Dataset Information

The Impact of Music and Memory on Resident Level Outcomes in California Nursing Homes.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To study the effects of a nonpharmacologic intervention, Music and Memory (M&M), on residents with dementia and/or behavioral problems living in nursing homes (NHs).

Design

This was a prospective, mixed-methods cohort study.

Setting and participants

In total, 4107 residents in 265 California NHs and that reported data at least twice during the 3-year study period were enrolled.

Measures

We used a quarterly rolling enrollment process; participants provided data at baseline and quarterly via an online survey that included select resident level data from the Minimum Data Set (psychotropic drug use, cognition, behaviors, mood, pain, and falls), experience with the M&M program, and resident use of music. NHs were eligible if they were Medicare- and Medicaid-certified and had 15 residents with a diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment or exhibited significant behavioral symptoms.

Results

M&M was associated with reductions in psychotropic medication use, reduced behaviors, and improved mood. The odds of antipsychotic use declined by about 11%, of antianxiety medications by 17%, and antidepressants by 9% per quarter. Aggressive behaviors, depressive symptoms, pain, and falls also declined significantly over time. The odds of residents exhibiting aggressive behaviors declined by 20% per quarter, depressive symptoms by 16%, reported pain by 17%, and falls by 8%.

Conclusions and implications

This is the largest study of M&M to date. We found clinically and statistically significant reductions in psychotropic medications and improved behaviors in residents using M&M. Although the study showed positive results overall, the lack of a control group was a significant limitation that precluded determining how much more improvement participating residents experienced compared with nonparticipants. Future studies should include a control group so that better conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of the M&M program.

SUBMITTER: Bakerjian D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8121202 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of surveillance testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) among staff members in skilled nursing facilities, evidence is limited regarding its relationship with outcomes among facility residents.MethodsUsing data obtained from 2020 to 2022, we performed a retrospective cohort study of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among staff members in 13,424 skilled nursing facilities during three pandemic periods: before vaccine approval, before the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant wave, and during the omicron wave. We assessed staff testing volumes during weeks without Covid-19 cases relative to other skilled nursing facilities in the same county, along with Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents during potential outbreaks (defined as the occurrence of a case after 2 weeks with no cases). We reported adjusted differences in outcomes between high-testing facilities (90th percentile of test volume) and low-testing facilities (10th percentile). The two primary outcomes were the weekly cumulative number of Covid-19 cases and related deaths among residents during potential outbreaks.ResultsDuring the overall study period, 519.7 cases of Covid-19 per 100 potential outbreaks were reported among residents of high-testing facilities as compared with 591.2 cases among residents of low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -71.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -91.3 to -51.6). During the same period, 42.7 deaths per 100 potential outbreaks occurred in high-testing facilities as compared with 49.8 deaths in low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -7.1; 95% CI, -11.0 to -3.2). Before vaccine availability, high- and low-testing facilities had 759.9 cases and 1060.2 cases, respectively, per 100 potential outbreaks (adjusted difference, -300.3; 95% CI, -377.1 to -223.5), along with 125.2 and 166.8 deaths (adjusted difference, -41.6; 95% CI, -57.8 to -25.5). Before the omicron wave, the numbers of cases and deaths were similar in high- and low-testing facilities; during the omicron wave, high-testing facilities had fewer cases among residents, but deaths were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsGreater surveillance testing of staff members at skilled nursing facilities was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents, particularly before vaccine availability.

Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between the risk of exposure to environmental hazards and the emergency preparedness of nursing homes is not well-understood. This study evaluates the association between wildfire exposure risk and nursing home emergency preparedness.MethodsFrom a sample of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) certified nursing homes in California, we determined the prevalence of "exposed" facilities that were located within 5 km of a wildfire risk area, as informed by a field-tested model. Among the 1182 nursing homes, we identified emergency preparedness deficiencies from January 2017 to December 2019. We estimated associations between exposure and emergency preparedness deficiencies using unadjusted and adjusted generalized estimating equations with logistic and negative binomial distributions.ResultsA greater percentage of the 495 exposed facilities had at least one emergency preparedness deficiency than the 687 unexposed facilities (83.9% vs 76.9%). The mean (3.6 vs 3.2) and median (3 vs 2) numbers of emergency preparedness deficiencies were also greater for exposed facilities. In both the unadjusted and adjusted analyses, exposure to wildfire risk was significantly associated with the likelihood of at least one emergency preparedness deficiency (adjusted odds ratio 1.52, p-value 0.007). There was a positive but not statistically significant association between exposure and the number of emergency preparedness deficiencies assigned to a nursing home (adjusted rate ratio 1.12, p-value 0.062). These results were consistent in analyses that used more stringent distance- and severity-thresholds to define exposure status.ConclusionCalifornia nursing homes at heightened risk of exposure to wildfires have poorer emergency preparedness than unexposed facilities. These findings suggest that nursing home management and staff may be unaware of important environmental risks to which their facilities are exposed. Improved integration of nursing homes into community disaster planning may better align facility preparedness with surrounding wildfire risk.

Project description:BackgroundElder abuse in long-term care is an important public health concern with social, health-related, and economic implications. Staff-to-resident abuse is of particular interest since institutions should protect residents' rights and prevent harm. To provide an up-to date comprehensive overview of staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes, we performed a scoping review considering types of abuse, their prevalence and associated factors, descriptions, experiences, and preventive interventions.MethodsWe performed a scoping review following the framework provided by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO via Ovid, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, we performed free web searching using Google Scholar and checked relevant reviews. Two reviewers independently selected studies. We narratively synthesised the results.ResultsOut of 3876 references retrieved by our search, we included 46 studies in 47 reports. The prevalence rates of abuse varied widely, ranging from 0 to 93% depending on the type of abuse. Associated factors of abuse at the staff, resident, and nursing home level were evaluated inconsistently. Abuse was perceived ambiguous: even though it was considered unacceptable, it was underreported. We found only four studies addressing preventive interventions. Of these, four made recommendations for intervention development. Only one study with an experimental design examined a multi-component intervention including education and mutual support.ConclusionsThe review yielded heterogenous evidence not allowing a concrete conclusion on prevalence and associated factors. However, the results show the significance of the problem and indicate that there are associate factors of abuse that can be influenced by appropriate interventions. These are amongst other staff education, organisational culture, and conditions. Further research should investigate the composition and content of preventive interventions and their potential to reduce abusive behaviours.

Project description:BackgroundWe systematically reviewed interventions that attempted to change staff practice to improve long-term care resident outcomes.MethodsStudies met criteria if they used a control group, included 6 or more nursing home units and quantitatively assessed staff behavior or resident outcomes. Intervention components were coded as including education material, training, audit and feedback, monitoring, champions, team meetings, policy or procedures and organizational restructure.ResultsSixty-three unique studies were broadly grouped according to clinical domain-oral health (3 studies), hygiene and infection control (3 studies), nutrition (2 studies), nursing home acquired pneumonia (2 studies), depression (2 studies) appropriate prescribing (7 studies), reduction of physical restraints (3 studies), management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (6 studies), falls reduction and prevention (11 studies), quality improvement (9 studies), philosophy of care (10 studies) and other (5 studies). No single intervention component, combination of, or increased number of components was associated with greater likelihood of positive outcomes. Studies with positive outcomes for residents also tended to change staff behavior, however changing staff behavior did not necessarily improve resident outcomes. Studies targeting specific care tasks (e.g. oral care, physical restraints) were more likely to produce positive outcomes than those requiring global practice changes (e.g. care philosophy). Studies using intervention theories were more likely to be successful. Program logic was rarely articulated, so it was often unclear whether there was a coherent connection between the intervention components and measured outcomes. Many studies reported barriers relating to staff (e.g. turnover, high workload, attitudes) or organizational factors (e.g. funding, resources, logistics).ConclusionChanging staff practice in nursing homes is possible but complex. Interventionists should consider barriers and feasibility of program components to impact on each intended outcome.