Feasibility and acceptability of gamified cycling exercise for residents in a long-term care home: A qualitative study.

COVID-19 and Ontario’s Long-Term Care Homes

Gamification can motivate older adults to exercise by transforming physical activities into enjoyable experiences. Incorporating gaming elements in cycling exercises can foster a sense of interest and achievement, potentially improving health outcomes. This study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of motivating residents living in long-term care homes with a gamified cycling exercise. Fourteen residents (13 living with dementia) completed a 4-week gamified cycling exercise twice a week. Safety during exercise was addressed by monitoring heart rate and symptom observation. With an interpretive description approach, we conducted interviews with residents and family members and focus groups with staff and leadership. The thematic analysis identifies three themes representing the feasibility and acceptability of gamified cycling exercise among LTC residents: ease of use and accessibility, physical and mental health benefits, fun engagement and community building. Future research should explore dementia-friendly design, culture-related game content, family orientation and engagement, group exercise and organization support. This study showed promising acceptability and feasibility of gamified cycling exercise in a long-term care home. Successful implementation relies on tailoring interventions to meet residents’ specific needs and preferences while acquiring rapport with interdisciplinary staff in the care home.

546 - Attachment, loneliness, and depression among residents in long-term care (LTC) homes

Care Aides Working Multiple Jobs: Considerations for Staffing Policies in Long-Term Care Homes During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

BackgroundSocial connection is a basic human need and is essential to quality of life. It is associated with better mental and physical health outcomes for long-term care (LTC) home residents and is a key aspect of quality of care and person-centred care. There are considerations for LTC homes that may present obstacles to and opportunities for social connection. It is therefore important to understand what restricts or enables good social connection in LTC homes, to guide better quality care and future interventions in this population. This qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to social connection for LTC residents.MethodsWe used thematic analysis to describe themes derived from individual and group qualitative interviews from 67 participants (18 residents, 17 staff members and clinicians, 32 family members and friends) recruited from LTC homes in the United Kingdom and Canada.ResultsThemes were grouped into four categories: (1) becoming familiar with life in the LTC home to support social connection; (2) physical and virtual access beyond the LTC home as strategies to maintain contact; (3) getting to know residents to deepen relationships; (4) person-centred approaches to build social connection. ‘Becoming familiar with life in the LTC home to support social connection’ described the benefits of counteracting the institutionalized feel of LTC homes, enabling LTC residents to spend time in meaningful ways, and increasing freedom of mobility around the home. ‘Physical and virtual access beyond the LTC home as strategies to maintain contact’ related to the benefits of outings, providing support with technology, and involving family and friends in LTC home life. ‘Getting to know residents to deepen relationships’ related to the benefits of using routine care and interactions as opportunities for social contact, using family and friend knowledge as a resource, and fostering resident relationships. ‘Person-centred approaches to build social connection’ included considering physical, mental, cognitive, and sensory impairments, accounting for adjustment and sociability, using communal spaces well, and prioritizing psychosocial needs.ConclusionsThis study identifies barriers and facilitators to social connection for LTC residents which can be addressed in care policies, staff selection and training, and can inform policies and interventions to build and maintain social connection in LTC homes.Clinical trial numberclinicaltrials.gov ID NCT05315960.

Excess Mortality in Long-Term Care Residents With and Without Personal Contact With Family or Friends During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Social connection in long-term care homes

Worldwide, the literature reports that many residents in long-term care (LTC) homes are sedentary. In Canada, personal support workers (PSWs) provide most of the direct care in LTC homes and could play a key role in promoting activity for residents. The purpose of this institutional ethnographic study was to uncover the social organization of LTC work and to discover how this organization influenced the physical activity of residents. Data were collected in two LTC homes in Ontario, Canada through participant observations with PSWs and interviews with people within and external to the homes. Findings explicate the links between meals, lifts and transfers, and the LTC standards to reveal that physical activity is considered an add-on program in the purview of physiotherapists. Some of the LTC standards which are intended to product good outcomes for residents actually disrupt the work of PSWs making it difficult for them to respond to the physical activity needs of residents. This descriptive ethnographic account is an important first step in trying to find a solution to optimize real activities of daily living into life in LTC.

Recommendations for NP/Physician Collaborative Relationships in Long-Term Care Homes.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected frail individuals, especially those living in long-term care (LTC) homes. This study examined the role of linguistic factors on COVID-19 related outcomes in LTC homes. We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of residents living in LTC homes in Ontario, Canada who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 31, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Resident language, obtained from LTC assessments, was used to classify residents into one of the three linguistic groups: Anglophone (English), Francophone (French), and allophone (other language). Language of the LTC home was determined using a person-time representation of the languages spoken by residents within each LTC home. We defined LTC facilities as French homes when Francophone residents contributed more than 25% of the person-days, and allophone homes when allophone residents contributed more than 50% of the person-days. Residents whose language corresponded to the language of the LTC home in which they were living were said to have received language-concordant care, while all other residents were said to have received language-discordant care. The outcomes of this study were ED visits, hospitalizations, and mortality within 90 days. We included a total of 26,829 LTC residents (20,315 Anglophones, 1,032 Francophones, and 5,482 allophones) living in 572 LTC homes (502 English, 28 French, 42 allophone) who were diagnosed with COVID-19. LTC residents who lived in language-discordant homes were more likely to have ED visits (adjusted HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25) and hospitalizations (adjusted HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29) when compared to LTC residents who lived in language-concordant homes. Residents-facility language discordance was not associated with overall mortality (adjusted HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91-1.10) or in hospital mortality (adjusted HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.23). Residents living in language-discordant LTC facilities experienced more ED visits and hospitalizations following diagnosis of COVID-19. The findings of this study highlight the importance of providing frail, vulnerable individuals with linguistically concordant care.

Most individuals prefer to spend their final moments of life outside a hospital setting. This study compares the places of care and death of long-term care (LTC) home residents in Ontario in the last 90 days of life, according to LTC home rurality. This retrospective cohort study was conducted using health administrative data from ICES (formerly known as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences). The study population, which was identified through algorithms, included all Ontario LTC home residents with a dementia diagnosis who died between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2019. The location of death was categorized as in an acute care hospital, an LTC home, a subacute care facility, or the community. Places of care included emergency department visits and hospitalizations in the last 90 days of life. Statistical tests were used to evaluate differences in location of death and places of care by rurality. Of the 65,375 LTC home residents with dementia, 49,432 (75.6%) died in an LTC home. Residents of LTC homes in the most urban areas were less likely to die in an LTC home than those in more rural homes (adjusted relative risk: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 0.85). A higher proportion of residents of the most urban LTC homes had at least one hospitalization in the last 90 days of life compared with rural residents (23.7% versus 9.9% palliative hospitalizations and 28.3% versus 15.9% non-palliative hospitalizations [p ⟨ 0.001]). Individuals with dementia residing in urban LTC homes are more likely to receive care in the hospital and to die outside a LTC home than their counterparts living in rural LTC homes. The findings of this work will inform efforts to improve end-of-life care for older adults with dementia living in LTC homes.

Social Connection in Long-Term Care Homes: A Scoping Review of Published Research on the Mental Health Impacts and Potential Strategies During COVID-19

The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness of socially assistive technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction among residents of long-term care (LTC) homes, and to explore the experiences of residents of LTC homes with socially assistive technologies. Globally, the number of older adults (≥ 65 years) and the demand for LTC services are expected to increase over the next 30 years. Individuals within this population are at increased risk of experiencing depression, loneliness, and social isolation. The exploration of the extent to which socially assistive technologies may aid in improving loneliness and depression while supporting social interactions is essential to supporting a sustainable LTC sector. This mixed methods systematic review included studies on the experiences of older adults in LTC homes using socially assistive technologies, as well as studies on the effectiveness of these technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction. Older adults were defined as people 65 years of age and older. We considered studies examining socially assistive technologies, such as computers, smart phones, tablets, and associated applications. A JBI mixed methods convergent, segregated approach was used. CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and Scopus databases were searched on January 18, 2022, to identify published studies. The search for unpublished studies and gray literature included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, Google, and the websites of professional organizations associated with LTC. No language or geographical restrictions were placed on the search. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of included studies were screened by 2 reviewers independently. Included studies underwent quality appraisal and data extraction. Quantitative and qualitative data findings were analyzed separately and then integrated. Where possible, quantitative data were synthesized using comparative meta-analyses with a fixed-effects model. From 12,536 records identified through the search, 14 studies were included. Quantitative (n=8), mixed methods (n=3), and qualitative (n=3) approaches were used in the included studies, with half (n=7) using quasi-experimental designs. All studies received moderate to high-quality appraisal scores. Comparative meta-analyses for depression and loneliness scores did not find any significant differences, and narrative findings were mixed. Qualitative meta-aggregation identified 1 synthesized finding (Matching technology functionality to user for enhanced well-being) derived from 2 categories (Enhanced sense of well-being, and Mismatch between technology and resident ability). Residents' experiences with socially assistive technologies, such as videoconferencing, encourage a sense of well-being, although quantitative findings related to depression and loneliness reported mixed impact. Residents experienced physical and cognitive challenges in learning to use the technology and required assistance. Future work should consider the unique needs of older adults and LTC home residents in the design and use of socially assistive technologies. PROSPERO CRD42021279015.

BackgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, long-term care (LTC) homes in British Columbia, Canada, restricted visitation to ensure the safety of their residents against transmission of the novel coronavirus. As such, these LTC homes had to quickly implement a rapid rollout of telehealth services to maintain physician care for residents while avoiding the infection risk of in-person visits amidst lockdown measures. The abrupt transition from traditional in-person physician care to telehealth presented significant challenges. Investigating these challenges is pivotal to the development of strategies for sustained telehealth use for physician services in LTC homes. This analysis is part of a broader qualitative, utilization-focused evaluation study of telehealth services rapidly implemented for physician care in LTC homes within the Fraser Health Authority region of British Columbia. The evaluation has aimed to consider integral factors such as telehealth challenges, facilitators, preferences, and continued use. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 70 physicians, staff, residents, and family caregivers across 27 different LTC homes in the region. All interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed using a thematic approach to identify common barriers surrounding the rapid rollout of telehealth in LTC across relevant groups.ResultsFrom the data, four challenges were identified: connectivity challenges (e.g., inconsistent or no Wi-Fi or cellular connectivity), device challenges (e.g., lack of accessible devices and software issues), privacy challenges (e.g., lack of private space to support telehealth use), and informational challenges (e.g., lack of electronic medical record access). All challenges posed barriers to telehealth access for both care provider and recipient groups in LTC settings.ConclusionsThe challenges identified in this analysis are supported by existing literature, which is significant given the different contexts within which such research has been undertaken. Collectively, this knowledge base can support evidence-informed improvements to telehealth for physician care in LTC settings. Future research should capture the perspectives of diverse cultural groups, LTC residents with cognitive impairments, and those who provide and receive care in rural settings.

Changing population demographics have led to an increasing number of functionally dependent older people who require care and medical treatment. In many countries, government policy aims to shift resources into the community from institutional care settings with the expectation that this will reduce costs and improve the quality of care compared. To assess the effects of long-term home or foster home care versus institutional care for functionally dependent older people. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers to November 2015. We included randomised and non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies complying with the EPOC study design criteria and comparing the effects of long-term home care versus institutional care for functionally dependent older people. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. We reported the results narratively, as the substantial heterogeneity across studies meant that meta-analysis was not appropriate. We included 10 studies involving 16,377 participants, all of which were conducted in high income countries. Included studies compared community-based care with institutional care (care homes). The sample size ranged from 98 to 11,803 (median N = 204). There was substantial heterogeneity in the healthcare context, interventions studied, and outcomes assessed. One study was a randomised trial (N = 112); other included studies used designs that had potential for bias, particularly due lack of randomisation, baseline imbalances, and non-blinded outcome assessment. Most studies did not select (or exclude) participants for any specific disease state, with the exception of one study that only included patients if they had a stroke. All studies had methodological limitations, so readers should interpret results with caution.It is uncertain whether long-term home care compared to nursing home care decreases mortality risk (2 studies, N = 314, very-low certainty evidence). Estimates ranged from a nearly three-fold increased risk of mortality in the homecare group (risk ratio (RR) 2.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 5.32) to a 62% relative reduction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61). We did not pool data due to the high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 94%).It is uncertain whether the intervention has a beneficial effect on physical function, as the certainty of evidence is very low (5 studies, N = 1295). Two studies reported that participants who received long-term home care had improved activities of daily living compared to those in a nursing home, whereas a third study reported that all participants performed equally on physical function.It is uncertain whether long-term home care improves happiness compared to nursing home care (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.04) or general satisfaction because the certainty of evidence was very low (2 studies, N = 114).The extent to which long-term home care was associated to more or fewer adverse health outcomes than nursing home care was not reported.It is uncertain whether long-term home care compared to nursing home care decreases the risk of hospital admission (very low-certainty evidence, N = 14,853). RR estimates ranged from 2.75 (95% CI 2.59 to 2.92), showing an increased risk for those receiving care at home, to 0.82 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.93), showing a slightly reduced risk for the same group. We did not pool data due to the high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). There are insufficient high-quality published data to support any particular model of care for functionally dependent older people. Community-based care was not consistently beneficial across all the included studies; there were some data suggesting that community-based care may be associated with improved quality of life and physical function compared to institutional care. However, community alternatives to institutional care may be associated with increased risk of hospitalisation. Future studies should assess healthcare utilisation, perform economic analysis, and consider caregiver burden.