Contextualizing the results of an integrative review on the characteristics of dementia-friendly hospitals: a workshop with professional dementia experts.

BACKGROUND: To become a dementia-friendly hospital (DFH) is increasingly being discussed in health care practice, research, politics and society. In our previous integrative review, we identified six characteristics of DFHs. To thoroughly discuss and contextualize these characteristics in relation to hospitals in Germany, we involved professional dementia experts in our review process. METHODS: At the end of our review process, we involved professional dementia experts at the 'contributing' level of the ACTIVE framework to discuss and reflect on the six DFH characteristics we identified. We conducted a group process in the form of a one-day workshop. The workshop consisted of four steps: 1. presentation of review results (input), 2. modification of DFH characteristics and rating of their relevance in smaller working groups, 3. discussion of group results in plenary and 4. questionnaire for prioritization and rating of feasibility. The data were analyzed in MAXQDA using content analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 16 professional dementia experts working in hospitals participated in the workshop. All the previously identified characteristics of a DFH were rated as relevant or very relevant for patients with dementia, their relatives and health care professionals from the professional dementia experts' perspective. They made a few modifications of the six characteristics at the level of subcategories, aspects, and descriptions. The feasibility of the characteristics in hospitals was critically discussed regarding resources, hospital structures and processes, the role of nurses, and the current care situation of people with dementia in hospitals. More than half of the subcategories of the characteristics were considered very difficult or difficult to implement by most professional dementia experts. CONCLUSION: The involvement of professional dementia experts helped us contextualize our review findings within the German hospital setting. These results highlight the need to consider resources, funding options, influencing factors, and the current situation and culture of care provided by hospitals before implementing DFH characteristics. Beside the involvement of professional dementia experts and various health care professionals, the involvement of other stakeholders, such as people with dementia and their relatives, is necessary in future research for the development of a DFH.

[Prevalence of dementia in university hospitals : Analysis of ICD-10 coding in 5 university hospitals in Germany over a 2-year period]. / Prävalenzen von Demenz in Universitätskliniken : Analyse von ICD-10-Kodierungen in fünf Universitätskliniken in Deutschland über zwei Geschäftsjahre.

BACKGROUND: Demographic changes result in a higher prevalence of patients suffering from dementia in hospital. In Germany, epidemiological data of this target group are scarce and prevalence rates from university hospitals (UH) are not available. The prevalence rates and distribution were analyzed on the basis of ICD-10-GM (German modification) routine data METHOD: A secondary analysis on ICD-10-GM main and secondary diagnoses of dementia from 2014 and 2015 from 5 UH was performed. All patients admitted to hospital for at least 24 h and ≥18 years old (2014 n = 187,168; 2015 n = 189,040) were included. A descriptive analysis for the >69-year-old group was carried out (2014, n = 67,111; 2015; n = 67,824). RESULTS: The 1­year prevalence (2014/2015) for all 5 UH for patients ≥18 years old was 1.3%/1.4% and for the >69-year-old group, 3.3%/3.5%. The prevalence rates between the five UH varied: for patients ≥18 years the range was 0.44-2.16% (2014) and 0.44-2.77% (2015) and for >69-year-olds 1.16-5.52% (2014) and 1.16-7.06% (2015). Most cases were correlated with major diagnostic categories of traumatology, cardiology, gastroenterology and neurology. CONCLUSION: Analysis of ICD-10-GM routine data can provide an indication of the prevalence of dementia in UH. Results of the >69-year-olds varied greatly between participating UH. The reasons for this might be different healthcare tasks, especially with respect to geriatric patients; however, it is also possible that assessment procedures are not standardized and unreliable and therefore the coding is invalid. A standardized procedure for the identification of people suffering from dementia is necessary.

Participatory development of a framework to actively involve people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in conducting a systematic review: the DECIDE-SR protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews summarize and evaluate relevant studies to contribute to evidence-based practice. Internationally, researchers have reached a consensus that the active involvement of the public leads to better research. Despite this agreement, there are many reviews of research concerning healthcare interventions intended to promote the care of people living with dementia and those from their social network (e.g., close contacts, both family and non-family members) primarily involve only healthcare professionals and other experts. Due to the lack of a dementia-sensitive framework to actively involve people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals as co-researchers in systematic reviews, it is important to develop a framework to inform practice. METHODS: For this framework development process, we will recruit four people living with dementia and a total of four people from their social network, and three healthcare professionals working in acute or long-term care settings. We will conduct regular meetings with these groups of the public and healthcare professionals to include them in all stages of the systematic review. We will also identify and develop methods necessary to ensure meaningful involvement. The results will be documented and analyzed for the development of a framework. For the planning and preparation for these meetings, as well as the conduct of the meetings themselves, we will be guided by the principles of the INVOLVE approach. In addition, the ACTIVE framework will be used to guide the degree of involvement and the stage in the review process. DISCUSSION: We assume that our transparent approach to the development of a framework to support the active involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews will serve as an impetus for and provide guidance to other researchers with the goal of increasing researchers' focus on this topic and facilitating systematic reviews that apply participatory approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration is unnecessary as no intervention study will be conducted.

Systematic reviews summarize and evaluate studies on a particular topic. They provide information, for example, regarding whether an intervention is beneficial. This type of review is particularly important for healthcare professionals because they can use the results of the review to guide their actions. There is a growing awareness that the public, including people living with dementia and those from their social network (e.g., relatives, friends), need to be actively involved in the process of preparing these reviews when they are concerned with the topic of the reviews. Despite this consensus, it is often the case that only healthcare professionals are involved in such reviews. At present, no framework for the active involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews has been developed. Therefore, we will develop such a framework together in collaboration with a range of members of the public and healthcare professionals. For this purpose, in addition to healthcare professionals, we will involve people living with dementia and those from their social network. Over the course of several meetings, we will engage in discussion with them and identify the stages of the process of conducting a systematic review in which their involvement as members of the researcher team is meaningful. We will furthermore identify the requirements associated with such an active involvement. A written report of these discussions will be produced in collaboration with the group. This will contribute towards the development of a framework for other researchers. The framework will later be made available to the public free of charge to increase awareness of this topic and to contribute towards more frequent, well-organised and meaningful involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews.

Improving patient safety during insertion of peripheral venous catheters: an observational intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral venous catheters are frequently used in hospitalized patients but increase the risk of nosocomial bloodstream infection. Evidence-based guidelines describe specific steps that are known to reduce infection risk. However, the degree of guideline implementation in clinical practice is not known. The aim of this study was to determine the use of specific steps for insertion of peripheral venous catheters in clinical practice and to implement a multimodal intervention aimed at improving both compliance and the optimum order of the steps. METHODS: The study was conducted at University Hospital Hamburg. An optimum procedure for inserting a peripheral venous catheter was defined based on three evidence-based guidelines (WHO, CDC, RKI) including five steps with 1A or 1B level of evidence: hand disinfection before patient contact, skin antisepsis of the puncture site, no palpation of treated puncture site, hand disinfection before aseptic procedure, and sterile dressing on the puncture site. A research nurse observed and recorded procedures for peripheral venous catheter insertion for healthcare workers in four different departments (endoscopy, central emergency admissions, pediatrics, and dermatology). A multimodal intervention with 5 elements was established (teaching session, dummy training, e-learning tool, tablet and poster, and direct feedback), followed by a second observation period. During the last observation week, participants evaluated the intervention. RESULTS: In the control period, 207 insertions were observed, and 202 in the intervention period. Compliance improved significantly for four of five steps (e.g., from 11.6% to 57.9% for hand disinfection before patient contact; p<0.001, chi-square test). Compliance with skin antisepsis of the puncture site was high before and after intervention (99.5% before and 99.0% after). Performance of specific steps in the correct order also improved (e.g., from 7.7% to 68.6% when three of five steps were done; p<0.001). The intervention was described as helpful by 46.8% of the participants, as neutral by 46.8%, and as disruptive by 6.4%. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal strategy to improve both compliance with safety steps for peripheral venous catheter insertion and performance of an optimum procedure was effective and was regarded helpful by healthcare workers.