[关于需要长期护理的门槛-巴伐利亚州有和没有护理水平推荐的老年人的比较]。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Johanna Schütz, Lorena Denise Wetzel
{"title":"[关于需要长期护理的门槛-巴伐利亚州有和没有护理水平推荐的老年人的比较]。","authors":"Johanna Schütz, Lorena Denise Wetzel","doi":"10.1007/s00391-025-02457-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People who have not received a care level (\"Pflegegrad\", PG) in care assessments in accordance with § 14 Social Code (SGB) XI have hardly been addressed by research to date, even though information on this group has enormous preventative potential. This article aims to compare older people with and without PG recommendations in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, independence in various areas of life as well as medical diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis is based on n = 122,478 initial care assessments of adults over the age of 50 years, which were carried out by the Bavarian Medical Service (MD) in 2019. Descriptive analyses are used to compare people with and without PG recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of those assessed, 19.5% were not given a PG recommendation. These people are younger, more often female and living alone than people with PG recommendation. Overall, those assessed without PG recommendation are less restricted in their independence than those with a PG recommendation. Nevertheless, they also have significant limitations in activities relevant to everyday life (especially in mobility outside the home, shopping, cleaning the home). In both groups, a limitation of gait and mobility is the most common diagnosis that leads to an application for a care assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routine data from long-term care assessments provide information about older people who are on the threshold of needing long-term care. People without PG recommendation who nevertheless require support therefore represent an important target group for support measures and should be addressed by preventive and health-promoting interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49345,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[On the threshold of needing long-term care-Comparison of older people with and without a care level recommendation in Bavaria].\",\"authors\":\"Johanna Schütz, Lorena Denise Wetzel\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00391-025-02457-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People who have not received a care level (\\\"Pflegegrad\\\", PG) in care assessments in accordance with § 14 Social Code (SGB) XI have hardly been addressed by research to date, even though information on this group has enormous preventative potential. This article aims to compare older people with and without PG recommendations in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, independence in various areas of life as well as medical diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis is based on n = 122,478 initial care assessments of adults over the age of 50 years, which were carried out by the Bavarian Medical Service (MD) in 2019. Descriptive analyses are used to compare people with and without PG recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of those assessed, 19.5% were not given a PG recommendation. These people are younger, more often female and living alone than people with PG recommendation. Overall, those assessed without PG recommendation are less restricted in their independence than those with a PG recommendation. Nevertheless, they also have significant limitations in activities relevant to everyday life (especially in mobility outside the home, shopping, cleaning the home). In both groups, a limitation of gait and mobility is the most common diagnosis that leads to an application for a care assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routine data from long-term care assessments provide information about older people who are on the threshold of needing long-term care. People without PG recommendation who nevertheless require support therefore represent an important target group for support measures and should be addressed by preventive and health-promoting interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-025-02457-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-025-02457-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根据§14 Social Code (SGB) XI,在护理评估中未接受护理水平(“Pflegegrad”,PG)的人迄今为止几乎没有研究解决,尽管这一群体的信息具有巨大的预防潜力。这篇文章的目的是比较老年人在社会人口学特征、在生活的各个领域的独立性以及医疗诊断方面是否有PG建议。方法:分析基于巴伐利亚州医疗服务(MD)于2019年开展的n = 122,478例50岁以上成年人的初始护理评估。描述性分析用于比较有和没有推荐PG的人。结果:在评估的患者中,19.5%未给予PG推荐。这些人比PG推荐的人更年轻,女性居多,独居。总的来说,那些没有推荐PG的人比推荐PG的人在独立性上受到的限制更少。然而,他们在与日常生活相关的活动方面也有很大的限制(特别是在家庭外的移动、购物、打扫房间方面)。在这两组中,步态和活动受限是导致申请护理评估的最常见诊断。结论:来自长期护理评估的常规数据提供了关于处于需要长期护理门槛的老年人的信息。因此,没有PG建议但仍需要支持的人是支持措施的重要目标群体,应通过预防和促进健康的干预措施加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[On the threshold of needing long-term care-Comparison of older people with and without a care level recommendation in Bavaria].

Background: People who have not received a care level ("Pflegegrad", PG) in care assessments in accordance with § 14 Social Code (SGB) XI have hardly been addressed by research to date, even though information on this group has enormous preventative potential. This article aims to compare older people with and without PG recommendations in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, independence in various areas of life as well as medical diagnoses.

Methods: The analysis is based on n = 122,478 initial care assessments of adults over the age of 50 years, which were carried out by the Bavarian Medical Service (MD) in 2019. Descriptive analyses are used to compare people with and without PG recommendations.

Results: Of those assessed, 19.5% were not given a PG recommendation. These people are younger, more often female and living alone than people with PG recommendation. Overall, those assessed without PG recommendation are less restricted in their independence than those with a PG recommendation. Nevertheless, they also have significant limitations in activities relevant to everyday life (especially in mobility outside the home, shopping, cleaning the home). In both groups, a limitation of gait and mobility is the most common diagnosis that leads to an application for a care assessment.

Conclusion: Routine data from long-term care assessments provide information about older people who are on the threshold of needing long-term care. People without PG recommendation who nevertheless require support therefore represent an important target group for support measures and should be addressed by preventive and health-promoting interventions.

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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
126
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The fact that more and more people are becoming older and are having a significant influence on our society is due to intensive geriatric research and geriatric medicine in the past and present. The Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie has contributed to this area for many years by informing a broad spectrum of interested readers about various developments in gerontology research. Special issues focus on all questions concerning gerontology, biology and basic research of aging, geriatric research, psychology and sociology as well as practical aspects of geriatric care. Target group: Geriatricians, social gerontologists, geriatric psychologists, geriatric psychiatrists, nurses/caregivers, nurse researchers, biogerontologists in geriatric wards/clinics, gerontological institutes, and institutions of teaching and further or continuing education.
×
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