Areas of consensus on unwarranted and warranted transfers between nursing homes and emergency care facilities in Norway: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Transferring residents from nursing homes (NHs) to emergency care facilities (ECFs) is often questioned as many are terminally ill and have access to onsite care. While some NH to ECF transfers have merit, avoiding other transfers may benefit residents and reduce healthcare system costs and provider burden. Despite many years of research in this area, differentiating warranted (i.e., appropriate) from unwarranted NH to ECF transfers remains challenging. In this article, we report consensus on warranted and unwarranted NH to ECF transfers scenarios. METHODS: A Delphi study was used to identify consensus regarding warranted and unwarranted NH to ECF transfers. Delphi participants included nurses (RNs) and medical doctors (MDs) from NHs, out-of-hours primary care clinics (OOHs), and hospital-based emergency departments. A list of 12 scenarios and 11 medical conditions was generated from the existing literature on causes and medical conditions leading to transfers, and pilot tested and refined prior to conducting the study. Three Delphi rounds were conducted, and data were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics. RESULTS: Seventy-nine experts consented to participate, of whom 56 (71%) completed all three Delphi rounds. Participants reached high or very high consensus on when to not transfer residents, except for scenarios regarding delirium, where only moderate consensus was attained. Conversely, except when pain relieving surgery was required, participants reached low agreement on scenarios depicting warranted NH to ECF transfers. Consensus opinions differ significantly between health professionals, participant gender, and rurality, for seven of the 23 transfer scenarios and medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Transfers from nursing homes to emergency care facilities can be defined as warranted, discretionary, and unwarranted. These categories are based on the areas of consensus found in this Delphi study and are intended to operationalize the terms warranted and unwarranted transfers between nursing homes and emergency care facilities.

Access to, use of, and experiences with social alarms in home-living people with dementia: results from the LIVE@Home.Path trial.

Background: Social alarms are considered an appropriate technology to ensure the safety and independence of older adults, but limited research has been conducted on their actual use. We, therefore, explored the access, experiences, and use of social alarms among home-bound people with dementia and their informal caregivers (dyads). Methods: From May 2019 to October 2021, the LIVE@Home.Path mixed-method intervention trial collected data from semi-quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews conducted among home-dwelling people with dementia and their informal caregivers in Norway. The study focused on data from the final assessment at 24 months. Results: A total of 278 dyads were included, and 82 participants reached the final assessment. The mean age of the patients was 83 years; 74.6% were female; 50% lived alone; and 58% had their child as a caregiver. A total of 62.2% of subjects had access to a social alarm. Caregivers were more likely to answer that the device was not in use (23.6%) compared to patients (14%). Qualitative data revealed that approximately 50% of the patients were not aware of having such an alarm. Regression analyses assessed that access to a social alarm was associated with increasing age (86-97 years, p = 0.005) and living alone (p < 0.001). Compared to their caregivers, people with dementia were more likely to answer that the device gave them a false sense of security (28% vs. 9.9%), while caregivers were more likely to answer that the social alarm was of no value (31.4% vs.14.0%). The number of social alarms installed increased from 39.5% at baseline to 68% at 24 months. The frequency of unused social alarms increased from 12 months (17.7%) to 24 months (23.5%), and patients were less likely to feel safe during this period (60.8% vs. 70%). Conclusion: Depending on their living situation, patients and family members experienced the installed social alarm differently. There is a gap between access to and the use of social alarms. The results indicate an urgent need for better routines in municipalities with regard to the provision and follow-up of existing social alarms. To meet the users' changing needs and abilities, passive monitoring may help them adapt to declining cognitive abilities and increase their safety.Clinical Trial Registration: https://ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04043364.

Intended, Unintended, Unanticipated? Consequences of Social Distancing Measures for Nursing Home Residents During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

During the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Norwegian health authorities introduced social distancing measures in nursing homes. The aim was to protect vulnerable residents from contracting the potentially deadly infection. Drawing on individual interviews with nursing home managers and physicians, and focus groups with nursing staff, we explore and describe consequences the social distancing measures had on nursing home residents' health and wellbeing. The analysis indicates that most residents became socially deprived, while some became calmer during the nursing home lockdown. Nursing home staff, physicians and managers witnessed that residents' health and functional capacity declined when services to maintain health, such as physiotherapy, were put on hold. In conclusion, we argue that although Norwegian health authorities managed to keep the infection rates low in nursing homes, this came at a high price for the residents however, as the social distancing measures also negatively impacted their health and wellbeing.

Factors associated with access to assistive technology and telecare in home-dwelling people with dementia: baseline data from the LIVE@Home.Path trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a knowledge gap regarding factors that may influence the access to different devices for home-dwelling people with dementia (PwD). The aim of this study was to identify different assistive technology and telecare (ATT) devices installed in the home and key factors associated with access to such technology. METHODS: The baseline data came from the LIVE@Home.Path trial, a 24-month multi-component intervention including PwDs and their informal caregivers (dyads) and were collected through semi-quantitative questionnaires in three Norwegian municipalities between May and November of 2019. Regression models were applied to detect demographic and clinical factors associated with access to ATT. RESULTS: Of 438 screened dyads, 276 were included at baseline. The mean ages of the PwDs and caregivers were 82 ± 7.0 and 66 ± 12 years, respectively, and 62.8% of the PwD were female and 73.5% had access to any type of ATT. The majority had traditional equipment such as stove guards (43.3%) and social alarms (39.5%) or everyday technology, e.g. calendar support and door locks (45.3%). Multivariate regression analyses revealed that access to a social alarm was more often available for females than males, at increased age, and when the PwD lived alone, while tracking devices (14.9%) were more often accessible at lower age. Everyday technology was more often available for females, at increased age of the PwD and the caregiver, higher comorbidity, and poor IADL (instrumental activities of daily living) function. For PwDs with severe dementia, access to ATT was significantly associated with poor IADL function, having their children as the main caregiver (61.3%), and having caregivers who contributed 81-100% to their care (49.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Home-dwelling PwDs mainly had access to traditional and obligated devices, followed by everyday technology. There is unmet potential for communication, tracking, and sensing technology, especially for devices not offered by the municipalities. Gender, ages of the PwD and caregiver, cohabitation status, and physical function were the main associated factors for access to ATT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04043364.

LIVE@Home.Path-innovating the clinical pathway for home-dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers: study protocol for a mixed-method, stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The global health challenge of dementia is exceptional in size, cost and impact. It is the only top ten cause of death that cannot be prevented, cured or substantially slowed, leaving disease management, caregiver support and service innovation as the main targets for reduction of disease burden. Institutionalization of persons with dementia is common in western countries, despite patients preferring to live longer at home, supported by caregivers. Such complex health challenges warrant multicomponent interventions thoroughly implemented in daily clinical practice. This article describes the rationale, development, feasibility testing and implementation process of the LIVE@Home.Path trial. METHODS: The LIVE@Home.Path trial is a 2-year, multicenter, mixed-method, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial, aiming to include 315 dyads of home-dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers, recruited from 3 municipalities in Norway. The stepped-wedge randomization implies that all dyads receive the intervention, but the timing is determined by randomization. The control group constitutes the dyads waiting for the intervention. The multicomponent intervention was developed in collaboration with user-representatives, researchers and stakeholders to meet the requirements from the national Dementia Plan 2020. During the 6-month intervention period, the participants will be allocated to a municipal coordinator, the core feature of the intervention, responsible for regular contact with the dyads to facilitate L: Learning, I: Innovation, V: Volunteering and E: Empowerment (LIVE). The primary outcome is resource utilization. This is measured by the Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument and the Relative Stress Scale (RSS), reflecting that resource utilization is more than the actual time required for caring but also how burdensome the task is experienced by the caregiver. DISCUSSION: We expect the implementation of LIVE to lead to a pathway for dementia treatment and care which is cost-effective, compared to treatment as usual, and will support high-quality independent living, at home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04043364. Registered on 15 March 2019.

Do organisational constraints explain the use of restraint? A comparative ethnographic study from three nursing homes in Norway.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate (1) what kind of restraint is used in three nursing homes in Norway and (2) how staff use restraint under what organisational conditions. BACKGROUND: Restraint use in residents living with dementia in nursing homes is controversial, and at odds with fundamental human rights. Restraint is a matter of hindering residents' free movement and will by applying either interactional, physical, medical, surveillance or environmental restraint. Previous research has identified use of restraint related to individual resident characteristics such as agitation, aggressiveness and wandering. DESIGN: This model is embedded in an overall mixed-method education intervention design study called Modelling and evaluating evidence-based continuing education program in dementia care (MEDCED), applying ethnography postintervention to examine the use of restraint in 24 nursing homes in Norway. METHOD: Based on restraint diversity measured in the trial, ethnographic investigation was carried out in three different nursing homes in Norway over a 10-month period to examine restraint use in relation to organisational constraints. RESULTS: Several forms of restraint were observed; among them, interactional restraint was used most frequently. We identified that use of restraint relates to the characteristics of individual residents, such as agitation, aggressiveness and wandering. However, restraint use should also be explained in relation to organisational conditions such as resident mix, staff culture and available human resources. CONCLUSION: A fluctuating and dynamic interplay between different individual and contextual factors determines whether restraint is used - or not in particular situations with residents living with dementia. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Educational initiatives targeting staff to reduce restraint must be sensitive towards fluctuating organisational constraints.

Facilitating change from a distance - a story of success? A discussion on leaders' styles in facilitating change in four nursing homes in Norway.

AIM: To examine the influence of leadership when facilitating change in nursing homes. BACKGROUND: The study is a part of an education intervention for care staff to prevent the use of restraint in nursing home residents with dementia in 24 nursing homes (NHs) in Norway. Leadership is known to be a fundamental factor for success of evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation in health services. However, the type of leadership that strengthens the processes of change remains to be clarified. METHOD: A multi-site comparative ethnography was performed in four nursing homes to investigate how contextual factors influenced the implementation. The analysis was informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, and in particular the sub-element of leadership. RESULTS: Different leadership styles to facilitate change were identified. Paradoxically, a strong collective and collaborative leadership style was found to hamper change in one particular home, whereas a remote leadership style combined with almost no cooperation with staff proved successful in another setting. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that leadership cannot be understood on a low-high continuum as suggested by the PARIHS framework, but rather as a factor characterised by diversity. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Our study indicates, as a minimum, that a leader's presence is necessary to facilitate the internal processes in order more successfully to implement EBP.

Nursing home staffing standards and staffing levels in six countries.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to collect and compare nurse staffing standards and staffing levels in six counties: the United States, Canada, England, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. DESIGN: The study used descriptive information on staffing regulations and policies as well as actual staffing levels for registered nurses, licensed nurses, and nursing assistants across states, provinces, regions, and countries. METHODS: Data were collected from Internet searches of staffing regulations and policies along with statistical data on actual staffing from reports and documents. Staffing data were converted to hours per resident day to facilitate comparisons across countries. FINDINGS: We found wide variations in both nurse staffing standards and actual staffing levels within and across countries, although comparisons were difficult to make due to differences in measuring staffing, the vagueness of standards, and limited availability of actual staffing data. Both the standards and levels in most countries (except Norway and Sweden) were lower than the recommended levels by experts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the need for further attention to nurse staffing standards and levels in order to assure the quality of nursing home care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A high quality of nursing home care requires adequate levels of nurse staffing, and nurse staffing standards have been shown to improve staffing levels.