Dataset Information

Unintended Consequences of Pandemic Management Strategies on Residents and Family in One Long-term Care Home in British Columbia: A Patient-Supported Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

In March 2020, pandemic management strategies were mandated across long-term care homes in British Columbia, Canada, to control the effects of COVID-19. This study describes and contextualizes the impact of visitation, infection prevention and control, and staffing strategies on the perceived health and well-being of residents and families.

Research design and methods

This interpretive description study was part of a larger mixed-methods study at a publicly funded not-for-profit long-term care home in British Columbia, Canada. Eleven family members and 10 residents were interviewed between October and December 2020, and resident and family partners participated in a steering committee throughout all stages of the research.

Findings

Early pandemic management strategies had an adverse impact on the perceived health and well-being of families and residents. Visitation restrictions eliminated care routinely provided by families and prevented in-person communication between residents, families, and care providers. Other infection prevention and control strategies isolated residents; group enrichment programs were stopped, and lockdowns created a perception of incarceration. Donning and doffing personal protective equipment took time away from staff-resident interactions and the single-site order reduced staff numbers, placing additional time restraints on residents' care.

Discussion and implications

Unintended adverse consequences of pandemic management strategies demonstrate the risks of creating policies based on a medicalized definition of health. Clear lines of communication are vital to increase a sense of control for families and residents. Elimination of care provided by families and paid companions exposed a gap in Canada's public long-term care system. This care gap raises concerns about equitable care access for residents without families or financial means to pay for additional care.

SUBMITTER: Staempfli S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9262035 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough hospitals are increasingly held accountable for patients' post-discharge outcomes, giving them incentive to help patients choose high-performing home health agencies, little is known about how quality reports inform decision making.ObjectiveWe aimed to learn how quality reports are used when choosing home care in one northeast state (Rhode Island) .DesignThe study consisted of focus groups with home health consumers and structured interviews with hospital case managers.ParticipantsThirteen consumers and 28 case managers from five hospitals participated in the study.ApproachWe identified key themes and illustrative quotes by audiotaping each session, and then three independent reviewers conducted repeated examination and content analysis.Key resultsNo participants were aware of existing state or Medicare home health agency public reports. Case managers provided agency lists to consumers, who routinely asked case managers to tell them which agencies to choose or which were best; but case managers felt unable to directly respond to consumers' requests for help in making the choice, because they did not have additional information to provide and because they feared violating federal laws requiring freedom of patient choice. Case managers also felt that there was little difference in agency quality, although they acknowledged they might not be aware of problems related to post-hospital care.ConclusionsHome health consumers and hospital case managers were unaware of public reports about home health quality, which limited consumers' ability to make informed decisions and case managers' ability to assist them in that decision-making process. Case managers were otherwise prohibited from recommending specific providers to patients and viewed the 'patient choice' laws as restricting their ability to respond to patients' requests for help in choosing home health agencies. Public reports can be marketed as tools that case managers can use to help patients differentiate among providers, while supporting patient autonomy.

Project description:IntroductionBetween 2015 and 2018, there were over 40 000 opioid-related overdose events and 4551 deaths among residents in British Columbia (BC). During this time the province mobilised a variety of policy levers to encourage physicians to expand access to opioid agonist treatment and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) released a practice standard establishing legally enforceable minimum thresholds of professional behaviour in the hopes of curtailing overdose events. Our goal is to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the intended and unintended consequences of these policy changes. Specifically, we aim to understand the effects of these measures on physician prescribing behaviours, identify physician characteristics associated with uptake of the new measures, and measure the effects of the policy changes on patients' access to quality primary care.Methods and analysisThis is a population-level, retrospective cohort study of all BC primary care physicians who prescribed any opioid medication for opioid-use disorder or chronic non-cancer pain during the study period, and their patients. The study period is 1 January 2013-31 December 2018, with a 1-year wash-in period (1 January 2012-31 December 2012) to exclude patients who initiated long-term opioid treatment prior to our study period or whose pain type (ie, 'chronic non-cancer', 'acute', 'cancer or palliative', or 'other') cannot be confirmed. The project combines five administrative health datasets under the authority of the BC Ministry of Health, with the CPSBC's Physician Registry, BC Cancer Agency's Cancer Registry and Vital Statistics' Mortality data. We will create measures of prescribing concordance, access, continuity, and comprehensiveness to assess primary care delivery and quality at both the physician and patient level. We will use generalised estimating equations, interrupted time series, mixed effects models, and funnel plots to identify factors related to changes in prescribing and evaluate the impact of the changes to prescribing policies. Results will be reported using appropriate Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research guidelines (eg, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology).Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by McGill University's Institutional Review Board (#A11-M55-19A), and the University of British Columbia's Research Ethics Board (#H19-03537). We will disseminate results via a combination of open access peer-reviewed journal publications, conferences, lay summaries and OpEds.

Project description:BackgroundNurse-Family Partnership is a nurse home visitation program that aims to improve the lives of young mothers and their children. The program focuses on women who are parenting for the first time and experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Nurse visits start as early in pregnancy as possible and continue until the child reaches age two years. The program has proven effective in the United States - improving children's mental health and development and maternal wellbeing, and showing long-term cost-effectiveness. But it is not known whether the same benefits will be obtained in Canada, where public services differ. The British Columbia Healthy Connections Project therefore involves a randomized controlled trial evaluating Nurse-Family Partnership's effectiveness compared with existing (usual) services in improving children's mental health and early development and mother's life circumstances. The trial's main aims are to: reduce childhood injuries by age two years (primary outcome indicator); reduce prenatal nicotine and alcohol use; improve child cognitive and language development and behaviour at age two years; and reduce subsequent pregnancies by 24 months postpartum. Potential explanatory factors such as maternal mental health (including self-efficacy) are also being assessed, as is the program's impact on exposure to intimate-partner violence. To inform future economic evaluation, data are also being collected on health and social service access and use.Methods/designEligible and consenting participants (N = 1040) are being recruited prior to 28 weeks gestation then individually randomized to receive existing services (comparison group) or Nurse-Family Partnership plus existing services (intervention group). Nurse-Family Partnership is being delivered following fidelity guidelines. Data are being collected during in person and telephone interviews at: baseline; 34-36 weeks gestation; and two, 10, 18 and 24 months postpartum. Additional data will be obtained via linkages from provincial datasets. Recruitment commenced in October 2013 and will continue for approximately three years.DiscussionThis trial will provide important information about the generalizability of Nurse-Family Partnership to the Canadian context. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and shared with policymakers and practitioners through extensive public health collaborations already underway.Trial registrationRegistered July 18, 2013 with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01672060 .

Project description:Background:Pregnant girls/young women and new mothers living in situations of social and economic disadvantage are at increased risk for poor health. Rural living may compound marginalization and create additional challenges for young mothers. Public health nurses (PHNs) delivering the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) to mothers living in rural communities may help to improve maternal and child health outcomes. The purpose of this analysis, grounded in data collected as part of a broader process evaluation, was to explore and understand the influence of rural geography on the delivery of NFP in British Columbia, Canada. Methods:For the analysis of this qualitative data, principles of inductive reasoning based on the methodology of interpretive description were applied. A total of 10 PHNs and 11 supervisors providing the NFP program in rural communities were interviewed. Results:The results of this analysis reflect the factors and challenges of providing the NFP program in rural communities. PHNs noted the importance of NFP in the lives of their rural clients, especially in the face of extreme financial and social disparity. Remaining flexible in their approach to rural nursing and protecting time to complete NFP work supported nurses practicing in rural environments. Rural PHNs were often the sole NFP nurse in their office and struggled to remain connected to their supervisors and other NFP colleagues. Challenges were compounded by the realities of rural geography, such as poor weather, reduced accessibility, and long travel distances; however, these were considered normal occurrences of rural practice by nurses. Conclusions:PHNs and NFP supervisors are well-positioned to identify the modifications that are required to support the delivery of NFP in rural geography. NFP nurses need to articulate what classifies as rural in order to effectively determine how to best provide services to these populations. Environmental conditions must be considered when offering NFP in rural communities, particularly if they impact the time required to deliver the program and additional services offered to young mothers. Regular NFP meetings and education opportunities address common problems associated with rural nursing but could be enhanced by better use of technology.