Inouye Sharon K, Baker Dorothy I, Fugal Patricia, Bradley Elizabeth H
Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02131, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Oct;54(10):1492-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00869.x.
To describe the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) across dissemination sites, to detail adaptations, and to summarize advantages across sites.
Cross-sectional survey.
HELP sites in acute care hospitals.
Thirteen sites that enrolled 11,344 patients.
Seventy-five closed- and open-ended questions describing details of the HELP site, procedures, staffing, outcomes tracked, and advantages.
As of July 1, 2005, HELP had been fully implemented in 13 sites, with a median duration of 24 months (range 6.0-38.0). Although a high degree of fidelity to the original model was maintained, variations existed in staffing patterns, outcome tracking, and recommended HELP procedures. Adaptations were made across multiple domains, including enrollment criteria at 15.4% of sites, screening and assessment tools at 61.5%, and individual intervention protocols at 15.4% to 30.8%. Local circumstances drove these adaptations, with the most common reasons being lack of adequate staffing and logistical constraints. All sites conducted regular HELP staff meetings; other recommended quality assurance procedures were conducted at 46.2% to 92.3% of sites. Reported advantages of HELP included providing an educational resource at 100% of sites, improving hospital outcomes (e.g., delirium and functional decline) at 100%, providing nursing education and improving retention at 100%, enhancing patient and family satisfaction with care at 92.3%, raising visibility for geriatrics at 92.3%, and improving quality of care at 84.6%.
This report describes the real-world implementation of HELP across 13 sites, documents their local adaptations and successes, and provides insight into how motivated institutions can create change to improve quality of care for older persons.
描述医院老年生活项目(HELP)在各推广地点的实施情况,详述其适应性调整,并总结各地点的优势。
横断面调查。
急症医院中的HELP项目地点。
13个地点,共纳入11344名患者。
75个封闭式和开放式问题,用于描述HELP项目地点的细节、程序、人员配备、追踪的结果以及优势。
截至2005年7月1日,HELP已在13个地点全面实施,实施时间中位数为24个月(范围6.0 - 38.0个月)。尽管对原始模式保持了高度的忠实度,但在人员配备模式、结果追踪以及推荐的HELP程序方面仍存在差异。在多个领域进行了适应性调整,包括15.4%的地点调整了纳入标准,61.5%的地点调整了筛查和评估工具,15.4%至30.8%的地点调整了个体干预方案。当地情况推动了这些调整,最常见的原因是人员配备不足和后勤限制。所有地点都定期召开HELP工作人员会议;其他推荐的质量保证程序在46.2%至92.3%的地点实施。报告的HELP优势包括:100%的地点提供了教育资源,100%的地点改善了医院相关结果(如谵妄和功能衰退),100%的地点提供了护理教育并提高了护士留存率,92.3%的地点提高了患者和家属对护理的满意度,92.3%的地点提高了老年医学的知名度,84.6%的地点改善了护理质量。
本报告描述了HELP在13个地点的实际实施情况,记录了其在当地的适应性调整和成功经验,并深入探讨了积极主动的机构如何通过变革来提高老年人的护理质量。