Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 25(6): 104978, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38588798

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the recruitment methods employed in a randomized controlled trial targeting long-term care workers, and resulting participant baseline characteristics. DESIGN: We used a multifaceted recruitment process to enroll long-term care workers in our 3-arm randomized controlled trial comparing 2 interventions to enhanced usual practice, for improving COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other outcomes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult long-term care workers living in the United States employed within the last 2 years were invited to join the study. Participants also had to meet specific screening criteria related to their degree of worry about the vaccine and/or their vaccination status. METHODS: We used a participatory approach to engage our long-term care stakeholders in codesigning and executing a combination of recruitment methods, including targeted e-recruitment, paid e-recruitment, and in-person recruitment. Participants were screened, consented, and enrolled online. We implemented a participant verification process to ensure the integrity of our study data, and used a tailored participant management platform to manage enrollment. RESULTS: We enrolled 1930 long-term care workers between May 2022 and January 2023. We met our enrollment target, despite each recruitment method having limitations. Total variable costs of approximately $102,700 were incurred and differed on a per-enrolled participant basis across methods: $25.73 for targeted e-recruitment, $57.12 for paid e-recruitment, and $64.92 for in-person methods. Our sample differed from the national population in age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and role in long-term care. Differences were also observed between online and in-person recruitment methods. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results support the feasibility of enrolling a large number of long-term care workers in a randomized controlled trial to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Findings build upon the evidence base for engaging this important population in research, a critical step to improving long-term care resident health and well-being. Results from our trial are anticipated in 2024.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Long-Term Care , Patient Selection , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Male , Female , COVID-19/prevention & control , Middle Aged , Adult , United States , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel/psychology
2.
BMC Public Health ; 23(1): 384, 2023 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36823559

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase. DISCUSSION: Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Long-Term Care , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 21(7): 888-892, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32674814

ABSTRACT

To provide policy recommendations for managing Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) in skilled nursing facilities, a group of certified medical directors from several facilities in New York state with experience managing the disease used e-mail, phone, and video conferencing to develop consensus recommendations. The resulting document provides recommendations on screening, protection of staff, screening of residents, management of Coronavirus 19 positive and presumed positive cases, communication during an outbreak, management of admissions and readmissions, and providing emotional support for staff. These consensus guidelines have been endorsed by the Executive Board of the New York Medical Directors Association and the Board of the Metropolitan Area Geriatrics Society.


Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases, Emerging/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Long-Term Care/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Skilled Nursing Facilities/organization & administration , Subacute Care/organization & administration , Aged , COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases, Emerging/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Disease Management , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Policy Making , Public Policy/legislation & jurisprudence
5.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 20(11): 1362-1366, 2019 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31588024

ABSTRACT

The Ethics Subcommittee of AMDA-The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine ("The Society") presents arguments for and against Stopping Eating and Drinking by Advance Directives (SED by AD). SED by AD is a type of advance directive in which a proxy is instructed to stop offering food and fluids to a person when they reach a certain stage of dementia. Although most conversations regarding SED by AD focus on patient autonomy and the right to determine one's care, we propose that the ethical principle of justice-the obligation to treat all individuals equally regardless of race, gender, and physical or cognitive ability-is the decisive principle in this controversy. We also suggest that implementing SED by AD can violate a physician's obligation to beneficence and nonmaleficence. On the other hand, we identify with the families of our patients who see the refusal to follow an advance directive as an injustice of the highest order. In the end, The Society is convinced that no choice can be made here without practicing an injustice: if one refuses to implement SED by AD, one violates the autonomy of the person who drew up the advance directive. If, on the other hand, one refuses food and fluid to a resident who still accepts food, one risks practicing an injustice against that person as they are now. Recognizing that we have the greatest responsibility to our patients as they present to us in the residential setting, The Society recommends against implementing SED by AD in residents who still accept food and fluids, implementing instead, a policy of comfort feeding for those with advanced dementia.


Subject(s)
Advance Directives/ethics , Dementia/psychology , Euthanasia, Active/ethics , Feeding Behavior/ethics , Nursing Homes/ethics , Withholding Treatment/ethics , Advance Directives/psychology , Caregivers/psychology , Decision Making/ethics , Feeding Behavior/psychology , Humans , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Personal Autonomy
6.
Am J Hosp Palliat Care ; 31(1): 105-8, 2014 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23345614

ABSTRACT

Delirium is a common syndrome present at the end of life and causes significant distress for patients and families. Sleep disruption is a common precipitating factor for delirium and restoration of sleep may be instrumental in attenuating symptoms. In this cases series, we present three patients who were unresponsive to escalating doses of standard delirium medications, but whose delirium resolved once improved sleep was achieved using Pentobarbital. In a fourth patient, delirium was successfully treated where neuroleptics were contraindicated. Pentobarbital has been shown to reduce the time to sleep onset, decrease the number of body movements during sleep and spontaneous awakenings and increase the total sleep time. Pentobarbital may provide an additional treatment option for patients whose delirium is refractory to standard management approaches.


Subject(s)
Delirium/drug therapy , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Pentobarbital/therapeutic use , Sleep Wake Disorders/drug therapy , Aged, 80 and over , Delirium/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Palliative Care , Sleep/drug effects , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology
7.
J Palliat Med ; 14(9): 1074-7, 2011 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21838517

ABSTRACT

The benefits of ketamine in reducing pain are largely based on case reports and small clinical trials. We present a case series describing the application and efficacy of subanesthetic doses of ketamine in the treatment of complex pain syndromes poorly responsive to escalating doses of opioids. The discussion that follows suggests that subanesthetic intravenous ketamine can be used to successfully treat severe pain of different etiologies refractory to opioid dose escalation. Optimal dosing titration, duration of initial treatment, and the role of maintenance ketamine need to be further elucidated. Our case series adds to the extant literature supporting the role of subanesthetic ketamine for refractory pain problems.


Subject(s)
Analgesics/therapeutic use , Ketamine/therapeutic use , Pain, Intractable/drug therapy , Palliative Care , Adult , Aged , Analgesics/administration & dosage , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Humans , Ketamine/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL