Dataset Information

Delivering dementia care differently--evaluating the differences and similarities between a specialist medical and mental health unit and standard acute care wards: a qualitative study of family carers' perceptions of quality of care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine in depth carers' views and experiences of the delivery of patient care for people with dementia or delirium in an acute general hospital, in order to evaluate a specialist Medical and Mental Health Unit (MMHU) compared with standard hospital wards. This qualitative study complemented the quantitative findings of a randomised controlled trial.

Design

Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with carers of patients with cognitive impairment admitted to hospital over a 4-month period.

Setting

A specialist MMHU was developed in an English National Health Service acute hospital aiming to deliver the best-practice care. Specialist mental health staff were integrated with the ward team. All staff received enhanced training in dementia, delirium and person-centred care. A programme of purposeful therapeutic and leisure activities was introduced. The ward environment was optimised to improve patient orientation and independence. A proactive and inclusive approach to family carers was encouraged.

Participants

40 carers who had been recruited to a randomised controlled trial comparing the MMHU with standard wards.

Results

The main themes identified related closely to family carers' met or unmet expectations and included activities and boredom, staff knowledge, dignity and fundamental care, the ward environment and communication between staff and carers. Carers from MMHU were aware of, and appreciated, improvements relating to activities, the ward environment and staff knowledge and skill in the appropriate management of dementia and delirium. However, communication and engagement of family carers were still perceived as insufficient.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrate the extent to which the MMHU succeeded in its goal of providing the best-practice care and improving carer experience, and where deficiencies remained. Neither setting was perceived as neither wholly good nor wholly bad; however, greater satisfaction (and less dissatisfaction) with care was experienced by carers from MMHU compared with standard care wards.

SUBMITTER: Spencer K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3884743 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Delivering dementia care differently--evaluating the differences and similarities between a specialist medical and mental health unit and standard acute care wards: a qualitative study of family carers' perceptions of quality of care.

Spencer Karen K Foster Pippa P Whittamore Kathy H KH Goldberg Sarah E SE Harwood Rowan H RH

BMJ open 20131220 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine in depth carers' views and experiences of the delivery of patient care for people with dementia or delirium in an acute general hospital, in order to evaluate a specialist Medical and Mental Health Unit (MMHU) compared with standard hospital wards. This qualitative study complemented the quantitative findings of a randomised controlled trial.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with carers of patients with cognitive impairment admitted ...[more]

PMID: 24362015

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over the last 10 years, one of the key themes of public policy in palliative care has been achievement of choice in place of death. In Marie Curie Hospice Edinburgh a baseline audit conducted in 2006 showed that only a small proportion (18%) of patients referred to hospice services died at home. The audit also revealed that only 31% of those who expressed a preference to die at home were able to do so, whereas 91% of those who chose a setting other than home achieved their preference. Overall achievement of preferred place of death was 56%. However a significant number of patients (29%) did not have a recorded preference. A programme of quality improvement has continued over the last 7 years to improve identification, communication and achievement of preferred place of death for all patients. The mechanisms to change practice have been: changes to documentation; changes to clinical systems to support use of documentation; support for clinical staff to recognise the value of discussing preferences; and support for clinical staff to develop new skills. In addition the programme has been incorporated into local clinical strategy and this has enabled gaps in service to be addressed with a new service to support early discharge of those patients who wish to die at home. A recent audit showed that all patients had a recorded preference or a documented reason why their preference was unclarified. One third of patients died at home - nearly double the proportion that died at home in the baseline audit. Seventy one per cent of patients who wished to die at home actually died at home - a substantial increase from 31% at baseline. Achievement of preferred place of death for patients wishing to die in the hospice remained high at 88%. The focus on assessment of preference for place of death has led to substantial improvements in the identification and achievement of preference for patients dying under the care of the hospice. Furthermore, it has been associated with an increase in the overall proportion of patients who die at home.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and evaluate a best practice model of general hospital acute medical care for older people with cognitive impairment.DesignRandomised controlled trial, adapted to take account of constraints imposed by a busy acute medical admission system.SettingLarge acute general hospital in the United Kingdom.Participants600 patients aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified as "confused" on admission.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to a specialist medical and mental health unit, designed to deliver best practice care for people with delirium or dementia, or to standard care (acute geriatric or general medical wards). Features of the specialist unit included joint staffing by medical and mental health professionals; enhanced staff training in delirium, dementia, and person centred dementia care; provision of organised purposeful activity; environmental modification to meet the needs of those with cognitive impairment; delirium prevention; and a proactive and inclusive approach to family carers.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomenumber of days spent at home over the 90 days after randomisation.Secondary outcomesstructured non-participant observations to ascertain patients' experiences; satisfaction of family carers with hospital care. When possible, outcome assessment was blind to allocation.ResultsThere was no significant difference in days spent at home between the specialist unit and standard care groups (median 51 v 45 days, 95% confidence interval for difference -12 to 24; P=0.3). Median index hospital stay was 11 versus 11 days, mortality 22% versus 25% (-9% to 4%), readmission 32% versus 35% (-10% to 5%), and new admission to care home 20% versus 28% (-16% to 0) for the specialist unit and standard care groups, respectively. Patients returning home spent a median of 70.5 versus 71.0 days at home (-6.0 to 6.5). Patients on the specialist unit spent significantly more time with positive mood or engagement (79% v 68%, 2% to 20%; P=0.03) and experienced more staff interactions that met emotional and psychological needs (median 4 v 1 per observation; P<0.001). More family carers were satisfied with care (overall 91% v 83%, 2% to 15%; P=0.004), and severe dissatisfaction was reduced (5% v 10%, -10% to 0%; P=0.05).ConclusionsSpecialist care for people with delirium and dementia improved the experience of patients and satisfaction of carers, but there were no convincing benefits in health status or service use. Patients' experience and carers' satisfaction might be more appropriate measures of success for frail older people approaching the end of life.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01136148.

Project description:Breathlessness is common in advanced cancer. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease. We sought to establish whether BIS was more effective, and cost-effective, for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care.A single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed-method randomised controlled trial (RCT) of BIS versus standard care was conducted. Participants were randomised to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). A total of 67 patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 35; control arm n = 32 received BIS after a two-week wait); 54 completed to the key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at two-weeks. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Services Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews.BIS reduced patient distress due to breathlessness (primary outcome: -1.29; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.005; P = 0.049) significantly more than the control group; 94% of respondents reported a positive impact (51/53). BIS reduced fear and worry, and increased confidence in managing breathlessness. Patients and carers consistently identified specific and repeatable aspects of the BIS model and interventions that helped. How interventions were delivered was important. BIS legitimised breathlessness and increased knowledge whilst making patients and carers feel 'not alone'. BIS had a 66% likelihood of better outcomes in terms of reduced distress due to breathlessness at lower health/social care costs than standard care (81% with informal care costs included).BIS appears to be more effective and cost-effective in advanced cancer than standard care.RCT registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008) and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008).

Project description:BackgroundAn intensive care unit (ICU) admission is a stressful event for the patient and the patient's family. Several studies demonstrated symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder in family members of patients admitted to ICU. Some studies recognize that the open visitation policy (OVP) is related to a reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression for the patient and an improvement in family satisfaction. However, some issues have been presented as barriers for the adoption of that strategy. This study was designed to evaluate perceptions of physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists (RTs) of an OVP and to quantify visiting times in a Brazilian private intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThis observational and descriptive study was performed in the medical-surgical (22 beds) and neurologic ICU (8 beds) of Sírio-Libanês Hospital (HSL), São Paulo, Brazil. All physicians, nurses, and RTs from ICU were invited to participate in the study. A questionnaire was applied to all ICU workers who accepted to participate in the study. The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions about the visiting policy. During five consecutive days, we evaluated the time that the visitors stayed in the patient room, as well as the type of visitor.ResultsA total of 106 ICU workers participated in this study (42 physicians, 39 nurses, and 25 RTs). Only three of the questions exposed a negative perception of the visiting policy: 53.3% of the participants do not think that the OVP consistently increases family satisfaction with patient's care; 59.4% of ICU workers think that the OVP impairs the organization of the patient's care; 72.7% of participants believe that their work suffers more interruptions because of the OVP. The median visiting time per day was 11.5 hours.ConclusionsAccording to physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists, the greatest impact of OVP is the benefit to the patients rather than to the family or to the staff. Furthermore, they feel that they need communication training to better interact with family members who are present in the ICU 24 hours per day.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain.ObjectiveTo describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs.DesignCross-sectional study and time trend analysis.DataNationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010.Main measuresProportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality.Key resultsAmong 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p?=?0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p?<?0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p?<?0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p?<?0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists.ConclusionsMedical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.

Project description:BackgroundSmoking accounts for a large proportion of cancer-related mortality, creating a need for better smoking cessation efforts. We investigated whether gain-framed messages (ie, presenting benefits of quitting) will be a more persuasive method to encourage smoking cessation than standard-care messages (ie, presenting both costs of smoking [loss-framed] and benefits of quitting).MethodsTwenty-eight specialists working at the New York State Smokers' Quitline (a free telephone-based smoking cessation service) were randomly assigned to provide gain-framed or standard-care counseling and print materials. Smokers (n = 2032) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline between March 10, 2008, and June 13, 2008, were exposed to either gain-framed (n = 810) or standard-care (n = 1222) messages, and all medically eligible callers received nicotine replacement therapy. A subset of 400 call recordings was coded to assess treatment fidelity. All treated smokers were contacted for 2-week and 3-month follow-up interviews. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsSpecialists providing gain-framed counseling used gain-framed statements statistically significantly more frequently than those providing standard-care counseling as assessed with frequency ratings for the two types of gain-framed statements, achieving benefits and avoiding negative consequences (for achieving benefits, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 3.9 vs standard-care mean frequency rating = 1.4; mean difference = -2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8 to -2.3; P < .001; for avoiding negative consequences, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 1.5 vs standard-card mean frequency rating = 1.0; mean difference = -0.5; 95% CI = -0.6 to -0.3; P < .001). Gain-framed counseling was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of abstinence at the 2-week follow-up (ie, 99 [23.3%] of the 424 in the gain-framed group vs 76 [12.6%] of the 603 in the standard-care group, P < .001) but not at the 3-month follow-up (ie, 148 [28.4%] of the 522 in the gain-framed group vs 202 [26.6%] of the 760 in the standard-care group, P = .48).ConclusionsQuitline specialists can be trained to provide gain-framed counseling with good fidelity. Also, gain-framed messages appear to be somewhat more persuasive than standard-care messages in promoting early success in smoking cessation.

Dataset Information

Delivering dementia care differently--evaluating the differences and similarities between a specialist medical and mental health unit and standard acute care wards: a qualitative study of family carers' perceptions of quality of care.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Delivering dementia care differently--evaluating the differences and similarities between a specialist medical and mental health unit and standard acute care wards: a qualitative study of family carers' perceptions of quality of care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets