4.5 Review

Small, homelilke care environments for older people with dementia: a literature review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 252-264

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S104161020800820X

关键词

small-scale housing; group living; nursing home facilities; deinstitutionalization; long-term care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is large cross-national variation in the characteristics of small, domestic-style care settings which emphasize normalized living. However, a systematic overview of existing types is lacking. This study provides an international comparison of the care concepts which have adopted a homelike philosophy in It small-scale context. Insight into their characteristics is vital for theory, planning and implementation of such dementia care settings. Method: A literature search was performed using various electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO. In addition, gray literature was identified on the internet. Concepts were analyzed according to five main characteristics: physical setting, number of residents, residents' characteristics, domestic characteristics and care concept. Results: 75 papers were included covering 11 different concept types in various countries. Similarities among concepts reflected a focus on meaningful activities centered around the daily household. Staff have integrated tasks and arc part of the household, and archetypical home-style features, such as kitchens, are incorporated, p in the buildings. Differences among concepts were found mainly in the physical settings, numbers of residents and residents' characteristics. Some concepts have become regular dementia care settings,, while others are smaller initiatives. Conclusion: The care concepts are implemented in various ways with a changing staff role. However, many aspects of these small, homelike facilities remain unclear. Future research is needed, focusing on residents characteristics, family, staff and costs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据