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.

Comparison of the '4-item assessment test' and 'nursing delirium screening scale' delirium screening tools on non-intensive care unit wards: A prospective mixed-method approach.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients following surgery, postoperative delirium (POD) is the most frequent complication and is associated with negative outcomes. The 2017 European Society of Anaesthesiology guideline on POD aims to improve patient care by implementing structured delirium prevention, diagnosis and treatment. However, these recommendations, especially systematic delirium screening, are still incompletely adopted in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of validated delirium screening tools and to identify barriers to their implementation on nonintensive care unit wards. METHODS: Screening rates, as well as practicability, acceptance and the interprofessional handling of positive results, were assessed for each group. Screening rates were calculated as a percentage of the total potential testing episodes completed (up to 15 per patient). Patients were considered eligible when aged 65 years and above. Barriers and motivating factors were assessed in a mixed method approach by utilising questionnaires and focus group discussions. INTERVENTION: In a 3-month phase, a guideline-compliant screening protocol involving screening for POD three times daily for 5 days following surgery was introduced in five wards: both the 4-item assessment test (4AT) and the nursing delirium screening scale (NuDESC) were used. Before commencing the study and again after 6 weeks, medical staff of the respective wards underwent a 45 min training session. RESULTS: Of a total of 3183 potential testing episodes, 999 (31.4%) were completed, with more NuDESC observational tests (43%) than 4AT bedside tests completed (20%). The 4AT was considered more difficult to integrate into daily working routines, it took longer to administer, and nurses felt uncomfortable conducting the screening (53 vs. 13%). Screening results indicating delirium were often not discussed within the team (47%), and nurses felt that often such results were not taken seriously by physicians (54%). CONCLUSION: The observational NuDESC showed a higher completion rate than the bedside 4AT, although overall testing rates were low. The necessary time needed to conduct the screening, the negative reactions by patients, insufficient team communication and a lack of initiation of any therapy were identified as major barriers in the implementation of the guideline-compliant screening protocol. For all staff, further education and awareness of the importance of POD diagnosis and treatment might improve the screening rates. The NuDesc received better results concerning acceptance, practicability and introduction into daily work routine, leading to higher screening rates compared with the 4AT. The latter instrument, which was intended to be used rather selectively or when POD is suspected, might therefore not be suitable for guideline-compliant regular and repeated screening for POD.