健康的六个领域:确定痴呆症护理优先事项的实用方法

Tatiana Sadak, S. Borson
{"title":"健康的六个领域:确定痴呆症护理优先事项的实用方法","authors":"Tatiana Sadak, S. Borson","doi":"10.3389/frdem.2023.1188953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background High-quality healthcare for people living with dementia encompasses both patients and care partners (CPs). A framework populated with simple assessment tools is needed to deconstruct this complexity into actionable domains that inform assessment and care planning for individuals and dyads, help differentiate care team roles, and can more fully estimate true population burden in health and social care systems. Design Researchers used a cross-sectional mixed-methods descriptive study to illustrate the use of an inductive Six Domain framework and simple assessment tools in a sample of dyads selected for complexity. Setting Data was collected from three university-affiliated hospitals with a shared electronic medical record (EMR). Participants Eighty-eight CPs for people living with dementia (care recipients) newly discharged home after an acute medical hospitalization participated. Measures Care recipients' outpatient and inpatient diagnoses, medications, and care were extracted from the EMR. CPs completed an in-home semi-structured interview and study measures. Data were sorted into six domains: three care recipient-focused domains (cognition, emotion/behavior, general and functional health); a single CP-focused domain (mood, cognition, stress, and self-rated health); a health-related social needs domain (enrollment of persons with dementia in low-income insurance, CP-reported financial strain); and a care delivery domain (CP-reported engagement with clinicians in care recipients' care planning, and match between CP-reported knowledge of care recipients' medical care needs and medical records). Results As expected, all people living with dementia had significant cognitive, neurobehavioral, and medical complexity requiring extensive oversight and management at home. Over a third of CPs reported high stress, depression, or anxiety. A fifth screened positive for one or more indicators of poor health, cognitive impairment, and/or health-related social needs. CP reports and care recipients' medical records were discordant for chronic conditions in 68% of cases and for prescribed medications in 44%. In 85% of cases, there were gaps in indicators of CP-clinician collaboration in care management. Conclusion and relevance The Six Domains of Health framework captures a broad array of challenges that are relevant to providing comprehensive dyadic care and setting individualized health and social care priorities. With further study, it could provide conceptual scaffolding for comparative population research and more equitable, fully integrated pathways for care.","PeriodicalId":408305,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dementia","volume":"49 23","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Six domains of health: a practical approach to identifying priorities in dementia care\",\"authors\":\"Tatiana Sadak, S. Borson\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frdem.2023.1188953\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background High-quality healthcare for people living with dementia encompasses both patients and care partners (CPs). A framework populated with simple assessment tools is needed to deconstruct this complexity into actionable domains that inform assessment and care planning for individuals and dyads, help differentiate care team roles, and can more fully estimate true population burden in health and social care systems. Design Researchers used a cross-sectional mixed-methods descriptive study to illustrate the use of an inductive Six Domain framework and simple assessment tools in a sample of dyads selected for complexity. Setting Data was collected from three university-affiliated hospitals with a shared electronic medical record (EMR). Participants Eighty-eight CPs for people living with dementia (care recipients) newly discharged home after an acute medical hospitalization participated. Measures Care recipients' outpatient and inpatient diagnoses, medications, and care were extracted from the EMR. CPs completed an in-home semi-structured interview and study measures. Data were sorted into six domains: three care recipient-focused domains (cognition, emotion/behavior, general and functional health); a single CP-focused domain (mood, cognition, stress, and self-rated health); a health-related social needs domain (enrollment of persons with dementia in low-income insurance, CP-reported financial strain); and a care delivery domain (CP-reported engagement with clinicians in care recipients' care planning, and match between CP-reported knowledge of care recipients' medical care needs and medical records). Results As expected, all people living with dementia had significant cognitive, neurobehavioral, and medical complexity requiring extensive oversight and management at home. Over a third of CPs reported high stress, depression, or anxiety. A fifth screened positive for one or more indicators of poor health, cognitive impairment, and/or health-related social needs. CP reports and care recipients' medical records were discordant for chronic conditions in 68% of cases and for prescribed medications in 44%. In 85% of cases, there were gaps in indicators of CP-clinician collaboration in care management. Conclusion and relevance The Six Domains of Health framework captures a broad array of challenges that are relevant to providing comprehensive dyadic care and setting individualized health and social care priorities. With further study, it could provide conceptual scaffolding for comparative population research and more equitable, fully integrated pathways for care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":408305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Dementia\",\"volume\":\"49 23\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Dementia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2023.1188953\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dementia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2023.1188953","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:痴呆症患者的高质量医疗保健包括患者和护理伙伴(CPs)。需要一个包含简单评估工具的框架,将这种复杂性分解为可操作的领域,为个人和夫妻的评估和护理计划提供信息,帮助区分护理团队的角色,并可以更全面地估计卫生和社会护理系统中的真实人口负担。研究人员使用横截面混合方法描述性研究来说明归纳六域框架和简单评估工具在选择复杂性的二联体样本中的使用。数据收集自三所大学附属医院,共享电子病历(EMR)。88名痴呆症患者(接受护理者)在急性医疗住院后刚出院。方法:从电子病历中提取护理对象的门诊和住院诊断、药物和护理。CPs完成了一项家庭半结构化访谈和研究措施。数据分为六个领域:三个以护理对象为重点的领域(认知、情绪/行为、一般健康和功能健康);一个单一的以cp为中心的领域(情绪、认知、压力和自评健康);与健康有关的社会需求领域(痴呆症患者参加低收入保险,cp报告的经济压力);护理交付领域(cp报告与临床医生参与护理接受者的护理计划,以及cp报告的护理接受者医疗护理需求知识与医疗记录之间的匹配)。正如预期的那样,所有痴呆症患者都有显著的认知、神经行为和医疗复杂性,需要在家中进行广泛的监督和管理。超过三分之一的CPs报告压力大、抑郁或焦虑。五分之一在健康状况不佳、认知障碍和/或与健康有关的社会需求的一项或多项指标中呈阳性。CP报告和护理对象的医疗记录在68%的慢性病病例和44%的处方药病例中不一致。在85%的病例中,cp与临床医生在护理管理方面的合作指标存在差距。卫生的六个领域框架抓住了与提供全面的双重保健和确定个性化卫生和社会保健优先事项有关的一系列广泛挑战。通过进一步的研究,它可以为比较人口研究和更公平、充分综合的护理途径提供概念框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Six domains of health: a practical approach to identifying priorities in dementia care
Background High-quality healthcare for people living with dementia encompasses both patients and care partners (CPs). A framework populated with simple assessment tools is needed to deconstruct this complexity into actionable domains that inform assessment and care planning for individuals and dyads, help differentiate care team roles, and can more fully estimate true population burden in health and social care systems. Design Researchers used a cross-sectional mixed-methods descriptive study to illustrate the use of an inductive Six Domain framework and simple assessment tools in a sample of dyads selected for complexity. Setting Data was collected from three university-affiliated hospitals with a shared electronic medical record (EMR). Participants Eighty-eight CPs for people living with dementia (care recipients) newly discharged home after an acute medical hospitalization participated. Measures Care recipients' outpatient and inpatient diagnoses, medications, and care were extracted from the EMR. CPs completed an in-home semi-structured interview and study measures. Data were sorted into six domains: three care recipient-focused domains (cognition, emotion/behavior, general and functional health); a single CP-focused domain (mood, cognition, stress, and self-rated health); a health-related social needs domain (enrollment of persons with dementia in low-income insurance, CP-reported financial strain); and a care delivery domain (CP-reported engagement with clinicians in care recipients' care planning, and match between CP-reported knowledge of care recipients' medical care needs and medical records). Results As expected, all people living with dementia had significant cognitive, neurobehavioral, and medical complexity requiring extensive oversight and management at home. Over a third of CPs reported high stress, depression, or anxiety. A fifth screened positive for one or more indicators of poor health, cognitive impairment, and/or health-related social needs. CP reports and care recipients' medical records were discordant for chronic conditions in 68% of cases and for prescribed medications in 44%. In 85% of cases, there were gaps in indicators of CP-clinician collaboration in care management. Conclusion and relevance The Six Domains of Health framework captures a broad array of challenges that are relevant to providing comprehensive dyadic care and setting individualized health and social care priorities. With further study, it could provide conceptual scaffolding for comparative population research and more equitable, fully integrated pathways for care.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信