No abstract

Benzodiazepines are recognised as being potentially inappropriate medications for seniors due to their considerable side-effect profile, yet they are commonly prescribed and infrequently discontinued (deprescribed). The study’s primary objective was the deprescription or the dose reduction of benzodiazepines among newly hospitalised seniors using a patient education intervention. A 3-month duration quality improvement study based on the plan–do–study–act model was conducted across two units (3C and 4D) in the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital to improve benzodiazepine deprescribing among newly admitted seniors (65 years or older) who were using benzodiazepines. The primary outcome measure was the number of eligible patients who had benzodiazepine deprescribing initiated. A patient education intervention comprising a structured medication review, written patient education (the Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) brochure) and at least one brief supportive counselling session by the clinical pharmacist or physician was applied to all eligible patients. All 12 eligible patients consented to benzodiazepine deprescribing; however, only 11 of them (92%) initiated benzodiazepine deprescribing. Six of the 11 patients (55%) had their benzodiazepines discontinued, with the 5 remaining patients (45%) achieving greater than 50% dosage reduction. Seven patients (64%) experienced side effects during the deprescribing process, with over half (57%, n=4) of these seven patients experiencing worsening anxiety symptoms. Five of the 11 patients (45%) required benzodiazepine substitute medications. The use of a structured patient education intervention involving the use of a structured medication review, written patient education material and one-on-one patient counselling can promote benzodiazepine deprescribing. Although worsening anxiety was frequently observed, this was easily managed by the substitution of a more appropriate and clinically indicated medication, which was well tolerated and acceptable by all of our participants. Targeted screening for the presence of anxiety would help to guide the deprescribing process and the need for medication substitution.

We surveyed 604 family caregivers residing in the province of Alberta to better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety, loneliness, and care work. We assessed anxiety with the Six-Item State Anxiety Scale and loneliness with the DeJong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale. The COVID-19 pandemic created two contexts giving rise to feelings of solitude for family caregivers. Family caregivers of Albertans living in private community homes were overwhelmed with caregiving needs while those caring for Albertans living in congregate settings were restricted from caregiving. The results indicated that before the COVID-19 pandemic, 31.7% of family caregivers were anxious and 53.5% were lonely. The proportions of those who were anxious rose to 78.8% and lonely to 85.9% during the pandemic. The qualitative responses of family caregivers connected being overwhelmed with care work either in community homes or as the designated essential caregiver in congregate living settings, as well as being unable to care in congregate care settings, with anxiety and loneliness. The caregivers reporting improvements in their health and relationships with care-receivers credited spending time with the receiver doing pleasant activities together, rather than purely performing onerous care tasks. Policymakers need to consider organizing health and community services to ensure family caregivers are not overwhelmed with care tasks or excluded from caring in congregate care.

COVID-19 has had a negative impact on family caregivers, whether the care receivers lived with the caregiver, in a separate community home, in supportive living, or in long-term care. This qualitative study examines the points of view of family caregivers who care in diverse settings. Family caregivers were asked to describe what could have been done to support them during the COVID-19 pandemic and to suggest supports they need in the future as the pandemic wanes. Thorne’s interpretive qualitative methodology was employed to examine current caregiver concerns. Thirty-two family caregivers participated. Family caregivers thought the under-resourced, continuing care system delayed pandemic planning, and that silos in health and community systems made caregiving more difficult. Family caregivers want their roles to be recognized in policy, and they cite the need for improvements in communication and navigation. The growth in demand for family caregivers and their contributions to the healthcare system make it critical that the family caregiver role be recognized in policy, funding, and practice.

Family caregiving scholars recommend that health providers receive competencybased education to partner with and support family caregivers to care and to maintain their own health. While it may be relatively easy to develop competency-based education for healthcare providers, ensuring widespread uptake and spread and scale of healthcare education is critical to ensuring consistent person-centered support for all family caregivers (FCGs) throughout the care trajectory. The development of novel healthcare innovations requires implementation strategies for uptake and spread, with implementation involving the use of strategies to integrate a novel innovation into healthcare. Research suggests that there are many factors involved in successful implementation and a synthesis of potential factors is warranted. The purpose of this review is to provide an in-depth examination of facilitators, barriers and considerations for implementation of a novel healthcare innovation that will be used to develop an implementation plan for spread and scale of our competencybased education for health providers to learn about person-centered care for FCGs.A systematic review of published and grey literature was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA [Moher et al., 2015]) guidelines. The systematic review involved searching four databases for original research articles that described barriers, facilitators and/or other considerations when implementing innovations. Twenty-eight articles were included in the qualitative thematic analyses and described three areas of implementation research: barriers, facilitators and recommendations. There were major and parallel themes that emerged under facilitators and barriers. There were a wide variety of strategies that were identified as recommendations. The findings were synthesised into five considerations for implementation: Research and information sharing, intentional implementation planning, organisational underpinnings, creating the clinical context and facilitative training. This review provides an integrative overview of identified facilitators, barriers and recommendations for implementation that may aid in developing implementation strategies that can be tailored to the local context or innovation being implemented.