No abstract

Purpose Even though dehydration is a big problem among nursing home residents, a universally agreed method to diagnose dehydration among nursing home residents is missing. Therefore, this study aimed to establish consensus on a method to diagnose dehydration in this population. Methods Using an international Delphi study, 53 experts (physicians and advanced nurse practitioners) were asked to judge various methods to diagnose dehydration on relevance and feasibility in the nursing home. Based on the methods that gained consensus in the first and second round (≥ 75% consensus), a step-by-step diagnostic strategy was developed which was presented to, and judged by, the experts in round three. Results After the first and second round, consensus was reached on nine anamnestic items, eight physical symptoms and three blood tests. In the third round, 24 experts agreed with the developed step-by-step diagnostic strategy as a standard to diagnose dehydration in nursing home residents. Conclusion This is the first study reaching international consensus on a strategy to diagnose dehydration in the nursing home. This strategy comprehends a presumption phase, where anamnestic items and physical symptoms are examined, followed by a confirmation phase with blood tests to confirm the diagnosis of dehydration. Using this strategy, it is important to take the individual characteristics (e.g. co-morbidity) of the resident and its care environment (e.g. ambient temperature) into account.

Aim To explore the perceived quality of collaboration in dehydration care among nursing and medical staff in Dutch nursing homes. Design A cross‐sectional study. Methods An online questionnaire was administered to nursing and medical staff in February 2020 to assess the quality of collaboration in dehydration care and its influencing factors. Descriptive statistics, chi‐square tests and multinomial logistic regression analysis were used to describe the results and examine differences between groups. Results In total, 695 questionnaires were completed by multiple levels of (specialized) nursing staff and nursing home physicians. The quality of collaboration was assessed as good (23.2%), sufficient (59.4%) and insufficient (17.4%). Predicting factors related to perceiving the quality of collaboration as good were working experience, dehydration training during education and the presence of a dehydration protocol/guideline in the nursing home. Enabling factors related to collaboration in dehydration care were ‘availability of sufficient aids to detect dehydration’, ‘continuity in the care relationship’ and ‘sufficient background data of the resident in the care record’. Factors that hinder collaboration were ‘insufficient knowledge about dehydration among nursing and medical staff’, ‘the absence of a team meeting in which the topic dehydration is discussed’ and ‘insufficient staffing level among nursing and medical staff’. Conclusion Collaboration in dehydration care was generally assessed as sufficient. Participants with >10 years of working experience, who received dehydration training during their education and had a dehydration protocol/guideline available in the nursing home, perceived the quality of collaboration more often as good. Experienced barriers and enablers for collaboration in dehydration care varied between professional groups. Therefore, it is important to gain more insight into (informal) caregivers’ perceptions on what is expected from each other about dehydration care. Impact Care professionals experience several limiting factors in collaborating in dehydration care. Addressing these factors could optimize dehydration care in Dutch nursing homes.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

AimExamining the perspectives of formal and informal caregivers and residents on roles, mutual expectations and needs for improvement in the care for residents with (a risk of) dehydration.DesignQualitative study.MethodsSemi‐structured interviews with 16 care professionals, three residents and three informal caregivers were conducted between October and November 2021. A thematic analysis was performed on the interviews.ResultsThree topic summaries contributed to a comprehensive view on the care for residents with (a risk of) dehydration: role content, mutual expectations and needs for improvement. Many overlapping activities were found among care professionals, informal caregivers and allied care staff. While nursing staff and informal caregivers are essential in observing changes in the health status of residents, and medical staff in diagnosing and treating dehydration, the role of residents remains limited. Conflicting expectations emerged regarding, for example, the level of involvement of the resident and communication. Barriers to multidisciplinary collaboration were highlighted, including little structural involvement of allied care staff, limited insight into each other's expertise and poor communication between formal and informal caregivers. Seven areas for improvement emerged: awareness, resident profile, knowledge and expertise, treatment, monitoring and tools, working conditions and multidisciplinary working.ConclusionIn general, many formal and informal caregivers are involved in the care of residents with (a risk of) dehydration. They depend on each other's observations, information and expertise which requires an interprofessional approach with specific attention to adequate prevention. For this, educational interventions focused on hydration care should be a core element in professional development programs of nursing homes and vocational training of future care professionals.ImpactThe care for residents with (a risk of) dehydration has multiple points for improvement. To be able to adequately address dehydration, it is essential for formal and informal caregivers and residents to address these barriers in clinical practice.Reporting MethodIn writing this manuscript, the EQUATOR guidelines (reporting method SRQR) have been adhered to.Patient or Public ContributionNo patient or public contribution.