Family Caregivers' Needs in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Descriptive Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: To explore the needs of family caregivers (FCs) and how these are addressed in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). METHOD: A descriptive qualitative study was performed, using semi-structured interviews with 23 FCs from seven LTCFs in Japan. RESULTS: Inductive content analysis revealed three main themes: Coexistent Needs Related to Residents' and FCs' Own Well-Being, Means by Which FCs Promote Residents' and Their Own Well-Being, and Managing Conflicting Needs by Prioritizing and Compromising. FCs recognized that their needs relate to the well-being of residents and themselves, and both needs coexist. To address these multifaceted needs, FCs engaged in various activities while seeking support. However, limited availability of means often made it challenging to meet multiple needs simultaneously, leading FCs to manage these conflicting needs by prioritizing or compromising. CONCLUSION: The current study underscores the significance of comprehensive support that simultaneously addresses FCs' conflicting needs, rather than approaching each need separately. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, xx(x), xx-xx.].

Factors related to liability for damages for adverse events occurring in long-term care facilities.

Globally, residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) often experience adverse events (AEs) and corresponding lawsuits that result in suffering among the residents, their families, and the facilities. Hence, we conducted a study to clarify the factors related to the facilities' liabilities for damages for the AEs that occur at LTCFs in Japan. We analyzed 1,495 AE reports from LTCFs in one Japanese city. A binomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with liability for damages. The independent variables were classified as: residents, organizations, and social factors. In total, 14% of AEs resulted in the facility being liable for damages. The predictors of liability for damages were as follows: for the resident factors, the increased need for care had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 2.00 and care levels of 2-3; and AOR of 2.48 and care levels of 4-5. The types of injuries, such as bruises, wounds, and fractures, had AORs of 3.16, 2.62, and 2.50, respectively. Regarding the organization factors, the AE time, such as noon or evening, had an AOR of 1.85. If the AE occurred indoors, the AOR was 2.78, and if it occurred during staff care, the AOR was 2.11. For any follow-ups requiring consultation with a doctor, the AOR was 4.70, and for hospitalization, the AOR was 1.76. Regarding the type of LTCF providing medical care in addition to residential care, the AOR was 4.39. Regarding the social factors, the reports filed before 2017 had an AOR of 0.58. The results of the organization factors suggest that liability tends to arise in situations where the residents and their family expect high quality care. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen organizational factors in such situations to avoid AEs and the resulting liability for damages.

Outcomes of a financial incentive scheme for dementia care by dementia specialist teams in acute-care hospitals: A difference-in-differences analysis of a nationwide retrospective cohort study in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The quality of care for dementia in acute-care settings has been criticised. In 2016, the Japanese universal health insurance system introduced a financial incentive scheme for dementia care by dementia specialist teams in acute-care hospitals. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of this financial incentive scheme on short-term outcomes (in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission). DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a Japanese nationwide inpatient database, we identified older adult patients with moderate-to-severe dementia admitted for pneumonia, heart failure, cerebral infarction, urinary tract infection, intracranial injury or hip fracture from April 2014 to March 2018. We selected 180 propensity score-matched pairs of hospitals that adopted (n = 180 of 185) and that did not adopt (n = 180 of 744) the financial incentive scheme. We then conducted a patient-level difference-in-differences analysis. In a sensitivity analysis, we restricted the postintervention group to patients who actually received dementia care. RESULTS: There was no association between a hospital's adoption of the incentive scheme and in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.06; p = 0.48) or 30-day readmission (aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.95-1.14; p = 0.37). Only 29% of patients in hospitals adopting the scheme actually received dementia care. The sensitivity analysis showed that receiving dementia care was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The financial incentive scheme to enhance dementia care by dementia specialist teams in Japan may not be working effectively, but the results do suggest that individual dementia care was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality.