Review of Programs to Combat Elder Mistreatment: Focus on Hospitals and Level of Resources Needed

Abstract

Background Elder mistreatment is common and has serious social and medical consequences for victims. Though programs to combat this mistreatment have been developed and implemented for more than three decades, previous systematic literature reviews have found few successful ones. Objective To conduct a more comprehensive examination of programs to improve elder mistreatment identification, intervention, or prevention, including those that had not undergone evaluation. Design Systematic review. Setting Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO Elton B. Stephens Co. (EBSCO), AgeLine, CINAHL. Measurements We abstracted key information about each program and categorized programs into 14 types and 9 subtypes. For programs that reported an impact evaluation, we systematically assessed the study quality. We also systematically examined the potential for programs to be successfully implemented in environments with limited resources available. Results We found 116 articles describing 115 elder mistreatment programs. Of these articles, 43% focused on improving prevention, 50% focused on identification, and 95% focused on intervention, with 66% having multiple foci. The most common types of program were: educational (53%), multidisciplinary team (MDT) (21%), psychoeducation/therapy/counseling (15%), and legal services/support (8%). Of the programs, 13% integrated an acute‐care hospital, 43% had high potential to work in low‐resource environments, and 57% reported an attempt to evaluate program impact, but only 2% used a high‐quality study design. Conclusion Many programs to combat elder mistreatment have been developed and implemented, with the majority focusing on education and MDT development. Though more than half reported evaluation of program impact, few used high‐quality study design. Many have the potential to work in low‐resource environments. Acute‐care hospitals were infrequently integrated into programs.

Building resilience and performance in turbulent times: The influence of shared leadership and passion at work across levels

“…We also focused on passion at team level because the team is a central component of health care. Patient care depends on the quality of teamwork, since communication and coordination in health care units are crucial mechanisms to address complex therapies (Rosen et al, 2019). We argue that passion at team level provides energy-building engagement in valued activities.…”

Development and Evaluation of an Elder Abuse Forensic Nurse Examiner e-Learning Curriculum

“…It is critically important that healthcare providers are well trained to address the complex needs of abused older adults and prevent their further victimization ( Rosen et al, 2019 ). This e-learning curriculum showed promise in training forensic nurses across Ontario to appropriately respond to elder abuse.…”

“…Those experiencing abuse are also more likely to be hospitalized, visit an emergency department, and use behavioral health services ( Yunus et al, 2019 ). A recent review of various types of responses to elder abuse across the globe indicated that hospitals offer a promising point for intervention ( Rosen et al, 2019 ). However, a recent European study found that the level of knowledge and skills of many healthcare professionals working in hospitals specifically related to detecting and responding to elder abuse is limited, and further education and training has been recommended ( Corbi et al, 2019 ).…”

The Effectiveness of Psychosocial Interventions for Elder Abuse in Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Despite the growing number of intervention studies on elder abuse, research synthesis on the pooled effect for elder abuse interventions remains lacking. From the limited available systematic reviews of elder abuse intervention programs, either found a lack of sufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of elder abuse ( Ploeg et al, 2009 ; Alt et al, 2011 ; Fearing et al, 2017 ) programs or programs that did not use rigorous evaluations to assess the effectiveness of said programs ( Rosen et al, 2019 ).…”