ObjectivesNursing homes are hit relatively hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Dutch long-term care (LTC) organisations installed outbreak teams (OTs) to coordinate COVID-19 infection prevention and control. LTC organisations and relevant national policy organisations expressed the need to share experiences from these OTs that can be applied directly in COVID-19 policy. The aim of the ‘COVID-19 management in nursing homes by outbreak teams’ (MINUTES) study is to describe the challenges, responses and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch nursing homes. In this first article, we describe the MINUTES Study and present data characteristics.DesignThis large-scale multicentre study has a qualitative design using manifest content analysis. The participating organisations shared their OT minutes and other meeting documents on a weekly basis. Data from week 16 (April) to week 53 (December) 2020 included the first two waves of COVID-19.SettingNational study with 41 large Dutch LTC organisations.ParticipantsThe LTC organisations represented 563 nursing home locations and almost 43 000 residents.ResultsAt least 36 of the 41 organisations had one or more SARS-CoV-2 infections among their residents. Most OTs were composed of management, medical staff, support services staff, policy advisors and communication specialists. Topics that emerged from the documents were: crisis management, isolation of residents, personal protective equipment and hygiene, staff, residents’ well-being, visitor policies, testing and vaccination.ConclusionsOT meeting minutes are a valuable data source to monitor the impact of and responses to COVID-19 in nursing homes. Depending on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection and analysis will continue until November 2021. The results are used directly in national and organisational COVID-19 policy.
Purpose Geriatric Emergency Medicine (GEM) focuses on delivering optimal care to (sub)acutely ill older people. This involves a multidisciplinary approach throughout the whole healthcare chain. However, the underpinning evidence base is weak and it is unclear which research questions have the highest priority. The aim of this study was to provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions among GEM professionals throughout Europe. Methods A two-stage modified Delphi approach was used. In stage 1, an online survey was administered to various professionals working in GEM both in the Emergency Department (ED) and other healthcare settings throughout Europe to make an inventory of potential research questions. In the processing phase, research questions were screened, categorised, and validated by an expert panel. Subsequently, in stage 2, remaining research questions were ranked based on relevance using a second online survey administered to the same target population, to identify the top 10 prioritised research questions. Results In response to the first survey, 145 respondents submitted 233 potential research questions. A total of 61 research questions were included in the second stage, which was completed by 176 respondents. The question with the highest priority was: Is implementation of elements of CGA (comprehensive geriatric assessment), such as screening for frailty and geriatric interventions, effective in improving outcomes for older patients in the ED? Conclusion This study presents a top 10 of high-priority research questions for a European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine. The list of research questions may serve as guidance for researchers, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects.
The most severe COVID-19 infections and highest mortality rates are seen among long-term care residents. To reduce the risk of infection, physical distancing is important. This study investigates what physical distancing measures were discussed by COVID-19 outbreak teams of Dutch long-term care organizations and what challenges they encountered. The COVID-19 MINUTES study is a qualitative multi-center study (n = 41) that collected minutes of COVID-19 outbreak teams from March 2020 to October 2021. Textual units about distancing measures were selected and analyzed using manifest content analysis for the first wave: early March–early May 2020; the intermediate period of 2020: mid-May–mid-September 2020; and the second wave: late September 2020–mid-June 2021. During all periods, COVID-19 outbreak teams often discussed distancing visitors from residents. Moreover, during the first wave they often discussed isolation measures, during the intermediate period they often discussed distancing staff and volunteers from residents, and during both the intermediate period and the second wave they often discussed distancing among residents. During all periods, less often admission measures were discussed. Challenges persisted and included unrest among and conflicts between visitors and staff, visitors violating measures, resident non-adherence to measures, and staffing issues. The discussed distancing measures and corresponding challenges may guide local long-term care and (inter)national policymakers during the further course of the COVID-19 pandemic, outbreaks of other infectious diseases, and long-term care innovations.
Samenvatting Hoewel het belang van burger-en patiëntenparticipatie wordt erkend, ontbreekt een Nederlandse maat om de impact van participatie te evalueren. De Canadese Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) is een Engelstalig instrument dat ontwikkeld is om participatie te evalueren. Het instrument bestaat uit drie modules, gericht op verschillende betrokkenen in het participatieproces: burger-of patiëntparticipanten, projectcoördinatoren en organisatiemanagers. Wij vertaalden dit instrument naar het Nederlands volgens de 'vertalen-en-terugvertalen'-methode. Vervolgens vulden 46 deelnemers de vragenlijsten in, scoorden ze de vragen op helderheid en gaven ze schriftelijk feedback op de formulering van de vragen. De duidelijkheidsscores en het aantal volledige antwoorden gaven een beeld van de haalbaarheid van deze Nederlandse vertaling. De eerste stappen in de validatie van de vragenlijst werden gezet door Cronbach's alfa (α) te berekenen over de meerkeuzevragen en met een thematische analyse van de antwoorden op de open vragen. De vragenlijst bleek haalbaar en consistent (α ≥ 0,70). De vertaling werd verder verbeterd door vragen te herformuleren en één Digitaal aanvullende content De online versie van dit artikel (
To protect nursing home residents from getting infected with COVID-19, several measures have been imposed. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of these measures on activities for Dutch nursing home residents, the conditions under which the activities could take place, and the considerations when making decisions about the (dis)continuation of activities. The study consisted of the data of the qualitative MINUTES-study. Textual units derived from documentation of an outbreak team (OT) meetings on activities, well-being, informal caregivers, and volunteers from 39 long-term care organizations were re-analyzed using a content analysis. The results shows that OTs more often discussed restarting and continuing activities than stopping activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were differences between time periods, but activities never completely stopped according to the minutes. Activities were offered in an adapted way, often under certain conditions, such as organizing activities at other locations (e.g., outside), with limited group size, and following specific guidelines. The main focus of the considerations made were the ability to adhere to the guidelines, the well-being of residents, ensuring safety, and balancing benefits versus risks given vaccination availability and coverage. Overall, the study showed that organizing activities for nursing home residents despite COVID-19 measures is possible.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.