Family-Centered Care Experiences in Elderly with Chronic Diseases in Communities: Qualitative Study of Patients, Families, Nurses, and Volunteers.

Introduction: The family, at community, must be an important part of elderly care. However, most of the elderly experience a decrease in psychological well-being and quality of life. This is not in accordance with the concept of the family-centered care (FCC) model and can endanger the continuity of the elderly with chronic illnesses. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore experience of FCC among patients with chronic illness, nurses, families, and volunteers. Methods: This study examines the contextual-based FCC model qualitatively. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted by 12 elderly people, 3 nurses, 10 family members, and 3 volunteers. In total, 36 people, where several were FGD participants, were also interviewed in depth. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, with codes organized into larger themes. Result: In total, 36 interviews and FGDs were conducted. The concept of information interaction, the phenomenon of emotional interaction, the practical interaction, and various factors that can either facilitate or impede interaction, were considered the four significant themes. Conclusion: FCC acceptance is found in interactions between parents, nurses, family, and volunteers who are not optimistic. Lack of communication and collaboration was noted between community nurses and volunteers. Offer a new perspective on developing and implementing interventions that facilitate positive interactions, reduce family burdens, provide high-quality treatment for parents with chronic diseases, and improve the quality of care for those with advanced chronic conditions. Recommendation: These insights provide a fresh perspective on how to develop and implement effective interventions in this context. It is recommended that future research should employ multiple methodologies to investigate FCC across diverse health practices for the elderly population.

Comparison of the Level of Disaster Preparedness Between Private and Government Hospitals in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and compare almost all the components of disaster preparedness between private and government hospitals in the Eastern Province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, using the World Health Organization's (WHO) checklist. METHODS: We assessed and compared the disaster preparedness between government and private hospitals in Province, using the 10-key component WHO checklist in a descriptive cross-sectional study. Of 72 hospitals in the region, 63 responded to the survey. RESULTS: All 63 hospitals had an HDP plan and reported having a multidisciplinary HDP committee. In all responding hospitals, HDP was acceptable in most indicators of preparedness; however, some hospitals to some extent fell short of preparedness in surge capacity, equipment and logistic services, and post-disaster recovery. Government and private hospitals were generally comparable in disaster preparedness. However, government hospitals were more likely to have HDP plans that cover WHO's "all-hazard" approach, both internal and external disasters, compared to private hospitals. CONCLUSION: HDP was acceptable, however, preparedness in surge capacity, equipment and logistic services, and post-disaster recovery fell short. Government and private hospitals were comparable in preparedness with regards to all indicators except surge capacity, post-disaster recovery, and availability of some equipment.

Factors Influencing Hospitals' Disaster Preparedness in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify the factors that influence the disaster preparedness of hospitals and validate an evaluation framework to assess hospital disaster preparedness (HDP) capability in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of all hospitals (n = 72) in the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia was conducted. A factor analysis method was used to identify common factors and validate the evaluation framework to assess HDP capacity. RESULTS: Sixty-three (63) hospitals responded to the survey. A 3-factor structure was identified as key predicators of HDP capacity. The first factor was the most highly weighted factor, which included education and training (0.849), monitoring and assessing HDP (0.723), disaster planning (0.721), and command and control (0.713). The second factor included surge capacity (0.708), triage system (0.844), post-disaster recovery (0.809), and communication (0.678). The third factor represented safety and security (0.638) as well as logistics, equipment, and supplies (0.766). CONCLUSION: The identified 3-factor structure provides an innovative approach to assist the operationalization of the concept of HDP capacity building and service improvement, as well as serve as a groundwork to further develop instrument for assessing HDP in future studies.