Conectar
Home healthcare (HHC) enables patients to receive healthcare services within their homes to manage chronic conditions and recover from illnesses. Recent research has identified disparities in HHC based on race or ethnicity. Social determinants of health (SDOH) describe the external factors influencing a patient's health, such as access to care and social support. Individuals from racially or ethnically minoritized communities are known to be disproportionately affected by SDOH. Existing evidence suggests that SDOH are documented in clinical notes. However, no prior study has investigated the documentation of SDOH across individuals from different racial or ethnic backgrounds in the HHC setting. This study aimed to (1) describe frequencies of SDOH documented in clinical notes by race or ethnicity and (2) determine associations between race or ethnicity and SDOH documentation.
Retrospective data analysis.
We conducted a cross-sectional secondary data analysis of 86,866 HHC episodes representing 65,693 unique patients from one large HHC agency in New York collected between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. We reported the frequency of six SDOH (physical environment, social environment, housing and economic circumstances, food insecurity, access to care, and education and literacy) documented in clinical notes across individuals reported as Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, multi-racial, Native American, or White. We analyzed differences in SDOH documentation by race or ethnicity using logistic regression models.
Compared to patients reported as White, patients across other racial or ethnic groups had higher frequencies of SDOH documented in their clinical notes. Our results suggest that race or ethnicity is associated with SDOH documentation in HHC.
As the study of SDOH in HHC continues to evolve, our results provide a foundation to evaluate social information in the HHC setting and understand how it influences the quality of care provided.
The results of this exploratory study can help clinicians understand the differences in SDOH across individuals from different racial and ethnic groups and serve as a foundation for future research aimed at fostering more inclusive HHC documentation practices.
Decisions about nurse staffing models are a concern for health systems globally due to workforce retention and well-being challenges. Nurse staffing models range from all Registered Nurse workforce to a mix of differentially educated nurses and aides (regulated and unregulated), such as Licensed Practical or Vocational Nurses and Health Care Aides. Systematic reviews have examined relationships between specific nurse staffing models and client, staff and health system outcomes (eg, mortality, adverse events, retention, healthcare costs), with inconclusive or contradictory results. No evidence has been synthesised and consolidated on how, why and under what contexts certain staffing models produce different outcomes. We aim to describe how we will (1) conduct a realist review to determine how nurse staffing models produce different client, staff and health system outcomes, in which contexts and through what mechanisms and (2) coproduce recommendations with decision-makers to guide future research and implementation of nurse staffing models.
Using an integrated knowledge translation approach with researchers and decision-makers as partners, we are conducting a three-phase realist review. In this protocol, we report on the final two phases of this realist review. We will use Citation tracking, tracing Lead authors, identifying Unpublished materials, Google Scholar searching, Theory tracking, ancestry searching for Early examples, and follow-up of Related projects (CLUSTER) searching, specifically designed for realist searches as the review progresses. We will search empirical evidence to test identified programme theories and engage stakeholders to contextualise findings, finalise programme theories document our search processes as per established realist review methods.
Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (Study ID Pro00100425). We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations, regional briefing sessions, webinars and lay summary.
To assess visitors' perceptions of the benefits and challenges related to engaging in a remote visit intervention, which was designed to address the loneliness of people living with moderate to severe dementia in care homes.
A qualitative descriptive study.
Twenty-four people living with dementia in care homes in Canada and their family and friends (i.e., remote visitors) took part in facilitated remote visits in 2021. Each person living with dementia received scheduled visits for 30–60 min per week for 6 weeks. Participants chose to complete one longer visit, or multiple shorter visits, per week. Twenty remote visitors participated in semi-structured interviews after six weeks to discuss their perspectives on the effectiveness, benefits and challenges of the program in relation to addressing experiences of loneliness of the person living with dementia. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the data.
We describe three themes and several sub-themes. Themes support the use of remote visits to enhance, rather than replace, in-person visits; the benefits of remote visits for the person living with dementia and their remote visitors; and the conditions that lead to a successful remote visit.
Remote visitors reported that facilitated visits had positive effects for both visitors and people living with dementia with respect to loneliness, communication, relationships, and social connection.
Clinicians can consider the factors that contributed to positive experiences of remote visits. The factors include individualized, facilitated visits that were flexible, and the use of reliable technology in a supportive, distraction-free environment.
Loneliness and social isolation are growing health concerns. When experienced by people living with dementia residing in long-term care homes, loneliness and social isolation can result in lower levels of quality of life and well-being, and higher levels of anxiety and responsive behaviours. Remote visitors perceived that facilitated remote visits have the potential to address loneliness and improve quality of life for people living with dementia and also offer social support to remote visitors. The findings can impact clinician practice by guiding the use of remote visits in care homes, and inform future intervention research to evaluate the effectiveness of remote visits for people living with dementia and their remote visitors.
This manuscript adheres to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines (the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research or COREQ).
No patient or public contribution.
The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is one of the most used tools to measure health-related quality of life in heart failure. Despite extensive use in research, evidence on the MLHFQ’s internal structure validity remains heterogeneous and inconclusive. There are no known reviews that systematically summarise the evidence related to the MLHFQ’s factor structure (internal structure validity). This gap highlights a need to critically appraise, summarise and compare the available evidence on the internal structure and internal consistency reliability (ICR) of the MLHFQ.
The review will adhere to the reporting guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We will systematically search eleven electronic databases/search engines (Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Global Health, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Scopus, Journals, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Dissertation and Theses Global) for quantitative studies assessing the MLHFQ’s factor structure and ICR. Two reviewers will then independently screen studies for eligibility and assess the quality of included studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments checklist. Throughout the review, discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or by the involvement of the third reviewer. We will analyse and present results using descriptive statistics (frequencies, proportions and ranges) and narrative synthesis. We will include all the relevant studies published within the timeframe covered by the database. We carried out the preliminary search in November 2022 except for Dissertation and Theses Global which was searched in September 2023; however, we will update the entire search right before the review completion in January 2024.
Ethical approval is not required as no primary data is being collected from individuals. We intend to share the findings of the review at international conferences and publish manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.
CRD42023346919.
FreshRSS 