Incontinence and constipation among nursing home residents – a measure of quality of care?

Tevik K1, Helvik A1, Stensvik G1, Nordberg M1, Nakrem S1

Research Type

Clinical

Abstract Category

Quality of Life / Patient and Caregiver Experiences

Video coming soon!

Watch this session

Abstract 292
Outcomes, Associations and Quality of Life
Scientific Podium Short Oral Session 35
Friday 29th September 2023
14:37 - 14:45
Room 101
Constipation Incontinence Infection, Urinary Tract Quality of Life (QoL) Nursing
1. Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
Presenter
K

Kjerstin Tevik

Links

Abstract

Hypothesis / aims of study
The prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence, constipation, and toilet difficulties are high among nursing home (NH) residents (1, 2). One way to monitor and evaluate the quality of incontinence and constipation care, is to use nursing sensitive quality indicators (QIs), in other words, measure of changes in health status upon which nursing care may have direct influence. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus list of nursing sensitive QIs for NHs using a modified Delphi method. Our hypothesis was that urinary and fecal incontinence, constipation, established toilet routines, use of urinary catheters, and Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) would be included in this consensus list.
Study design, materials and methods
A non-in-person, two round modified Delphi study was conducted. A project group worked out a list of 20 nursing sensitive QIs. Nineteen were selected from Minimum Dataset (MDS) and one from a national quality assessment system. Among the selected QIs were urinary and fecal incontinence, constipation, established toilet routines, urinary catheters, and UTI. Scientific experts (researchers), clinical experts (healthcare professionals in NHs), and experts of experience (next of kin to NH residents), rated the QIs in two rounds on a Likert scale from 1 (not important at all to evaluate the quality of care) to 7 (very important to evaluate the quality of care). A QI reached consensus after the second Delphi round if median score among all experts was 6 or 7, quartile deviation was ≤ 5, and ≥ 75% of the rating of a QI was within two adjoining values (6 or 7) (3). An optional ‘comment’ section was available for each QI.
Results
In total, 44 experts (13 researchers, 17 healthcare professionals, 14 next of kin) in the first round, and 28 of the same experts (8 researchers, 10 healthcare professionals, 10 next of kin) in the second round, rated the QIs. After the second Delphi round, urinary and fecal incontinence, established toilet routines, and urinary catheters did not reach consensus as important QIs. On the contrary, for the QIs constipation and UTI, there were consensus among all experts, and these QIs were therefore included in the list of important measures of quality of care in NHs (see Table 1).

In total, 13 experts (four researchers, four healthcare professionals, and five next of kin) had added comments to the QIs. The experts underlined that establishing good toilet routines were important for the NH residents, and poor follow up from the healthcare professionals could lead to incontinence, constipation, and UTI, indicating low quality of care. Further, it was emphasized that when evaluating quality of care, it was important to ascertain a distinction between the development of incontinence due to lack of follow-up from healthcare professionals and the development of incontinence due to disease.
Interpretation of results
Our finding that urinary and fecal incontinence did not reach consensus as an important nursing sensitive QI, was somewhat unexpected as nursing interventions may prevent or ameliorate incontinence. One reason that incontinence did not reach consensus may be due to that the participants in our study considered incontinence to be a part of normal ageing and disease in old age, and that nursing interventions would have no preventive effect on the prevalence. Similarly, urinary catheters might be judged as necessary due to symptoms of urinary retention. In other cases, indwelling catheters are not used regularly in NHs.
Concluding message
In this modified Delphi study, urinary and fecal incontinence did not reach consensus as an important nursing sensitive QI in NHs, nor did the QIs toilet routines and urinary catheters. Constipation and UTI were evaluated as important nursing sensitive QIs and should be included as quality measures in NHs.
Figure 1 Table 1: Consensus results from the first and second Delphi round
References
  1. Saga S, Vinsnes AG, Mørkved S, Norton C, Seim A. What characteristics predispose to continence in nursing home residents?: a population-based cross-sectional study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(4):362-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22563
  2. Grimsland F, Seim A, Borza T, Helvik AS. Toileting difficulties in older people with and without dementia receiving formal in-home care-A longitudinal study. Nurs Open. 2019;6(3):1055-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.289
  3. Røsvik J, Michelet M, Engedal K, Bergh S, Bieber A, Gonçalves-Pereira M, et al. Development of best practice recommendations to enhance access to and use of formal community care services for people with dementia in Europe: a Delphi process conducted by the Actifcare project. Aging Ment Health. 2020:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1822286
Disclosures
Funding This project was funded by the Norwegian Nurses Association and from The Liaison Committee for Education, Research, and Innovation in Central Norway. The funders had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript. Clinical Trial No Subjects Human Ethics not Req'd The Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) approved the study (21.09.2021) (reference number 792855). The project group found that approval from the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics was not necessary according to the Norwegian Health Research Act since no health data or other sensitive data was to be collected. An informed consent was obtained from all participants. Helsinki Yes Informed Consent Yes
Citation

Continence 7S1 (2023) 101009
DOI: 10.1016/j.cont.2023.101009

15/06/2024 20:58:16