Dutch multidisciplinary guideline on Achilles tendinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive, evidence-based overview of the risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, imaging, treatment and prognosis for Achilles tendinopathy. To make clinical recommendations for healthcare practitioners and patients. DESIGN: Comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline process funded by the Quality Foundation of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists. This process included a development, commentary and authorisation phase. Patients participated in every phase. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases and existing guidelines were searched up to May 2019. Information from patients, healthcare providers and other stakeholders were obtained using a digital questionnaire, focus group interview and invitational conference. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies on both insertional and/or midportion Achilles tendinopathy were eligible. Specific eligibility criteria were described per module. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: To appraise the certainty of evidence, reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method, where applicable. Important considerations were: patient values and preferences, costs, acceptability of other stakeholders and feasibility of implementation. Recommendations were made based on the results of the evidence from the literature and the considerations. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary and secondary outcome measures were defined per module and defined based on the input of patients obtained in collaboration with the Netherlands Patient Federation and healthcare providers from different professions. RESULTS: Six specific modules were completed: risk factors and primary prevention, diagnosis, imaging, treatment prognosis and secondary prevention for Achilles tendinopathy. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Our Dutch multidisciplinary guideline on Achilles tendinopathy provides six modules developed according to the standards of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists. Evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice are given for risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, imaging, treatment and prognosis. This guideline can assist healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.

Feasibility of DAIly NURSE: A nursing intervention to change nursing staff behaviour towards encouraging residents' daily activities and independence in the nursing home.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility of DAIly NURSE and a nursing intervention to encourage nursing home residents' daily activities and independence. BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are mainly inactive during the day. DAIly NURSE was developed to change nursing behaviour towards encouraging nursing home residents' activities and independence by creating awareness. It consists of three components: education, coaching-on-the-job and policy. DESIGN: A mixed-method study. METHODS: The feasibility of DAIly NURSE in practice was tested in six psychogeriatric nursing home wards, using attendance lists (reach), evaluation questionnaires (fidelity, dose received and barriers), notes made by the researcher (dose delivered and fidelity) and a focus group interview (dose received and barriers) with nursing home staff (n = 8) at the end of the study. RESULTS: The feasibility study showed that all three components (education, coaching-on-the-job and policy) were implemented in practice. The attendance rate in the workshops was high (average: 82%). Nursing home staff were satisfied with the workshops (mean score 9 out of 10 points) and agreed that DAIly NURSE was feasible in daily nursing care practice. Recommendations to optimise the feasibility of DAIly NURSE included the following: Add video observations of a specific moment of the day to create awareness of nursing behaviour; educate all nursing staff of the ward during the workshops; and organise information meetings for family members before the start of the intervention. Nursing staff were satisfied with the intervention and provided recommendations for adjustments to the content of the three components. The most important adjustment is the use of video observations to create awareness of nursing staff behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: DAIly NURSE, consisting of education, coaching-on-the-job and policy, is feasible in nursing home practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: DAIly NURSE might help to change nursing behaviour towards encouraging residents' daily activities and independence.

Do nursing staff encourage functional activity among nursing home residents? A cross-sectional study of nursing staff perceived behaviors and associated factors.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are mainly inactive. Nursing staff can encourage residents to perform functional activities during daily care activities. This study examines 1) the extent to which nursing staff perceive that they encourage functional activity in nursing home residents and 2) the associations between these nursing behaviors and professional characteristics, contextual factors, and information-seeking behaviors. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 368 registered nurses and certified nurse assistants, working in somatic and psychogeriatric wards of forty-one nursing homes throughout the Netherlands participated. Self-reported data were collected with a questionnaire, comprising the MAINtAIN-behaviors, which assesses the extent to which nursing staff encourage functional activities, including different activities of daily living (ADL), household activities, and miscellaneous encouraging activities (e.g., discouraging informal caregivers from taking over activities residents can do themselves). Additional data collected included professional characteristics (e.g., age), contextual factors (e.g., ward type), and information-seeking behaviors (e.g., reading professional journals). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the extent to which functional activities were encouraged. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed to determine the associations between the encouragement of functional activities and other factors. RESULTS: Nursing staff perceived that household activities (mean 4.1 (scale range 1-9), SD 1.9) were less often encouraged than ADL (mean 6.9, SD 1.2) or miscellaneous activities (mean 6.7, SD 1.5). The percentage of nursing staff stating that different household activities, ADL, or miscellaneous activities were almost always encouraged ranged from 11 to 45%, 41 to 86%, and 50 to 83% per activity, respectively. The extent to which these activities were encouraged differed for some of the professional characteristics, contextual factors, or information-seeking behaviors, but no consistent pattern in associations emerged. CONCLUSIONS: According to nursing staff, household activities are not as often encouraged as ADL or miscellaneous activities. Professional characteristics, contextual factors, and information-seeking behaviors are not consistently associated with the encouragement of functional activity. Nursing staff should also focus on improving the encouragement of household activities. Future research could examine the role of other factors in encouraging functional activity, such as experienced barriers, and assess to what extent the perception of nursing staff corresponds with their actual behavior.

The role of nursing staff in the activities of daily living of nursing home residents.

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the role of nursing staff in residents' activities. Nursing home residents (n = 723) were observed in their wards, randomly five times for one minute between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. Resident's (in)activity and the role of nursing staff or others in this activity were recorded. Roles were defined as 'taking over the activity', 'giving support', or 'supervision'. Nurse observers were interviewed to obtain insight into their observation-experiences. Residents were observed in activities of daily living in 31% of all 3282 observations, and inactive in 57%. Nursing staff provided support in 51% of the observations and took over activities in 45%; supervision was rarely observed (4%). Nurse observers who knew the residents reported that a large part of activities were taken over unnecessarily. Based on these results, nursing staff are recommended to provide more supervision and support to optimize residents' activities and independence.

Daily (In)Activities of Nursing Home Residents in Their Wards: An Observation Study.

OBJECTIVES: Research shows that nursing home residents are largely inactive. This inactivity negatively influences physical fitness, and participation in daily activities is known to have a positive influence on physical function and quality of life. Existing research does not provide sufficient insight into the daily activities in which nursing home residents participate. This insight is needed to develop future interventions so as to encourage nursing home residents to participate in daily activities and, thereby, decrease inactivity. The purpose of this study was to obtain insight into daily (in)activities of psychogeriatric and somatic nursing home residents during the day and their body positions during these (in)activities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observation study. SETTING: Nursing homes in the Netherlands (19 psychogeriatric and 11 somatic wards). PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 723 home residents in 7 nursing homes. MEASUREMENTS: Observations were conducted using a self-developed observation list. Residents were observed in their wards during 5 random observation times between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm, in which the daily activity and position of the resident during this activity were scored. Percentages of activities and positions were calculated for each observation time. RESULTS: In total, 3282 observations (91% of the intended 3615 observations) were conducted. Nursing home residents of both psychogeriatric and somatic wards were mainly observed partaking in in activities, such as sleeping, doing nothing, and watching TV (range: 45%-77% of the 5 observation times). Furthermore, residents were engaged in activities of daily living (ADLs) (range: 15%-38%) that mainly comprised activities related to mobility (range: 10%-19%) and eating and drinking (range: 2%-17%). Engagement of residents in instrumental ADLs (IADLs) was rarely observed (up to 3%). Residents were largely observed in a lying or sitting position (range: 89%-92%). CONCLUSION: Most of the psychogeriatric and somatic nursing home residents spend their day inactive in a lying or sitting position in the ward. To encourage nursing home residents in daily activities in the wards, interventions are needed that (1) focus on increasing ADLs and IADLs, and (2) encourage standing and walking.