The proportion of the elderly population and the number of individuals who experience limitations in performing basic daily activities independently have increased in Türkiye. The need for long-term care (‎LTC)‎ services has dramatically increased based on these driving forces. In addition, the need for LTC services, which were traditionally associated with housewives and non-working women in Türkiye, has also increased because women have become more involved in work outside the home. Many individuals who need assistance to maintain their functional ability cannot receive critical quality care without a significant burden on their families or finances in Türkiye. This requires multi-stakeholder health policy interventions for a solution to the need for LTC services. The Türkiye Institute for Health Policies, the Ministry of Health of Türkiye and the WHO Country Office in Türkiye came together to develop this evidence brief for policy, to be published under the aegis of the WHO European Evidence-informed Policy Network and provide evidence-informed options for policy-makers to tackle LTC-related problems in Türkiye. The work was carried out within the framework of the collaboration between the Türkiye Institute for Health Policies and WHO; it involved the Ministry of Health of Türkiye, high-level national policy institutions and national experts, and was supported by technical experts from the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The Türkiye Institute for Health Policies convened a working group comprising representatives from the Ministry of Health. The group identified, selected, appraised, and synthesized relevant research evidence on the problem; devised three options for tackling it; and weighed considerations in implementing each option.

Objectives: We aimed to map integrated care models for acute health care in rural long-term care facilities (LTCFs) for future investigation. Design: Systematic scoping review. Setting and Participants: Residential LTCFs in rural areas worldwide. Methods: The common health-related online databases were systematically searched complemented by a manual search of gray literature. Following the 5-stage framework of Arksey and O'Malley, the extent of included literature was identified and findings were summarized using qualitative meta-summary. Results: A total of 35 references were included for synthesis, predominantly primary research on completed and ongoing projects reporting on integrated health care services in rural LTCFs. Incorporating previous research, we extracted 5 approaches of integrated acute-health care models: (1) Availability of Specialists, (2) Networks, (3) Quality Management (QM) and Organization, (4) Telemedicine, and (5) Telehealth. Conclusions and Implications: This research presents the result of a literature review examining integrated care models as a way to improve acute health care in LTCFs in rural areas. Integrated care models in rural settings can help face the challenging situation and fulfil the complex health care needs of LTCF residents by reducing fragmentation and thereby improve continuity and coordination of acute health care services. These results can guide policy making in creating interventions and support adequate implementation of care models by knowledge translation in health care. (c) 2023 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

The ageing of the population has resulted in an increase in the demand for long-term care services for older people, but with limited resources, its challenges have also been highlighted. Although factors affecting the willingness of older people to engage with long-term care services have been widely reported, however, systematic review has not synthesised the evidence, and its associated factors remain unclear. This systematic review aims to study and synthesise the best available evidence on the potential factors related to the willingness of older people to engage with long-term care services. Eight electronic databases were comprehensively searched from inception to January 2021: the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang Database, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), Weipu Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). The original literatures were screened according to selection criteria. Two researchers used 11-item checklist recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to evaluate the quality of the included literatures. And the review used narrative synthesis to integrate factors related to the willingness of older people to engage with long-term care services. In total, 7794 studies were screened and 35 studies were included in this review. Among them, 23 studies were rated as moderate quality and 12 was high quality. Data synthesis identified that age, education, number of children, living arrangements, the relationship with children, primary caregivers, place of residence, social support, household income, medical insurance, activities of daily living ability and spiritual comfort should all be taken into account when establishing the appropriate long-term care service model or formulating relevant policies. However, many factors remain undetermined and require more rigorous original literature support. And multiple areas can be also considered in the future studies, especially psychological factors.

Objectives: The purpose of this scoping review was two-fold: 1) to identify effective intervention studies addressing chronic disease for seniors living in nursing homes (e.x. chronic heart failure, diabetes, dementia, etc.), and 2) to describe how consistently the studies' reported their stages of the Knowledge-to-Action framework (2006).Methods: This scoping review involved a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus of intervention studies, published in English and French between 1997 and 2018, that focused on the development, implementation and/or evaluation of a chronic disease management guideline or best practice for older adults 65+ residing within a nursing home (NH). Authors abstracted information specific to the seven stages of the Knowledge-to-Action framework (identifying problem, tailoring to local context, barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery, implementation, monitoring, outcome criteria, and sustainability).Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Procedures for monitoring knowledge use and outcome evaluation were thoroughly described. Other stages of the Knowledge-to-Action framework were not consistently reported, including problem identification related to older adults' needs and within the context of NHs, intervention implementation, evaluation, and sustainability. Of the six studies included, only two met all the pre-defined evaluation outcomes.Conclusions: Given the need for chronic disease management in NHs, researchers are encouraged to report on intervention studies using the Knowledge-to-Action framework to optimize the likelihood that interventions will be suitable for the context of their delivery and introduce sustainable change.Clinical implications: To answer what interventions should be introduced to residents in long-term care, research must clearly demonstrate efficacy, provide enough detail for methods to be reproducible in applied contexts, and consider strategies for sustainability and the holistic needs of residents.

Background: The long-term care setting poses unique challenges and opportunities for effective knowledge translation. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care, as defined as a home where residents require 24-h nursing care, and 50% of the population is over the age of 65 years; and (2) map barriers and facilitators to the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to inform theory-guided knowledge translation strategies. Methods: Following the guidance of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the ENTREQ reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the reported experiences of long-term care staff on implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice. MEDLINE Pubmed, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest date available until May 2021. Two independent reviewers selected primary studies for inclusion if they were conducted in long-term care and reported the perspective or experiences of long-term care staff with implementing an evidence-based practice guideline about health conditions. Appraisal of the included studies was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist and confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual approach. Findings: After screening 2680 abstracts, we retrieved 115 full-text articles; 33 of these articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included time constraints and inadequate staffing, cost and lack of resources, and lack of teamwork and organizational support. Facilitators included leadership and champions, well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources, and adequate services, resources, and time. The most frequent Behaviour Change Wheel components were physical and social opportunity and psychological capability. We concluded moderate or high confidence in all but one of our review findings. Conclusions: Future knowledge translation strategies to implement guidelines in long-term care should target physical and social opportunity and psychological capability, and include interventions such as environmental restructuring, training, and education.

Background Care transitions of older persons between multiple care settings are frequently hampered by various issues such as discontinuous care delivery or poor information transfer among healthcare providers. Therefore, several innovations have been developed to optimize transitional care (TC). This review aims to identify which factors influence the implementation of TC innovations. Methods As part of TRANS-SENIOR, an international innovative training and research network focusing on enhancing or avoiding care transitions, a scoping review was conducted. The five stages of the Arksey and O'Malley framework were followed. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched, and eligible studies published between years 2000 and 2020 were retrieved. Data were extracted from the included studies and mapped to the domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Care Transitions Framework (CTF). Results Of 1537 studies identified, 21 were included. Twenty different TC innovations were covered and aimed at improving or preventing transitions between multiple care settings, the majority focused on transitions from hospital to home. Key components of the innovations encompassed transition nurses, teach-back methods, follow-up home visits, partnerships with community services, and transfer units. Twenty-five prominent implementation factors (seven barriers, seven facilitators, and eleven factors with equivalent hindering/facilitating influence) were shown to affect the implementation of TC innovations. Low organizational readiness for implementation and the overall implementation climate were topmost hindering factors. Similarly, failing to target the right population group was commonly reported as a major barrier. Moreover, the presence of skilled users but with restricted knowledge and mixed attitudes about the innovation impeded its implementation. Among the eminent enabling factors, a high-perceived advantage of the innovation by staff, along with encouraging transition roles, and a continuous monitoring process facilitated the implementation of several innovations. Other important factors were a high degree of organizational networks, engaging activities, and culture; these factors had an almost equivalent hindering/facilitating influence. Conclusions Addressing the right target population and instituting transition roles in care settings appear to be specific factors to consider during the implementation of TC innovations. Long-term care settings should simultaneously emphasize their organizational readiness for implementation and change, in order to improve transitional care through innovations.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extreme vulnerability of older people and other individuals who reside in long-term care, creating an urgent need for evidence-based policy that can adequately protect these community members. This study aimed to provide synthesized evidence to support policy decision making. Design: Rapid narrative review investigating strategies that have prevented or mitigated SARS-CoV-2 transmission in long-term care. Setting and participants: Residents and staff in care settings such as nursing homes and long-term care facilities. Methods: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched, with studies describing potentially effective strategies included. Studies were excluded if they did not report empirical evidence (eg, commentaries and consensus guidelines). Study quality was appraised on the basis of study design; data were extracted from published reports and synthesized narratively using tabulated data extracts and summary tables. Results: Searches yielded 713 articles; 80 papers describing 77 studies were included. Most studies were observational, with no randomized controlled trials identified. Intervention studies provided strong support for widespread surveillance, early identification and response, and rigorous infection prevention and control measures. Symptom- or temperature-based screening and single point-prevalence testing were found to be ineffective, and serial universal testing of residents and staff was considered crucial. Attention to ventilation and environmental management, digital health applications, and acute sector support were also considered beneficial although evidence for effectiveness was lacking. In observational studies, staff represented substantial transmission risk and workforce management strategies were important components of pandemic response. Higher-performing facilities with less crowding and higher nurse staffing ratios had reduced transmission rates. Outbreak investigations suggested that facility-level leadership, intersectoral collaboration, and policy that facilitated access to critical resources were all significant enablers of success. Conclusions and implications: High-quality evidence of effectiveness in protecting LTCFs from COVID-19 was limited at the time of this study, though it continues to emerge. Despite widespread COVID-19 vaccination programs in many countries, continuing prevention and mitigation measures may be required to protect vulnerable long-term care residents from COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. This rapid review summarizes current evidence regarding strategies that may be effective.

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of literature examining the establishment and operation of clinical ethical committees (CECs) in long-term care (LTC). Design: Systematic review. Setting and participants: LTC recipients/family or staff. Methods: Five databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid Cochrane Library, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid EMBASE, and CINAHL via EbscoHost) were systematically searched from their inception to May 8, 2020. The initial search was conducted on August 22, 2017, and updated on May 8, 2020, to identify peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, or editorials. The quality of studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: Thirty-three articles were identified for inclusion, of which 13 were primary studies. Most articles were set in the United States. The purpose of establishing a CEC in LTC was typically to assist in dealing with ethical issues and improve the quality of care. The articles described the roles of CECs to include prospective case consultation, case review, policy development, and ethics education. Articles rarely reported whether the CEC was required by or enshrined in law. Membership of CECs was between 4 and 20 members and most commonly included nursing staff, physicians, and directors/administrators. The rationale behind the membership was rarely described. For case consultation, articles described that CECs were typically convened upon referral. The resident issues which a CEC could address included end-of-life care decisions, autonomy/self-determination, and medical treatment decisions. The staff issues addressed by CECs included medical treatment decisions, end-of-life care decisions, and decision-making issues. The decision-making process followed by CECs varied. The outcome of a CEC meeting was typically a recommendation, whereas the implementation of CEC recommendations and decisions were rarely reported. Conclusions and implications: This systematic review identifies how CECs operate in the LTC setting. CECs have the potential to provide valuable support in addressing complex ethical issues in LTC; however, empirical research is required to determine their efficacy in the LTC setting.