Moving Beyond the Status Quo of Integrated Inpatient Medical and Psychiatric Care Units: The Path to Real-World Evaluation.

Integrated inpatient medical and psychiatric care units (IMPUs) are hospital wards that care for inpatients with both acute general medical and psychiatric disorders. IMPU development has stalled, and wide variation in IMPU designs may reflect the fact that IMPUs are still in an early evolutionary stage. High-quality evidence concerning the costs and effectiveness of IMPUs is sparse, because IMPUs do not lend themselves well to traditional evidence-based medicine methods. As a result, most studies of IMPUs have been only observational. Therefore, it is time for a different approach, in which goals for IMPUs are explicitly formulated and IMPU research is incorporated into evidence-based practice (EBP) instead of evidence-based medicine. EBP can be viewed as integrating best available evidence into organizational practices by using four pillars of evidence: organizational, experiential, stakeholder, and scientific. Such types of evidence require an investment in describing the field more precisely. When pragmatic reasoning, where clinical expertise and organizational needs determine IMPU designs, is replaced with EBP, researchers can more effectively perform studies that may convince health care policy makers that IMPUs represent a cost-effective way to improve patients' health and that they increase the well-being of both patients and hospital staff.

The frail older person does not exist: development of frailty profiles with latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental issue in elderly care is targeting those older people at risk and in need of care interventions. Frailty is widely used to capture variations in health risks but there is no general consensus on the conceptualization of frailty. Indeed, there is considerable heterogeneity in the group of older people characterized as frail. This research identifies frailty profiles based on the physical, psychological, social and cognitive domains of functioning and the severity of the problems within these domains. METHODS: This research was a secondary data-analysis of older persons derived from The Older Person and Informal Caregiver Minimum Dataset. Selected respondents were 60 years and older (n = 43,704; 59.6% female). The following variables were included: self-reported health, cognitive functioning, social functioning, mental health, morbidity status, and functional limitations. Using latent class analysis, the population was divided in subpopulations that were subsequently discussed in a focus group with older people for further validation. RESULTS: We distinguished six frailty profiles: relatively healthy; mild physically frail; psychologically frail; severe physically frail; medically frail and multi-frail. The relatively healthy had limited problems across all domains. In three profiles older people mostly had singular problems in either the physical or psychological domain and the severity of the problems differed. Two remaining profiles were multidimensional with a combination of problems that extended to the social and cognitive domains. CONCLUSIONS: Our research provides an empirical base for meaningful frailty profiles. The profiles showed specific patterns underlying the problems in different domains of functioning. The heterogeneous population of frail older people has differing needs and faces different health issues that should be considered to tailor care interventions. Evaluation research of these interventions should acknowledge the heterogeneity of frailty by profiling.

[Separation of housing and care: more or less care? Consequences for health care services utilization by the elderly]. / Scheiden van wonen en zorg: een zorg meer of minder? De consequenties voor het zorggebruik van ouderen.

The Dutch policy for the care of the elderly has been mainly characterised by the aim to improve the possibility for elderly people to live independently for as long as possible. One measure that has been taken to achieve this goal is the separation of the financing of care from the accommodation in which care is given. Recent discussions have brought to light some possible positive and negative effects of this separation on the use of care. It is, however, largely unknown to what extent there are differences concerning the nature and intensity of care and the type of caregivers provided to dwellers of houses where care and housing are separated (so-called 'life-time houses') and the elderly who live in homes for residential care and nursing homes. To gain insight in this matter an explorative study was conducted in Rotterdam of the use of several health facilities by matching 35 dwellers of 'life-time houses' on the criteria age, health needs and social status with 35 dwellers of residential care homes and nursing homes. On the basis of interviews, questionnaires and patient records data were collected and analysed on the nature and amount of help that has been given (per minute per week) and the kind of caregiver. The main finding is that the use pattern differs between the research groups. Dwellers of 'life-time houses' generally make more use of some care facilities and make more use of different types of care and caregivers. These differences however do not seem to be exclusively caused by the separation of housing and care.