[COVID-19 in nursing homes A study of diagnosis, symptomatology and disease course]. / Covid-19 in verpleeghuizen.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the diagnosis, symptomatology and disease course of COVID-19 in nursing home (NH) residents in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHOD: Data on NH residents with suspected COVID-19 were collected from the electronic patient records. Data were collected on diagnostic status (COVID-19: confirmed/excluded (using the RT-PCR test)), symptomatology (typical/atypical and other symptoms, body temperature and oxygen saturation) and, in the case of confirmed COVID-19, on disease course (recovered/clinically improved/deteriorated, deceased). We described and compared the symptomatology in NH residents with confirmed COVID-19 and NH residents in whom COVID-19 had been excluded. We also analysed mortality risk using survival analysis. We used registrations from the period 18 March to15 April 2020 for this study. RESULTS: We reported on 1,969 NH residents with suspected COVID-19. The diagnosis was confirmed in 857 patients (43.5%); diagnosis was excluded in 1,112 (56.5%) patients. Among patients with confirmed COVID-19, 65% had coughs, 70% had fever, 33% had shortness of breath, 28% had delirium/confusion and 10% had a sore throat; in patients in whom COVID-19 was excluded these symptoms were experienced in 70%, 47%, 45%, 26% and 13% of patients, respectively. Of the patients with confirmed COVID-19, 48% died within 30 days (95% CI: 36-44%), versus 20% of the patients in whom COVID-19 was excluded (95% CI: 11-15%). CONCLUSION: There is a lot of overlap in symptomatology between NH residents with COVID-19 and those with other acute diseases. An RT-PCR test is required to be able to make the distinction better. The mortality risk in patients with confirmed COVID-19 is significantly higher than in patients in whom covid-19 is excluded.

The Application of the Concept of Resilience in Aging Research and Older Adult Care: A Focus Group Study.

Introduction: Research incorporating resilience, a concept featuring a positive outcome despite some type of stressor, has the potential to identify possibilities for promotion of the well-being of older people. This study aims to gain insight into the value and potential applications of resilience in both research and care practice from the perspective of researchers and care professionals. Specifically, the value of two scientific approaches, the a priori (i.e., based on a priori definition of a stressor and outcome) and dynamical systems approaches (i.e., based on mathematically modeled patterns in the real-time response to perturbations), was explored. Methods: Focus groups were performed to explore the thoughts of academic researchers from different disciplines in the fields of aging and care and care professionals on the application of the concept of resilience, including the a priori and dynamical systems approaches. Analysis of these focus groups was based on the framework method. Results: Five focus groups were held with a total of nine researchers from different disciplines (e.g., epidemiology, sociology) and 15 older adult care professionals from different professions (e.g., elderly care physician, physiotherapist). The participants described resilience as a concept with value for both aging research and care through its positive connotation and comprehensiveness. Continued research was thought to play an important role in clearing up some of the existing ambiguity surrounding resilience. The importance of resilience in the context of both high- and low-intensity stressors was underscored. The a priori and dynamical systems approaches were considered to have their specific advantages and disadvantages on both conceptual and feasibility levels. Therefore, the use of both approaches, side by side and in combination, was suggested. Conclusion: This qualitative exploration among researchers and care professionals confirms that the concept of resilience, including the a priori and dynamical systems approaches, is valuable. However, more work is necessary before can be delivered on the potential of resilience in aging research and older adult care practice. Greater conceptual and operational clarity can be achieved through more qualitative studies on the concept that take the perspective of older people into account and through empirical studies that work with both approaches simultaneously and/or in combination.

Resilience in older persons: A systematic review of the conceptual literature.

Although ageing research increasingly incorporates resilience, a common notion on what resilience means is lacking. We aimed to give a comprehensive overview of the conceptual literature on resilience in older persons, identifying areas of consensus and variation/debate. A systematic search of eight databases from different disciplines led to the inclusion of 36 texts. Across the conceptual literature of resilience in older persons, three common features of descriptions of resilience were identified: a stressor, a response and a mechanism. Based on differences in their interpretation of how resilience is expressed we distinguished two perspectives. The first, classical and most widely applied perspective, describes the expression of resilience as a positive response to a high intensity stressor. The second, newer perspective, describes resilience in the context of responses relative to equilibrium, following low intensity stressors. Almost all descriptions across the two perspectives describe the resilience mechanism to be dynamic and emphasize the importance of the context in achieving resilience. This review provides clarity on the current conceptual status of resilience in older persons, an important step towards a higher level of consistency in the future use of resilience in ageing.

[Comparing case management care models for people with dementia and their caregivers: the design of the COMPAS study]. / Implementatie, effecten en kosten van casemanagement voor mensen met dementie en hun mantelzorgers: beschrijving van de COMPAS studie.

BACKGROUND: Dementia care in The Netherlands is shifting from fragmented, ad hoc care to more coordinated and personalized care. Case management contributes to this shift. The linkage model and a combination of intensive case management and joint agency care models were selected based on their emerging prominence in The Netherlands. It is unclear if these different forms of case management are more effective than usual care in improving or preserving the functioning and well-being at the patient and caregiver level and at the societal cost. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to describe the design of a study comparing these two case management care models against usual care. Clinical and cost outcomes are investigated while care processes and the facilitators and barriers for implementation of these models are considered. DESIGN: Mixed methods include a prospective, observational, controlled, cohort study among persons with dementia and their primary informal caregiver in regions of The Netherlands with and without case management including a qualitative process evaluation. Community-dwelling individuals with a dementia diagnosis with an informal caregiver are included. The primary outcome measure is the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for the people with dementia and the General Health Questionnaire for their caregivers. Costs are measured from a societal perspective. Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders based on the theoretical model of adaptive implementation are planned. RESULTS: 521 pairs of persons with dementia and their primary informal caregiver were included and are followed over two years. In the linked model substantially more impeding factors for implementation were identified compared with the model. DISCUSSION: This article describes the design of an evaluation study of two case management models along with clinical and economic data from persons with dementia and caregivers. The impeding and facilitating factors differed substantially between the two models. Further results on cost-effectiveness are expected by the beginning of 2015. This is a Dutch adaptation of MacNeil Vroomen et al., Comparing Dutch case management care models for people with dementia and their caregivers: The design of the COMPAS study.