compassion is an essential part of care and relationships within long-term care, though it is shaped by personal and professional relational aspects of care and bound by organizational and systemic issues. Findings suggest that compassion may be an under-recognised, but essential element in meeting the promise of person-centred care within long-term care environments.

OBJECTIVESCare transitions between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are associated with disruptions in patient care and high risk for adverse events. Communication between hospital-based and SNF-based clinicians is often suboptimal; there have been calls to foster direct, real-time communication between sending and receiving clinicians to enhance patient safety. This article described the implementation of a warm handoff between hospital and SNF physicians and advanced practice providers at the time of hospital discharge. METHODSBefore patient transfer, hospital clinicians called SNF clinicians to provide information relevant to the continuation of safe patient care and offer SNF clinicians the opportunity to ask clarifying questions. The calls were documented in the hospital discharge summary. RESULTSA total of 2417 patient discharges were eligible for inclusion. Warm handoffs were documented at an increasing rate throughout implementation of the intervention, beginning with 15.78% (n = 3) in stage 1, then 20.27% (n = 75) in stage 2, and finally 46.89% (n = 951) in stage 3. The overall average rate of documentation was 42.57%. Participant feedback indicated that clinicians were most concerned about understanding the purpose of the warm handoff, managing their workload, and improving the efficiency of the process. CONCLUSIONSUse of a warm handoff showed promise in improving communication during hospital-SNF patient transfers. However, the implementation also highlighted specific barriers to the handoff related to organizational structures and clinician workload. Addressing these underlying issues will be critical in ensuring continued participation and support for efforts that foster direct communication among clinicians from different healthcare institutions.