Effective nursing interventions in ADL care affecting independence and comfort - a systematic review.

Despite its frequent provision, evidence of nursing interventions in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) remains unclear. Hence, we addressed the research question: What are the effects of ADL nursing interventions on independence and comfort in adults across all care settings? We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies described in systematic reviews. In three databases, we searched for systematic reviews that we used as a portal to select (quasi) experimental studies. After narratively summarizing the studies on characteristics, effects, and interventions, we assessed the risk of bias. Among the 31 included studies, 14 studies evaluated independence, 14 studies measured comfort, and three studies assessed both outcomes. Seven interventions significantly improved independence and seven interventions significantly improved comfort. The studies varied highly in intervention components, outcome measures, and quality. Evidence on ADL nursing interventions affecting independence and comfort remains fragmented and inconclusive, limiting guidance for nursing professionals.

The frail older person does not exist: development of frailty profiles with latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental issue in elderly care is targeting those older people at risk and in need of care interventions. Frailty is widely used to capture variations in health risks but there is no general consensus on the conceptualization of frailty. Indeed, there is considerable heterogeneity in the group of older people characterized as frail. This research identifies frailty profiles based on the physical, psychological, social and cognitive domains of functioning and the severity of the problems within these domains. METHODS: This research was a secondary data-analysis of older persons derived from The Older Person and Informal Caregiver Minimum Dataset. Selected respondents were 60 years and older (n = 43,704; 59.6% female). The following variables were included: self-reported health, cognitive functioning, social functioning, mental health, morbidity status, and functional limitations. Using latent class analysis, the population was divided in subpopulations that were subsequently discussed in a focus group with older people for further validation. RESULTS: We distinguished six frailty profiles: relatively healthy; mild physically frail; psychologically frail; severe physically frail; medically frail and multi-frail. The relatively healthy had limited problems across all domains. In three profiles older people mostly had singular problems in either the physical or psychological domain and the severity of the problems differed. Two remaining profiles were multidimensional with a combination of problems that extended to the social and cognitive domains. CONCLUSIONS: Our research provides an empirical base for meaningful frailty profiles. The profiles showed specific patterns underlying the problems in different domains of functioning. The heterogeneous population of frail older people has differing needs and faces different health issues that should be considered to tailor care interventions. Evaluation research of these interventions should acknowledge the heterogeneity of frailty by profiling.

[The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community]. / Psychometrische eigenschappen van drie screeningsinstrumenten voor kwetsbaarheid bij thuiswonende ouderen.

BACKGROUND: Frailty can lead towards serious adverse consequences, such as disability. With regard to prevention valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people. The aim was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 687 older people (> or = 70 years). (1) Agreement between instruments, (2) internal consistency, (3) cumulative scalability according to Mokken scale analysis and (4) construct validity were evaluated. RESULTS: The response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, TFI and SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. The scalability of the three instruments was inadequate (Loevinger's H: 0.28, 0.30 and 0.09 for GFI, TFI and SPQ, respectively). Frailty scores correlated significantly with each other and with the GARS scores. CONCLUSION: Especially the GFI and TFI seem to be useful to identify frail older people. Further research regarding their predictive validity is still needed.