The malnutrition screening tool is a useful tool for identifying malnutrition risk in residential aged care

Background: The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) is a valid nutrition screening tool in the acute hospital setting but has not been assessed in residential aged care facilities. The aim of this secondary analysis was to determine whether the MST could be a useful nutrition screening tool when compared with a full nutrition assessment by Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in the residential aged care setting. ----- Methods: Two hundred and eighty-five residents (29% male; mean age: 84 ± 9 years) from eight residential aged care facilities in Australia participated. A secondary analysis of data collected during a nutrition intervention study was conducted. The MST consists of two questions related to recent weight loss and appetite. While the MST was not specifically applied, weight loss and appetite information was available and an estimated MST score (0-5) calculated. Nutritional status was assessed by a research assistant trained in using SGA. ----- Results: Malnutrition prevalence was 42.8% (122 malnourished out of 285 residents). Compared to the SGA, the MST was an effective predictor of nutritional risk (sensitivity = 83.6%, specificity = 65.6%, positive predictive value = 0.65, negative predictive value =0.84). ----- Conclusions: The components of the MST have acceptable sensitivity and specificity suggesting it can play a valuable role in quickly identifying malnutrition risk in the residential aged care setting. Further prospective research using the MST tool against a broader array of objective and subjective nutritional parameters is required to confirm its validity as a screening tool in aged care settings.

Development of a Systematic Approach to Assessing Quality within Australian Residential Aged Care Facilities: The Clinical Care Indicators Tool

Recent years have seen the introduction of formalised accreditation processes in both community and residential aged care, but these only partially address quality assessment within this sector. Residential aged care in Australia does not yet have a standardised system of resident assessment related to clinical, rather than administrative, outcomes. This paper describes the development of a quality assessment tool aimed at addressing this gap. Utilising previous research and the results of nominal groups with experts in the field, the 21-item Clinical Care Indicators (CCI) Tool for residential aged care was developed and trialled nationally. The CCI Tool was found to be simple to use and an effective means of collecting data on the state of resident health and care, with potential benefits for resident care planning and continuous quality improvement within facilities and organisations. The CCI Tool was further refined through a small intervention study to assess its utility as a quality improvement instrument and to investigate its relationship with resident quality of life. The current version covers 23 clinical indicators, takes about 30 minutes to complete and is viewed favourably by nursing staff who use it. Current work focuses on psychometric analysis and benchmarking, which should enable the CCI Tool to make a positive contribution to the measurement of quality in aged care in Australia.

Benchmarking clinical indicators of quality for Australian residential aged care facilities

To undertake exploratory benchmarking of a set of clinical indicators of quality care in residential care in Australia, data were collected from 107 residents within four medium-sized facilities (40–80 beds) in Brisbane, Australia. The proportion of residents in each sample facility with a particular clinical problem was compared with US Minimum Data Set quality indicator thresholds. Results demonstrated variability within and between clinical indicators, suggesting breadth of assessment using various clinical indicators of quality is an important factor when monitoring quality of care. More comprehensive and objective measures of quality of care would be of great assistance in determining and monitoring the effectiveness of residential aged care provision in Australia, particularly as demands for accountability by consumers and their families increase. What is known about the topic? The key to quality improvement is effective quality assessment, and one means of evaluating quality of care is through clinical outcomes. The Minimum Data Set quality indicators have been credited with improving quality in United States nursing homes. What does this paper add? The Clinical Care Indicators Tool was used to collect data on clinical outcomes, enabling comparison of data from a small Australian sample with American quality benchmarks to illustrate the utility of providing guidelines for interpretation. What are the implications for practitioners? Collecting and comparing clinical outcome data would enable practitioners to better understand the quality of care being provided and whether practices required review. The Clinical Care Indicator Tool could provide a comprehensive and systematic means of doing this, thus filling a gap in quality monitoring within Australian residential aged care.

Clinical indicators of quality for Australian residential aged care facilities : establishing reliability, validity, and quality thresholds

Background: In response to the need for more comprehensive quality assessment within Australian residential aged care facilities, the Clinical Care Indicator (CCI) Tool was developed to collect outcome data as a means of making inferences about quality. A national trial of its effectiveness and a Brisbane-based trial of its use within the quality improvement context determined the CCI Tool represented a potentially valuable addition to the Australian aged care system. This document describes the next phase in the CCI Tool.s development; the aims of which were to establish validity and reliability of the CCI Tool, and to develop quality indicator thresholds (benchmarks) for use in Australia. The CCI Tool is now known as the ResCareQA (Residential Care Quality Assessment). Methods: The study aims were achieved through a combination of quantitative data analysis, and expert panel consultations using modified Delphi process. The expert panel consisted of experienced aged care clinicians, managers, and academics; they were initially consulted to determine face and content validity of the ResCareQA, and later to develop thresholds of quality. To analyse its psychometric properties, ResCareQA forms were completed for all residents (N=498) of nine aged care facilities throughout Queensland. Kappa statistics were used to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and Cronbach.s alpha coefficient calculated to determine internal consistency. For concurrent validity, equivalent items on the ResCareQA and the Resident Classification Scales (RCS) were compared using Spearman.s rank order correlations, while discriminative validity was assessed using known-groups technique, comparing ResCareQA results between groups with differing care needs, as well as between male and female residents. Rank-ordered facility results for each clinical care indicator (CCI) were circulated to the panel; upper and lower thresholds for each CCI were nominated by panel members and refined through a Delphi process. These thresholds indicate excellent care at one extreme and questionable care at the other. Results: Minor modifications were made to the assessment, and it was renamed the ResCareQA. Agreement on its content was reached after two Delphi rounds; the final version contains 24 questions across four domains, enabling generation of 36 CCIs. Both test-retest and inter-rater reliability were sound with median kappa values of 0.74 (test-retest) and 0.91 (inter-rater); internal consistency was not as strong, with a Chronbach.s alpha of 0.46. Because the ResCareQA does not provide a single combined score, comparisons for concurrent validity were made with the RCS on an item by item basis, with most resultant correlations being quite low. Discriminative validity analyses, however, revealed highly significant differences in total number of CCIs between high care and low care groups (t199=10.77, p=0.000), while the differences between male and female residents were not significant (t414=0.56, p=0.58). Clinical outcomes varied both within and between facilities; agreed upper and lower thresholds were finalised after three Delphi rounds. Conclusions: The ResCareQA provides a comprehensive, easily administered means of monitoring quality in residential aged care facilities that can be reliably used on multiple occasions. The relatively modest internal consistency score was likely due to the multi-factorial nature of quality, and the absence of an aggregate result for the assessment. Measurement of concurrent validity proved difficult in the absence of a gold standard, but the sound discriminative validity results suggest that the ResCareQA has acceptable validity and could be confidently used as an indication of care quality within Australian residential aged care facilities. The thresholds, while preliminary due to small sample size, enable users to make judgements about quality within and between facilities. Thus it is recommended the ResCareQA be adopted for wider use.

‘I always look under the bed for a man’. Needs and barriers to the expression of sexuality in residential aged care: the views of residents with and without dementia

Objectives: This qualitative study canvassed residents' perceptions of the needs and barriers to the expression of sexuality in long-term care. Methods: Sixteen residents, including five with dementia, from six aged care facilities in two Australian states were interviewed. Data were analysed using a constant comparative method. Results: Four categories describe residents' views about sexuality, their needs and barriers to its expression: ‘It still matters’; ‘Reminiscence and resignation’, ‘It's personal’, and ‘It's an unconducive environment’. Discussion: Residents, including those with dementia, saw themselves as sexual beings and with a continuing need and desire to express their sexuality. The manner in which it was expressed varied. Many barriers to sexual expression were noted, including negative attitudes of staff, lack of privacy and limited opportunities for the establishment of new relationships or the continuation of old ones. Interviewees agreed that how a resident expressed their sexuality was their business and no one else's.

How much do residential aged care staff members know about the nutritional needs of residents?

Background Undernutrition, weight loss and dehydration are major clinical issues for people with dementia in residential care, with excessive weight loss contributing to increased risk of frailty, immobility, illness and premature morbidity. This paper discusses a nutritional knowledge and attitudes survey conducted as part of a larger project focused on improving nutritional intake of people with dementia within a residential care facility in Brisbane, Australia. Aims The specific aims of the survey were to identify (i) knowledge of the nutritional needs of aged care facility residents; (ii) mealtime practices; and (iii) attitudes towards mealtime practices and organisation. Methods A survey based on those used in other healthcare settings was completed by 76 staff members. The survey included questions about nutritional knowledge, opinions of the food service, frequency of feeding assistance provided and feeding assessment practices. Results Nutritional knowledge scores ranged from 1 to 9 of a possible 10, with a mean score of 4.67. While 76% of respondents correctly identified risk factors associated with malnutrition in nursing home residents, only 38% of participants correctly identified the need for increased protein and energy in residents with pressure ulcers, and just 15% exhibited correct knowledge of fluid requirements. Further, while nutritional assessment was considered an important part of practice by 83% of respondents, just 53% indicated that they actually carried out such assessments. Identified barriers to promoting optimal nutrition included insufficient time to observe residents (56%); being unaware of residents' feeding issues (46%); poor knowledge of nutritional assessments (44%); and unappetising appearance of food served (57%). Conclusion An important step towards improving health and quality of life for residents of aged care facilities would be to enhance staff nutritional awareness and assessment skills. This should be carried out through increased attention to both preservice curricula and on-the-job training. Implications for practice The residential facility staff surveyed demonstrated low levels of nutrition knowledge, which reflects findings from the international literature. This has implications for the provision of responsive care to residents of these facilities and should be explored further.

‘We need to know what’s going on’: views of family members toward the sexual expression of people with dementia in residential aged care

This paper reports on a study which explored the views and attitudes of family members towards the sexual expression of residents with dementia in residential aged care facilities in two states in Australia. Recruitment was challenging and only seven family members agreed to an interview on this topic. Data were analysed using a constant comparative method. Family were generally supportive of residents’ rights to sexual expression, but only some types of behaviours were approved of. There was an acknowledgement that responding to residents’ sexuality was difficult for staff and many families believed that they should be kept informed of their relative’s sexual behaviours and moreover be involved in decision making about it. Findings suggest the need for family education and a larger study to better understand the views and motivations of family carers and how these might impact on the sexual expression of the older person with dementia living in residential aged care.

Key facilitators and barriers to quality of life in residential aged care : the role of design

Australia is undergoing a critical demographic transition: the population is ageing. By 2050, one in four Australians will be older than 65 years and by 2031, the number of older Australians requiring residential aged care will increase 63%, to 1.4 million (ABS, 2005). In anticipation of this global demographic transition, the World Health Organisation has advocated ‘active ageing’, identifying health, participation and security as the three key factors that enhance quality of life for people as they age (WHO, 2002). While there is considerable discussion and acceptance of active ageing principles, little is known about the experience of ‘active ageing’ for older Australians who live in Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACF). This research addresses this knowledge gap by exploring the key facilitators and barriers to quality of life and active ageing in aged care from the perspective of aged care residents (n=12). To do this, the project documented the initial expectations and daily life experience of new residents living in a RACF over a one-year period. Combined with in-depth interviews and surveys, the project utilised Photovoice methodology - where participants used photography to record their lived experiences. The initial findings suggest satisfaction with living in aged care centers around five key themes; resident’s mental attitude to living in aged care, forming positive peer and staff relationships, self-determination and maintaining independence, opportunities to participate in interesting activities, and living in a safe and comfortable physical environment. This paper reports on the last of these five key themes, focusing on the role of design in facilitating quality of life, specifically: “living within these walls” – safety, comfort and the physical environment.

Implementation of sustainable evidence-based practice for the assessment and management of pain in residential aged care facilities

Pain is common in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). In 2005, the Australian Pain Society developed 27 recommendations for good practice in the identification, assessment, and management of pain in these settings. This study aimed to address implementation of the standards and evaluate outcomes. Five facilities in Australia participated in a comprehensive evaluation of RACF pain practice and outcomes. Pre-existing pain management practices were compared with the 27 recommendations, before an evidence-based pain management program was introduced that included training and education for staff and revised in-house pain-management procedures. Post-implementation audits evaluated the program's success. Aged care staff teams also were assessed on their reports of self-efficacy in pain management. The results show that before the implementation program, the RACFs demonstrated full compliance on 6 to 12 standards. By the project's completion, RACFs demonstrated full compliance with 10 to 23 standards and major improvements toward compliance in the remaining standards. After implementation, the staff also reported better understanding of the standards (p < .001) or of facility pain management guidelines (p < .001), increased confidence in therapies for pain management (p < .001), and increased confidence in their training to assess pain (p < .001) and recognize pain in residents with dementia who are nonverbal (p = .003). The results show that improved evidence-based practice in RACFs can be achieved with appropriate training and education. Investing resources in the aged care workforce via this implementation program has shown improvements in staff self-efficacy and practice.

An evidence-based program to improve analgesic practice and pain outcomes in residential aged care facilities

Pain is common in individuals living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs), and a number of obstacles have been identified as recurring barriers to adequate pain management. To address this, the Australian Pain Society developed 27 recommendations for comprehensive good practice in the identification, assessment, and management of pain. This study reviewed preexisting pain management practice at five Australian RACFs and identified changes needed to implement the recommendations and then implemented an evidence-based program that aimed to facilitate better pain management. The program involved staff training and education and revised in-house pain-management procedures. Reviews occurred before and after the program and included the assessment of 282 residents for analgesic use and pain status. Analgesic use improved after the program (P<.001), with a decrease in residents receiving no analgesics (from 15% to 6%) and an increase in residents receiving around-the-clock plus as-needed analgesics (from 24% to 43%). There were improvements in pain relief for residents with scores indicative of pain, with Abbey pain scale (P=.005), Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale (P=.001), and Non-communicative Patient's Pain Assessment Instrument scale (P<.001) scores all improving. Although physical function declined as expected, Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Survey bodily pain scores also showed improvement (P=.001). Better evidence-based practice and outcomes in RACFs can be achieved with appropriate training and education. Investing resources in the aged care workforce using this program improved analgesic practice and pain relief in participating sites. Further attention to the continued targeted pain management training of aged care staff is likely to improve pain-focused care for residents.