Not as simple as it seems: Extensive facility and training gaps in nursing home bathing

Kristine Nguyen, Raveena Singh, Raheeb Saavedra, John Billimek, Steven Tam, Susan Huang
{"title":"Not as simple as it seems: Extensive facility and training gaps in nursing home bathing","authors":"Kristine Nguyen, Raveena Singh, Raheeb Saavedra, John Billimek, Steven Tam, Susan Huang","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Existing training for resident bathing in nursing homes (NHs) is brief and limited, likely because bathing is assumed to be intuitive. However, residents have complex skin issues, devices, dressings, and limited ability for self-care. We sought to assess bathing quality and to identify barriers to proper bathing techniques. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of bathing in 8 NHs in Orange County, California, involving a convenience sample of observed bed baths and showers conducted for quality improvement. NH staff were told that observation was occurring, and no feedback was given during or after bathing. Survey elements included cleansing of 6 specific body sites and adherence to bathing procedures (11 for bed baths and 17 for showers). Surveys also included queries to staff to further assess knowledge and perceived barriers. Observed lapses were documented, along with observer-determined reasons for noncompliance (ie, training issue, time pressure, facility issue (insufficient water temperature), resident refusal/behavior). Frequency of noncompliance with each element was tabulated for bed-baths and showers separately. Reasons for failure were displayed graphically. Results: In total, 50 bed baths (NH range, 5–8) and 50 showers (NH range, 4–7) were observed across 8 NHs. Lapses in bathing quality and process were extremely common for both bed baths and showers (Fig.). Inadequate body cleansing occurred for all observed body sites (88%–100% failure for bed baths, 58%–100% failure for showers). Most body areas were either skipped or sprayed with water without soaping. Procedural failures were high for both bed baths and showers (insufficient lather: 100% for bed bath and 40% for shower) lack of firm massage for cleaning (94% for bed bath and 90% for shower), failure to change wipes or cloths when dirty (100% for bed bath and 96% for shower), failure to follow clean-to-dirty sequence (100% for bed bath and 96% shower). In addition, failing to wrap or unwrap devices (73%) and failing to towel dry (94%) were common after showering. Reasons for failure were largely based on training or facility shortcomings (eg, insufficient hot water, inflexible showerhead attachment). Also, 86% of residents complained of being cold. Timing constraints and resident combativeness or refusal were rare. Staff-to-staff bathing advice most commonly involved competing for the “better shower” and “bathing early to get hot water.” Conclusions: Knowing how to appropriately bathe NH residents is not intuitive, and current training is brief and insufficient for high-quality resident care. Unacceptably high failures in proper bathing techniques in NHs necessitate re-evaluation of formal training and standardized practices to better cleanse residents. Moreover, common failures in facility processes for ensuring adequate water temperature and showerhead mobility for bathing or showering should be addressed. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Existing training for resident bathing in nursing homes (NHs) is brief and limited, likely because bathing is assumed to be intuitive. However, residents have complex skin issues, devices, dressings, and limited ability for self-care. We sought to assess bathing quality and to identify barriers to proper bathing techniques. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of bathing in 8 NHs in Orange County, California, involving a convenience sample of observed bed baths and showers conducted for quality improvement. NH staff were told that observation was occurring, and no feedback was given during or after bathing. Survey elements included cleansing of 6 specific body sites and adherence to bathing procedures (11 for bed baths and 17 for showers). Surveys also included queries to staff to further assess knowledge and perceived barriers. Observed lapses were documented, along with observer-determined reasons for noncompliance (ie, training issue, time pressure, facility issue (insufficient water temperature), resident refusal/behavior). Frequency of noncompliance with each element was tabulated for bed-baths and showers separately. Reasons for failure were displayed graphically. Results: In total, 50 bed baths (NH range, 5–8) and 50 showers (NH range, 4–7) were observed across 8 NHs. Lapses in bathing quality and process were extremely common for both bed baths and showers (Fig.). Inadequate body cleansing occurred for all observed body sites (88%–100% failure for bed baths, 58%–100% failure for showers). Most body areas were either skipped or sprayed with water without soaping. Procedural failures were high for both bed baths and showers (insufficient lather: 100% for bed bath and 40% for shower) lack of firm massage for cleaning (94% for bed bath and 90% for shower), failure to change wipes or cloths when dirty (100% for bed bath and 96% for shower), failure to follow clean-to-dirty sequence (100% for bed bath and 96% shower). In addition, failing to wrap or unwrap devices (73%) and failing to towel dry (94%) were common after showering. Reasons for failure were largely based on training or facility shortcomings (eg, insufficient hot water, inflexible showerhead attachment). Also, 86% of residents complained of being cold. Timing constraints and resident combativeness or refusal were rare. Staff-to-staff bathing advice most commonly involved competing for the “better shower” and “bathing early to get hot water.” Conclusions: Knowing how to appropriately bathe NH residents is not intuitive, and current training is brief and insufficient for high-quality resident care. Unacceptably high failures in proper bathing techniques in NHs necessitate re-evaluation of formal training and standardized practices to better cleanse residents. Moreover, common failures in facility processes for ensuring adequate water temperature and showerhead mobility for bathing or showering should be addressed. Disclosures: None
并不像看起来那么简单:养老院洗浴的设施和培训差距很大
背景:现有的养老院居民沐浴培训(NHs)是短暂和有限的,可能是因为洗澡被认为是直观的。然而,居民有复杂的皮肤问题,设备,敷料,和有限的自我护理能力。我们试图评估沐浴质量,并确定正确沐浴技术的障碍。方法:我们在加利福尼亚州奥兰治县的8个NHs进行了一项关于沐浴的前瞻性观察研究,包括为提高质量而进行的便利床浴和淋浴观察样本。NH工作人员被告知正在进行观察,但在洗澡期间或之后没有给出任何反馈。调查内容包括6个特定身体部位的清洁和对沐浴程序的遵守(11个用于床浴,17个用于淋浴)。调查还包括向工作人员提问,以进一步评估知识和感知到的障碍。记录观察到的失误,以及观察员确定的不合规原因(如培训问题、时间压力、设施问题(水温不足)、居民拒绝/行为)。不符合每个要素的频率分别为床浴和淋浴表。失败的原因以图形方式显示出来。结果:在8个NHs共观察到50个床浴(NH范围,5-8)和50个淋浴(NH范围,4-7)。在床浴和淋浴中,洗澡质量和过程上的失误极为普遍(图)。所有观察到的身体部位都出现了身体清洁不足的情况(床浴失败88%-100%,淋浴失败58%-100%)。大多数身体部位要么被跳过,要么在没有肥皂的情况下用水喷洒。床浴和淋浴的程序失败率都很高(泡沫不足:床浴为100%,淋浴为40%)清洁时缺乏有力的按摩(床浴为94%,淋浴为90%),脏时没有更换湿巾或布(床浴为100%,淋浴为96%),没有遵循从清洁到脏的顺序(床浴为100%,淋浴为96%)。此外,淋浴后没有包装或打开设备(73%)和没有用毛巾擦干(94%)是常见的。失败的原因主要是由于训练或设备缺陷(例如,热水不足,淋浴头连接不灵活)。此外,86%的居民抱怨天气寒冷。时间限制和居民的好斗或拒绝是罕见的。员工之间的洗浴建议最常见的是争夺“更好的淋浴”和“早点洗澡以获得热水”。结论:医院住院医师对如何正确洗澡的认识不够直观,目前的培训时间短,不足以提供高质量的住院医师护理。不可接受的高失败率在适当的沐浴技术在NHs需要重新评估正式培训和标准化的做法,以更好地清洁居民。此外,在确保足够的水温和淋浴喷头的流动性的设施过程中常见的故障应该解决。披露:没有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信