Nursing in long-term institutional care:An examination of the process of care

Nursing care in nursing homesIn the past decades, the amount and complexity of care in long-term institutional care for the older population have increased. At the same time, its quality is cause for concern. Shortcomings are often associated with the number and composition of nursing staff. Research into the relationship between nursing staff and quality of care primarily rely on secondary survey data that do not take into account what is being done during the process of caregiving. Since quality of care outcomes are highly affected by nursing care, the aim of this dissertation was to provide insight into what type of nursing interventions are performed and by whom. An important finding was that nursing interventions mainly concerned the physical care needs of residents. Limited time was spent on, for example, psychosocial nursing interventions. Since nursing homes’ philosophy is on person-centered care that encompasses the well-being of residents, this should be addressed. Preconditions such as sufficient time and continuing training of nursing staff, for instance, in collaboration with educational health care institutions can contribute to this. A second important finding concerned the limited role differentiation between nursing staff, such as registered nurses and nursing assistants, despite differences in educational background. If nursing staff are deployed according to their scope of practice and specific knowledge and skills, this would improve the quality of care. Furthermore, to actually be able to make statements about the relationship between nursing staff and quality of care, quality outcomes should be sensitive to nursing interventions

Assessing time use in long-term institutional care:development, validity and inter-rater reliability of the Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC)

BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined what is actually done in the process of care by nursing staff in long-term institutional care. The applied instruments employed different terminologies, and psychometric properties were inadequately described. This study aimed to develop and test an observational instrument to identify and examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions in long-term institutional care using a standardized language. METHODS: The Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC) is based on the conceptual framework of the Nursing Interventions Classification. Developmental, validation, and reliability stages of the GO-LTIC included: 1) item generation to identify potential setting-specific interventions; 2) examining content validity with a Delphi panel resulting in relevant interventions by calculating the item content validity index; 3) testing feasibility with trained observers observing nursing assistants; and 4) calculating inter-rater reliability using (non) agreement and Cohen's kappa for the identification of interventions and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the amount of time spent on interventions. Bland-Altman plots were applied to visualize the agreement between observers. A one-sample student T-test verified if the difference between observers differed significantly from zero. RESULTS: The final version of the GO-LTIC comprised 116 nursing interventions categorized into six domains. Substantial to almost perfect kappa's were found for interventions in the domains basic (0.67-0.92) and complex (0.70-0.94) physiological care. For the domains of behavioral, family, and health system interventions, the kappa's ranged from fair to almost perfect (0.30-1.00). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the amount of time spent on interventions ranged from fair to excellent for the physiological domains (0.48-0.99) and poor to excellent for the other domains (0.00-1.00). Bland Altman plots indicated that the clinical magnitude of differences in minutes was small. No statistical significant differences between observers (p > 0.05) were found. CONCLUSIONS: The GO-LTIC shows good content validity and acceptable inter-rater reliability to examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions by nursing staff. This may provide managers with valuable information to make decisions about resource allocation, task allocation of nursing staff, and the examination of the costs of nursing services

The consistency between planned and actually given nursing care in long-terminstitutional care

Continuous information exchange between healthcare professionals is facilitated by individualized care plans. Compliance with the planned care as documented in care plans is important to provide person-centered care which contributes to the continuity of care and quality of care outcomes. Using the Nursing Interventions Classification, this study examined the consistency between documented and actually provided interventions by type of nursing staff with 150 residents in long-term institutional care. The consistency was especially high for basic (93%) and complex (79%) physiological care. To a lesser extent for interventions in the behavioral domain (66%). Except for the safety domain, the probability that documented interventions were provided was high for all domains (≥ 91%, p > 0.05). NAs generally provided the interventions as documented. Findings suggest that HCAs worked beyond there scope of practice. The results may have implications for the deployment of nursing staff and are of importance to managers

Assessing time use in long-term institutional care: development, validity and inter-rater reliability of the Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC)

BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined what is actually done in the process of care by nursing staff in long-term institutional care. The applied instruments employed different terminologies, and psychometric properties were inadequately described. This study aimed to develop and test an observational instrument to identify and examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions in long-term institutional care using a standardized language. METHODS: The Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC) is based on the conceptual framework of the Nursing Interventions Classification. Developmental, validation, and reliability stages of the GO-LTIC included: 1) item generation to identify potential setting-specific interventions; 2) examining content validity with a Delphi panel resulting in relevant interventions by calculating the item content validity index; 3) testing feasibility with trained observers observing nursing assistants; and 4) calculating inter-rater reliability using (non) agreement and Cohen's kappa for the identification of interventions and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the amount of time spent on interventions. Bland-Altman plots were applied to visualize the agreement between observers. A one-sample student T-test verified if the difference between observers differed significantly from zero. RESULTS: The final version of the GO-LTIC comprised 116 nursing interventions categorized into six domains. Substantial to almost perfect kappa's were found for interventions in the domains basic (0.67-0.92) and complex (0.70-0.94) physiological care. For the domains of behavioral, family, and health system interventions, the kappa's ranged from fair to almost perfect (0.30-1.00). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the amount of time spent on interventions ranged from fair to excellent for the physiological domains (0.48-0.99) and poor to excellent for the other domains (0.00-1.00). Bland Altman plots indicated that the clinical magnitude of differences in minutes was small. No statistical significant differences between observers (p > 0.05) were found. CONCLUSIONS: The GO-LTIC shows good content validity and acceptable inter-rater reliability to examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions by nursing staff. This may provide managers with valuable information to make decisions about resource allocation, task allocation of nursing staff, and the examination of the costs of nursing services

Accuracy of documentation in the nursing care plan in long-term institutional care

Nursing staff working in long-term institutional care attend to residents with an increasing number of severe physical and cognitive limitations. To exchange information about the health status of these residents, accurate nursing documentation is important to ensure the safety of residents. This study examined the accuracy of nursing documentation in 197 care plans of five long-term institutional care facilities. Based on the phases of the nursing process, the D-Catch instrument measures the accuracy of the content and coherence of documentation. Inadequacies were especially found in the description of residents' care needs and stated nursing diagnoses as well as in progress and outcome reports. In somatic and psycho-geriatric units, higher accuracy scores were determined compared with residential care units. Investments in resources (e.g., time), reasoning skills of nursing staff, and implementation of professional standards in accordance with legal requirements may be needed to enhance the quality of nursing documentation

Examining Time Use of Dutch Nursing Staff in Long-Term Institutional Care:A Time-Motion Study

Objectives: Increasing residents' acuity levels and available resources in long-term institutional care requires insight into the care provided by nursing staff so as to guide task allocation and optimal use of resources, and enhance quality of care. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between time use and type of nursing staff, residents' acuity levels, and unit type by using a standardized nursing intervention classification. Design: A multicenter cross-sectional observational study was performed using time-motion technique. Setting: Five Dutch long-term institutional care facilities participated. In total, 4 residential care units, 3 somatic units, and 6 psycho-geriatric units were included. Participants: Data were collected from 136 nursing staff members: 19 registered nurses, 89 nursing assistants, 9 primary caregivers, and 19 health care assistants. Measurements: A structured observation list was used based on the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC). Residents' acuity levels, representing residents' needs, were based on the Dutch Care Severity Index. Medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for time spent on interventions per type of nursing staff and units. Linear mixed models were used to examine the relationship between time spent on nursing interventions and the type of nursing staff, residents' acuity levels, and unit type. Results: Observations resulted in 52,628 registered minutes for 102 nursing interventions categorized into 6 NIC domains for 335 residents. Nursing staff spent the most time on direct care interventions, particularly in the domain of basic physiological care. Variances in time spent on interventions between types of nursing staff were minimal. Unit type was more significantly (P <.05) associated with time spent on interventions in domains than the type of nursing staff. Residents' acuity levels did not affect time spent by nursing staff (P > .05). Conclusion: The current study found limited evidence for task allocation between the types of nursing staff, which may suggest a blurring of role differentiation. Also, findings suggest that residents received similar care regardless of their needs, implying that care is predominantly task-oriented instead of person-centered. Managers may reconsider whether the needs of residents are adequately met by qualified nursing staff, considering the differences in education and taking into account increasing acuity levels of residents and available resources. (C) 2016 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine

Predictors of short-term and long-term mortality in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit following allogeneic stem cell transplantation

Historically, the mortality of patients admitted to the ICU after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is high. Advancements in transplantation procedures, infectious monitoring and supportive care may have improved the outcome. This study aimed to determine short-term and long-term mortality after ICU admission of patients after alloSCT and to identify prognostic clinical and transplantation-related determinants present at ICU admission for long-term outcome. A multicenter cohort study was performed to determine 30-day and 1-year mortality within 2 years following alloSCT. A total of 251 patients were included. The 30-day and 1-year mortality was 55% and 80%, respectively. Platelet count 19 μmol/L (OR: 2.47 CI: 1.08–5.65) at admission, other donor than a HLA-matched-related or HLA-matched-unrelated donor (OR: 4.59, CI: 1.49–14.1) and vasoactive medication within 24 h (OR: 2.35, CI: 1.28–4.31) were associated with increased 30-day mortality. Other donor than a HLA-matched-related or HLA-matched-unrelated donor (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.13–3.19), serum bilirubin >77 (OR: 2.05, CI: 1.28–3.30) and vasoactive medication within 24 h (OR: 1.65, CI: 1.12–2.43) were associated with increased 1-year mortality. Neutropenia was associated with decreased 30-day and 1-year mortality (OR: 0.29, CI: 0.14–0.59 and OR: 0.70, CI: 0.48–0.98). Myeloablative conditioning and T cell-depleted transplantation were not associated with increased mortality

Platelet Transfusion before CVC Placement in Patients with Thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND: Transfusion guidelines regarding platelet-count thresholds before the placement of a central venous catheter (CVC) offer conflicting recommendations because of a lack of good-quality evidence. The routine use of ultrasound guidance has decreased CVC-related bleeding complications. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 10,000 to 50,000 per cubic millimeter) who were being treated on the hematology ward or in the intensive care unit to receive either one unit of prophylactic platelet transfusion or no platelet transfusion before ultrasound-guided CVC placement. The primary outcome was catheter-related bleeding of grade 2 to 4; a key secondary outcome was grade 3 or 4 bleeding. The noninferiority margin was an upper boundary of the 90% confidence interval of 3.5 for the relative risk. RESULTS: We included 373 episodes of CVC placement involving 338 patients in the per-protocol primary analysis. Catheter-related bleeding of grade 2 to 4 occurred in 9 of 188 patients (4.8%) in the transfusion group and in 22 of 185 patients (11.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.45; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 4.70). Catheter-related bleeding of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 4 of 188 patients (2.1%) in the transfusion group and in 9 of 185 patients (4.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.75 to 7.93). A total of 15 adverse events were observed; of these events, 13 (all grade 3 catheter-related bleeding [4 in the transfusion group and 9 in the no-transfusion group]) were categorized as serious. The net savings of withholding prophylactic platelet transfusion before CVC placement was $410 per catheter placement. CONCLUSIONS: The withholding of prophylactic platelet transfusion before CVC placement in patients with a platelet count of 10,000 to 50,000 per cubic millimeter did not meet the predefined margin for noninferiority and resulted in more CVC-related bleeding events than prophylactic platelet transfusion. (Funded by ZonMw; PACER Dutch Trial Register number, NL5534.)