4.1 Article

Dementia disorders, behavior problems and the care of clients in geriatric day-care compared to residents in homes for the elderly:: A cross-sectional study in eight communities in Baden

Journal

PSYCHIATRISCHE PRAXIS
Volume 31, Issue 7, Pages 339-345

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-828384

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: The study aims to compare clients using institutions of geriatric day-care to residents in homes for the elderly with regard to functional impairment, dementia disorders, behavior problems and the care situation. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 17 geriatric day-care facilities in eight towns and cities in Baden examined the data for all 257 clients who received care on a given reference date. These clients were compared to a reference population drawn from all residents (N = 1,387) of 15 randomly selected residential and nursing homes in the city of Mannheim, whereby identical assessment procedures were used by qualified nursing staff. Results: The average age of subjects in both groups was around 80 years, over three-fourths of whom were women. Home residents were more limited than the clients of geriatric day-care facilities with regard to their activities of daily living, above all with regard to their mobility. The percentage of moderate to severe dementia disorders at 58.6% was equally high in both groups. In addition, symptoms of depression and behavior problems were observed among a substantial number of the day-care clients. While the inpatient sector places greater emphasis on basic care and treatment, day-care institutions focus primarily on measures of social therapy. Conclusions: The high percentage of demented yet still mobile clients in day-care facilities indicates the particular importance of this target group when it comes to providing at least partial stress relief for family care-givers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available