NURSING HOME PROFESSIONALS OPINIONS ON DETERMINANTS OF MALNUTRITION – A QUALITATIVE STUDY

R. Roller, A. Morgner, D. Eglseer, G. Wirnsberger
{"title":"NURSING HOME PROFESSIONALS OPINIONS ON DETERMINANTS OF MALNUTRITION – A QUALITATIVE STUDY","authors":"R. Roller, A. Morgner, D. Eglseer, G. Wirnsberger","doi":"10.14283/jnhrs.2016.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To assess the attitudes and knowledge of health care professionals, who work with long term nursing home residents, with respect to key factors that influence malnutrition. Methods: Based on the results of a comprehensive literature research, a qualitative study was carried out by conducting problem-centered and structured interviews with healthcare professionals (N=25) from different professions. Each individual qualitative interview consisted of 10 open and problem-centered questions. Specific areas of interest were problems experienced by nursing home residents, useful measures that could be taken in cases of malnutrition and the prevalence of malnutrition in the nursing homes. 80 items were extrapolated from the interviews, transferred to a 5-point Likert-like scale questionnaire and included in an electronic survey, which was sent out to the 25 experts who had already been interviewed. Raters were first asked to rate the items according to their professional opinion and, second, according to the current state of nursing homes in Austria. Results: 77% of the 80 factors that may influence the treatment of malnutrition were identified as important, having an arithmetic mean (Ø a.m.) = 4.15. The top five determinants were: two factors related to kitchen food (i.e., “age-adapted texture and portion size” and “quality, freshness, taste, appearance and smell”), further education of nursing staff, interdisciplinary cooperation and education of dietitians. The evaluation of the 80 factors in terms of their status quo resulted in an Ø a.m. of 2.94. No factor was rated higher than Ø a.m. 3.74 in terms of its status quo (i.e., according to guidelines). The status quo quality was evaluated critically especially with regard to financial support and education. Conclusion: A gap exists between the attitudes of health care professionals and the status quo (what is being done) in Austrian nursing homes.","PeriodicalId":75093,"journal":{"name":"The journal of nursing home research sciences","volume":"22 3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of nursing home research sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14283/jnhrs.2016.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the attitudes and knowledge of health care professionals, who work with long term nursing home residents, with respect to key factors that influence malnutrition. Methods: Based on the results of a comprehensive literature research, a qualitative study was carried out by conducting problem-centered and structured interviews with healthcare professionals (N=25) from different professions. Each individual qualitative interview consisted of 10 open and problem-centered questions. Specific areas of interest were problems experienced by nursing home residents, useful measures that could be taken in cases of malnutrition and the prevalence of malnutrition in the nursing homes. 80 items were extrapolated from the interviews, transferred to a 5-point Likert-like scale questionnaire and included in an electronic survey, which was sent out to the 25 experts who had already been interviewed. Raters were first asked to rate the items according to their professional opinion and, second, according to the current state of nursing homes in Austria. Results: 77% of the 80 factors that may influence the treatment of malnutrition were identified as important, having an arithmetic mean (Ø a.m.) = 4.15. The top five determinants were: two factors related to kitchen food (i.e., “age-adapted texture and portion size” and “quality, freshness, taste, appearance and smell”), further education of nursing staff, interdisciplinary cooperation and education of dietitians. The evaluation of the 80 factors in terms of their status quo resulted in an Ø a.m. of 2.94. No factor was rated higher than Ø a.m. 3.74 in terms of its status quo (i.e., according to guidelines). The status quo quality was evaluated critically especially with regard to financial support and education. Conclusion: A gap exists between the attitudes of health care professionals and the status quo (what is being done) in Austrian nursing homes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
养老院专业人员对营养不良决定因素的意见-一项定性研究
目的:评估与长期养老院居民一起工作的卫生保健专业人员对影响营养不良的关键因素的态度和知识。方法:在综合文献研究的基础上,采用以问题为中心的结构化访谈法,对来自不同专业的25名医护人员进行定性研究。每个单独的定性访谈由10个开放的问题为中心的问题组成。具体关注的领域是养老院居民遇到的问题、在营养不良情况下可以采取的有用措施以及养老院营养不良的普遍情况。从访谈中推断出80个项目,转换成李克特式5分制问卷,并纳入电子调查,发送给已经接受采访的25位专家。评分者首先被要求根据他们的专业意见对这些项目进行评分,然后根据奥地利养老院的现状进行评分。结果:80个可能影响营养不良治疗的因素中,77%被确定为重要因素,算术平均值(Ø a.m.) = 4.15。排名前五的决定因素是:与厨房食品相关的两个因素(即“适合年龄的质地和份量”和“质量、新鲜度、味道、外观和气味”)、护理人员的进一步教育、跨学科合作和营养师的教育。对80个因素的现状进行评价的结果是,Ø a.m.为2.94。就其现状(即根据指导方针)而言,没有任何因素的评级高于Ø a.m. 3.74。特别是在财政支助和教育方面,对现状的质量进行了批判性评价。结论:保健专业人员的态度与奥地利养老院的现状(正在做的事情)之间存在差距。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antihyperglycemic Drug Use in Long-Stay Nursing Home Residents with Diabetes Mellitus. LETTER TO THE EDITOR: VITAMIN D INTAKE AND FALLS AMONG OLDER NURSING HOME RESIDENTS Editorial: Research in nursing homes in the time of COVID Comorbidity and dependence jointly indicate the need for palliative care in nursing home residents Physicians' perceived barriers and proposed solutions for high-quality palliative care in dementia in the Netherlands: Qualitative analysis of survey data.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1