Improving Long-Term Care Facilities’ Crisis Response: Lessons From the COVID-19 in Chile

Q2 Health Professions
Josefa Palacios, Maureen Neckelmann, Pablo Villalobos Dintrans, J. Salas
{"title":"Improving Long-Term Care Facilities’ Crisis Response: Lessons From the COVID-19 in Chile","authors":"Josefa Palacios, Maureen Neckelmann, Pablo Villalobos Dintrans, J. Salas","doi":"10.31389/jltc.93","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: The COVID-19 pandemic hit Chile hard and affected older people the most. Through its National Service for Older Adults, the country implemented a strategy to prevent and mitigate infection and spread in long-term care facilities (LTCF), reaching regulated and registered residences and, for the first time, informal and unregistered residences. Objective: Identify the challenges and lessons from the COVID-19 response in LTCF with respect to the support received, the implementation of infection control measures, workforce challenges experienced and the measures adopted to promote residents’ wellbeing. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to all LTCF managers (N = 385, Response Rate = 32.4%). Statistical tests compare results to identify differences across LTCF characteristics: residence size, location and management type (private, public or subsidized, or informal). Findings: Irrespective of their location, size or management, managers highlight common challenges during the crisis. They include limited personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, staff shortages, low quality of replacement staff, reduced staff mental health, and the difficulty to understand and implement protocols. Managers acknowledge receiving institutional support in the form of PPE provision and opportunities for staff training, but managers noted the need to expand this support to cover staffing surge needs, staff psychological needs, and ensure the continuity of clinical support for residents as well. Managers share a common demand for a more coordinated response from public institutions. Managers recognize that the pandemic and the measures implemented to mitigate it negatively affected staff morale and residents’ wellbeing. Many noted that peer-to-peer support was a mechanism to support staff. Limitations: Results might be subject to selection bias. Data collection covered a limited period of time at the early stage of the pandemic. Implications: Findings are relevant to assess the COVID-19 response and to better prepare for another COVID-19 wave or similar health or environmental threats in the future. © 2021 The Author(s).","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.93","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic hit Chile hard and affected older people the most. Through its National Service for Older Adults, the country implemented a strategy to prevent and mitigate infection and spread in long-term care facilities (LTCF), reaching regulated and registered residences and, for the first time, informal and unregistered residences. Objective: Identify the challenges and lessons from the COVID-19 response in LTCF with respect to the support received, the implementation of infection control measures, workforce challenges experienced and the measures adopted to promote residents’ wellbeing. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to all LTCF managers (N = 385, Response Rate = 32.4%). Statistical tests compare results to identify differences across LTCF characteristics: residence size, location and management type (private, public or subsidized, or informal). Findings: Irrespective of their location, size or management, managers highlight common challenges during the crisis. They include limited personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, staff shortages, low quality of replacement staff, reduced staff mental health, and the difficulty to understand and implement protocols. Managers acknowledge receiving institutional support in the form of PPE provision and opportunities for staff training, but managers noted the need to expand this support to cover staffing surge needs, staff psychological needs, and ensure the continuity of clinical support for residents as well. Managers share a common demand for a more coordinated response from public institutions. Managers recognize that the pandemic and the measures implemented to mitigate it negatively affected staff morale and residents’ wellbeing. Many noted that peer-to-peer support was a mechanism to support staff. Limitations: Results might be subject to selection bias. Data collection covered a limited period of time at the early stage of the pandemic. Implications: Findings are relevant to assess the COVID-19 response and to better prepare for another COVID-19 wave or similar health or environmental threats in the future. © 2021 The Author(s).
改善长期护理机构的危机应对:从智利COVID-19吸取的教训
背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行对智利打击严重,老年人受影响最大。通过其国家老年人服务,该国实施了一项战略,以预防和减轻长期护理设施(LTCF)中的感染和传播,覆盖了监管和登记的住所,并首次覆盖了非正规和未登记的住所。目的:从获得的支持、感染控制措施的实施、经历的劳动力挑战和采取的促进居民福祉的措施等方面,确定LTCF应对COVID-19的挑战和经验教训。方法:向所有LTCF经理发放在线问卷(N = 385,回复率为32.4%)。统计测试比较结果以确定LTCF特征之间的差异:住宅规模、位置和管理类型(私人、公共或补贴或非正式)。研究发现:无论企业的位置、规模或管理方式如何,管理者都强调了危机期间面临的共同挑战。这些挑战包括个人防护装备供应有限、工作人员短缺、替代工作人员质量低、工作人员心理健康状况下降以及难以理解和执行协议。管理人员承认,在提供个人防护装备和为工作人员提供培训机会方面得到了机构支持,但管理人员指出,需要扩大这种支持,以满足人员激增的需求、工作人员的心理需求,并确保为住院医生提供持续的临床支持。管理人员对公共机构采取更加协调的反应有着共同的要求。管理人员认识到,疫情和为缓解疫情而采取的措施对工作人员的士气和居民的福祉产生了负面影响。许多代表团指出,点对点支助是支助工作人员的一种机制。局限性:结果可能存在选择偏倚。在大流行的早期阶段,数据收集覆盖了有限的时间。研究结果与评估COVID-19应对措施以及更好地为未来的另一波COVID-19浪潮或类似的健康或环境威胁做好准备有关。©2021作者。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
×
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