为生命末期的长期护理居民下达以舒适为重点的营养护理指令的相关因素。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY International Journal of Older People Nursing Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1111/opn.12634
Jill Koechl, Albert Banerjee, George Heckman, Heather Keller
{"title":"为生命末期的长期护理居民下达以舒适为重点的营养护理指令的相关因素。","authors":"Jill Koechl,&nbsp;Albert Banerjee,&nbsp;George Heckman,&nbsp;Heather Keller","doi":"10.1111/opn.12634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Comfort-focused nutrition orders are recommended to manage eating changes among long-term care (LTC) residents nearing the end of life, though little is known about their current use. This investigation aims to describe current practices and identify resident-level and time-dependent factors associated with comfort-focused nutrition orders in this context.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data were retrospectively extracted from resident charts of decedents (≥65 years at death, admitted ≥6 months) in 18 LTC homes from two sampling frames across southern Ontario, Canada. Observations occurred at 6 months (baseline), 3 months, 1 month and 2 weeks prior to death. Extracted data included functional measures (e.g. cognitive performance, health instability) at baseline, formalised restorative and comfort-focused nutrition care interventions at each timepoint and eating changes reported in the progress notes in 2 weeks following each timepoint. Logistic regression and time-varying logistic regression models determined resident-level (e.g. functional characteristics) and time-dependent factors (e.g. eating changes) associated with receiving a comfort-focused nutrition order.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Less than one-third (30.5%; <i>n</i> = 50) of 164 participants (61.0% female; mean age = 88.3 ± 7.5 years) received a comfort-focused nutrition order, whereas most (99%) received at least one restorative nutrition intervention to support oral food intake. Discontinuation of nutrition interventions was rare (8.5%). Comfort orders were more likely with health instability (OR [95% CI] = 4.35 [1.49, 13.76]), within 2 weeks of death (OR = 5.50 [1.70, 17.11]), when an end-of-life conversation had occurred since the previous timepoint (OR = 5.66 [2.83, 11.33]), with discontinued nutrition interventions (OR = 6.31 [1.75, 22.72]), with co-occurrence of other care plan modifications (OR = 1.48 [1.10, 1.98]) and with a greater number of eating changes (OR = 1.19 [1.02, 1.38]), especially dysphagia (OR = 2.59 [1.09, 6.17]), at the preceding timepoint.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Comfort-focused nutrition orders were initiated for less than one-third of decedents and most often in the end stages of life, possibly representing missed opportunities to support the quality of life for this vulnerable population. An increase in eating changes, including new dysphagia, may signal a need for proactive end-of-life conversations involving comfort nutrition care options.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications for Practice</h3>\n \n <p>Early and open conversations with residents and family about potential eating changes and comfort-focused nutrition care options should be encouraged and planned for among geriatric nursing teams working in LTC. These conversations may be beneficial even as early as resident admission to the home.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48651,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Older People Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/opn.12634","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors Associated With the Initiation of Comfort-Focused Nutrition Care Orders for Long-Term Care Residents at End of Life\",\"authors\":\"Jill Koechl,&nbsp;Albert Banerjee,&nbsp;George Heckman,&nbsp;Heather Keller\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/opn.12634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Comfort-focused nutrition orders are recommended to manage eating changes among long-term care (LTC) residents nearing the end of life, though little is known about their current use. This investigation aims to describe current practices and identify resident-level and time-dependent factors associated with comfort-focused nutrition orders in this context.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data were retrospectively extracted from resident charts of decedents (≥65 years at death, admitted ≥6 months) in 18 LTC homes from two sampling frames across southern Ontario, Canada. Observations occurred at 6 months (baseline), 3 months, 1 month and 2 weeks prior to death. Extracted data included functional measures (e.g. cognitive performance, health instability) at baseline, formalised restorative and comfort-focused nutrition care interventions at each timepoint and eating changes reported in the progress notes in 2 weeks following each timepoint. Logistic regression and time-varying logistic regression models determined resident-level (e.g. functional characteristics) and time-dependent factors (e.g. eating changes) associated with receiving a comfort-focused nutrition order.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Less than one-third (30.5%; <i>n</i> = 50) of 164 participants (61.0% female; mean age = 88.3 ± 7.5 years) received a comfort-focused nutrition order, whereas most (99%) received at least one restorative nutrition intervention to support oral food intake. Discontinuation of nutrition interventions was rare (8.5%). Comfort orders were more likely with health instability (OR [95% CI] = 4.35 [1.49, 13.76]), within 2 weeks of death (OR = 5.50 [1.70, 17.11]), when an end-of-life conversation had occurred since the previous timepoint (OR = 5.66 [2.83, 11.33]), with discontinued nutrition interventions (OR = 6.31 [1.75, 22.72]), with co-occurrence of other care plan modifications (OR = 1.48 [1.10, 1.98]) and with a greater number of eating changes (OR = 1.19 [1.02, 1.38]), especially dysphagia (OR = 2.59 [1.09, 6.17]), at the preceding timepoint.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Comfort-focused nutrition orders were initiated for less than one-third of decedents and most often in the end stages of life, possibly representing missed opportunities to support the quality of life for this vulnerable population. An increase in eating changes, including new dysphagia, may signal a need for proactive end-of-life conversations involving comfort nutrition care options.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Implications for Practice</h3>\\n \\n <p>Early and open conversations with residents and family about potential eating changes and comfort-focused nutrition care options should be encouraged and planned for among geriatric nursing teams working in LTC. These conversations may be beneficial even as early as resident admission to the home.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Older People Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/opn.12634\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Older People Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/opn.12634\",\"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":"International Journal of Older People Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/opn.12634","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:人们建议使用以舒适为重点的营养单来管理临近生命末期的长期护理(LTC)住院患者的饮食变化,但对其目前的使用情况却知之甚少。本调查旨在描述目前的做法,并确定在这种情况下与以舒适为重点的营养单相关的居民水平和时间依赖性因素:从加拿大安大略省南部两个抽样框架中的 18 家 LTC 养老院中死者(死亡时年龄≥65 岁,入院时间≥6 个月)的住院病历中回顾性地提取了数据。观察时间为死亡前 6 个月(基线)、3 个月、1 个月和 2 周。提取的数据包括基线时的功能测量(如认知表现、健康不稳定性)、每个时间点的正式恢复性和以舒适为重点的营养护理干预,以及每个时间点后 2 周的进展记录中报告的饮食变化。逻辑回归和时变逻辑回归模型确定了与接受以舒适为主的营养单相关的居民水平(如功能特征)和时间依赖因素(如饮食变化):在 164 名参与者(61.0% 为女性;平均年龄为 88.3 ± 7.5 岁)中,不到三分之一(30.5%;n = 50)的人接受了以舒适为重点的营养指令,而大多数人(99%)至少接受了一次恢复性营养干预,以支持口腔食物摄入。停止营养干预的情况很少见(8.5%)。在健康状况不稳定(OR [95% CI] = 4.35 [1.49, 13.76])、死亡 2 周内(OR = 5.50 [1.70, 17.11])、自上一个时间点以来进行过生命末期谈话(OR = 5.66 [2.83, 11.33])、营养干预中断(OR = 6.31[1.75,22.72])、同时出现其他护理计划修改(OR = 1.48 [1.10,1.98])以及在前一个时间点出现更多饮食变化(OR = 1.19 [1.02,1.38]),尤其是吞咽困难(OR = 2.59 [1.09,6.17]):只有不到三分之一的逝者启动了以舒适为重点的营养医嘱,而且大多是在生命的最后阶段,这可能意味着错过了为这一弱势群体提供生活质量支持的机会。饮食变化的增加,包括新出现的吞咽困难,可能预示着需要进行积极的临终对话,讨论舒适营养护理方案:应鼓励并计划在长期护理中心工作的老年护理团队与住院患者及其家人就潜在的饮食变化和以舒适为重点的营养护理方案进行早期和公开的对话。甚至在居民入住养老院之初,这些对话就可能是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Factors Associated With the Initiation of Comfort-Focused Nutrition Care Orders for Long-Term Care Residents at End of Life

Background

Comfort-focused nutrition orders are recommended to manage eating changes among long-term care (LTC) residents nearing the end of life, though little is known about their current use. This investigation aims to describe current practices and identify resident-level and time-dependent factors associated with comfort-focused nutrition orders in this context.

Methods

Data were retrospectively extracted from resident charts of decedents (≥65 years at death, admitted ≥6 months) in 18 LTC homes from two sampling frames across southern Ontario, Canada. Observations occurred at 6 months (baseline), 3 months, 1 month and 2 weeks prior to death. Extracted data included functional measures (e.g. cognitive performance, health instability) at baseline, formalised restorative and comfort-focused nutrition care interventions at each timepoint and eating changes reported in the progress notes in 2 weeks following each timepoint. Logistic regression and time-varying logistic regression models determined resident-level (e.g. functional characteristics) and time-dependent factors (e.g. eating changes) associated with receiving a comfort-focused nutrition order.

Results

Less than one-third (30.5%; n = 50) of 164 participants (61.0% female; mean age = 88.3 ± 7.5 years) received a comfort-focused nutrition order, whereas most (99%) received at least one restorative nutrition intervention to support oral food intake. Discontinuation of nutrition interventions was rare (8.5%). Comfort orders were more likely with health instability (OR [95% CI] = 4.35 [1.49, 13.76]), within 2 weeks of death (OR = 5.50 [1.70, 17.11]), when an end-of-life conversation had occurred since the previous timepoint (OR = 5.66 [2.83, 11.33]), with discontinued nutrition interventions (OR = 6.31 [1.75, 22.72]), with co-occurrence of other care plan modifications (OR = 1.48 [1.10, 1.98]) and with a greater number of eating changes (OR = 1.19 [1.02, 1.38]), especially dysphagia (OR = 2.59 [1.09, 6.17]), at the preceding timepoint.

Conclusions

Comfort-focused nutrition orders were initiated for less than one-third of decedents and most often in the end stages of life, possibly representing missed opportunities to support the quality of life for this vulnerable population. An increase in eating changes, including new dysphagia, may signal a need for proactive end-of-life conversations involving comfort nutrition care options.

Implications for Practice

Early and open conversations with residents and family about potential eating changes and comfort-focused nutrition care options should be encouraged and planned for among geriatric nursing teams working in LTC. These conversations may be beneficial even as early as resident admission to the home.

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
3.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: International Journal of Older People Nursing welcomes scholarly papers on all aspects of older people nursing including research, practice, education, management, and policy. We publish manuscripts that further scholarly inquiry and improve practice through innovation and creativity in all aspects of gerontological nursing. We encourage submission of integrative and systematic reviews; original quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research; secondary analyses of existing data; historical works; theoretical and conceptual analyses; evidence based practice projects and other practice improvement reports; and policy analyses. All submissions must reflect consideration of IJOPN''s international readership and include explicit perspective on gerontological nursing. We particularly welcome submissions from regions of the world underrepresented in the gerontological nursing literature and from settings and situations not typically addressed in that literature. Editorial perspectives are published in each issue. Editorial perspectives are submitted by invitation only.
期刊最新文献
Impact and Needs in Caregiving for Individuals With Dementia and Comorbid Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Living in Nursing Homes Improving Nursing Oral Care Practice for Community-Dwelling Care-Dependent Older People Issue Information The Experience of Hospitalisation for People Living With Dementia: A Qualitative Exploration of How Context Shapes Experiences Effects of Tactile Massage in Improving Older Residents' Psychological Health in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Randomised Controlled Trial
×
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