Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:13:52.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Geriatric Day Hospital: Who Improves the Most?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Johanne Desrosiers ,
Réjean Hébert ,
Hélène Payette ,
Pierre-Michel Roy ,
Michel Tousignant ,
Sylvie Côté  and
Lise Trottier
Johanne Desrosiers*
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Aging, Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke
Réjean Hébert
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Aging, Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke
Hélène Payette
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Aging, Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke
Pierre-Michel Roy
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute
Michel Tousignant
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Aging, Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke
Sylvie Côté
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Aging, Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute
Lise Trottier
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Aging, Sherbrooke Geriatric University Institute
*
Requests for offprints should be sent to: / Les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à : Dr. Johanne Desrosiers, Research Centre on Aging, 1036 Belvédère sud, Sherbrooke (Québec), J1H 4C4. ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study compared the changes in some bio-psychosocial variables (functional independence, nutritional risk, pain, balance and walking, grip strength, general well-being, psychiatric profile, perception of social support, leisure satisfaction, and caregivers' feeling of burden) in four categories of clients during their program at a geriatric day hospital (GDH). The study also evaluated whether or not improvements, if any, were maintained 3 months after discharge. One-hundred-and-fifty-one people, categorized by primary reason for admission, were assessed at the GDH with reliable and valid tools, at admission and at discharge. Three months after discharge, they were reassessed with the same tools. Overall, two categories of clients, stroke / neurological diseases and musculoskeletal disorders / amputations, improved the most. For the gait disorders and falls group, only the functional independence score improved, but not at a clinically significant level. Finally, clients in the cognitive function disorders / psychopathologies group improved the most on their well-being scores and caregivers' burden decreased the most. All gains were maintained up to 3 months after discharge, except for leisure satisfaction. With the exception of clients who attended the GDH because of gait disorders and falls, the improvements and maintenance achieved in each category occurred in the domains where improvement had been hoped for, because of the particular disabilities in question and because of the nature of the GDH services offered.

Résumé

Cette étude visait à comparer les changements de variables bio-psychosociales (indépendance fonctionnelle, risque nutritionnel, douleur, équilibre et marche, force de préhension, bien-être général, profil psychiatrique, perception du support social, satisfaction dans les loisirs et sentiment de fardeau des proches-aidants) de quatre catégories de clients durant leur séjour dans un hôpital de jour gériatrique (HJG). L'étude a aussi évalué si les changements obtenus durant le séjour étaient maintenus et ce, sur une période de 3 mois après le congé. Cent cinquante et une personnes, regroupées par catégorie de motifs principaux d'admission, ont été évaluées à l'admission et au congé de l'HJG avec des instruments de mesure fidèles et valides. Trois mois suivant le congé, ils ont été évalués de nouveau (n = 126) avec les mêmes instruments. De façon générale, deux catégories de personnes, « AVC / Maladies neurologiques» et «Troubles musculosquelettiques / Amputations» se sont le plus améliorées. Chez les personnes présentant des «Troubles de la démarche et chutes», seul le score total de l'échelle de l'autonomie fonctionnelle s'est statistiquement amélioré. Finalement, les personnes regroupées sous la catégorie «Troubles des fonctions cognitives / Psychopathologies» sont celles qui ont amélioré le plus leurs scores de bien-être général; de plus, on a observé une diminution du sentiment de fardeau chez leurs proches-aidants. Tous les gains observés se sont maintenus jusqu'à 3 mois suivant le congé, à l'exception de la satisfaction face aux loisirs qui a diminué. En excluant les clients qui ont fréquenté l'HJG pour des troubles de démarche et de chutes, les améliorations et les maintiens obtenus dans chaque catégorie de motifs d'admission ont été observés dans les domaines pour lesquels une amélioration était espérée, en raison des incapacités particulières et des services offerts dans le programme.

Keywords

aginggeriatric day hospitalrehabilitationfunctional independencewell-beingvieillissementhôpital gériatrique de jourréadaptationautonomie fonctionnellebien-être
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , Fall/Automne 2004 , pp. 217 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Geriatrics Society, British Geriatrics Society and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Panel on Falls Prevention. (2001). Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. JAGS, 49, 664–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barolin, G.S. (1996). Geriatric rehabilitation (“alters-rehabilitation”): The new challenge for social medicine and science. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 19, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bravo, G., Gaulin, P., & Dubois, M.F. (1996). Validation d'une échelle de bien-ětre général auprès d'une population francophone âgée de 50 à 75 ans. Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 15, 112–128.Google Scholar
Carbonneau, H., & Ouellet, G. (1998). Manuel pour l'administration, la compilation et l'interprétation du questionnaire: profil individuel en loisir. Sherbrooke, QC: Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
Caron, J. (1996). L'échelle de provisions sociales: une validation québécoise. Santé mentale au Québec, 21, 158–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutrona, C.E. (1986). Objective determinants of perceived social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derogatis, L.R. (1977). SCL-90-R (revised) version administration, scoring and procedures, manual 1. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
Derogatis, L.R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The brief symptom inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desrosiers, J., Bravo, G., Hébert, R., & Dutil, E. (1995). Normative data for grip strength of elderly men and women. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 637–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desrosiers, J., Noreau, L., Rochette, A., Bravo, G., & Boutin, C. (2002). Predictors of handicap situations following post-stroke rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(15), 774–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desrosiers, J., Hébert, R., Bravo, G., & Rochette, A. (1998). Comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal designs in the study of aging of upper extremity performance. Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, 53A(5), B362–B368.Google Scholar
Dijkers, M. (1997). Measuring quality of life. In Fuhrer, M.J. (Ed.), Assessing medical rehabilitation practices: The promise of outcome research (pp. 153–179). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Drummond, A. (1990). Leisure activity after stroke. International Disability Studies, 12, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, A., & Walker, M.F. (1995). A randomised controlled trial of leisure rehabilitation after stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 9, 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon Tremblay, S. (1992). Day hospital evaluation: A Quebec study. Unpublished Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC.Google Scholar
Duncan, P.W. (1994). Stroke disability. Physical Therapy, 74, 399–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupuy, H.J. (1978, October). Self-representations of general psychological well-being of American adults. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Public Health Association, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Eagle, D.J., Guyatt, G.H., Patterson, C., & Turpie, I. (1987). Day hospitals' cost and effectiveness: A summary. Gerontologist, 27, 735–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagle, D.J., Guyatt, G.H., Patterson, C., Turpie, I., Sackett, B., & Singer, J. (1991). Effectiveness of a geriatric day hospital. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 144, 699–704.Google ScholarPubMed
Elford, R.W. (1994). Prevention of household and recreational injuries in the elderly. In Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care (pp. 912–920). Ottawa: Health Canada, 1994.Google Scholar
Foster, A., Young, J., & Langhorne, P. (1999). Systematic review of day hospital care for elderly people. British Medical Journal, 318, 837–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébert, R., Bravo, G., & Girouard, D. (1993). Fidélité de la traduction française de trois instruments d'évaluation des aidants naturels de malades déments. Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 12, 324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébert, R., Carrier, R., & Bilodeau, A. (1988). Le Système de mesure de l'autonomie fonctionnelle (SMAF). Revue de gériatrie, 13, 161–167.Google Scholar
Hébert, R., Robichaud, L., Roy, P.M., Bravo, G., & Voyer, L. (2001). Efficacy of a nurse-led multidimensional preventive programme for older people at risk of functional decline: A randomized controlled trial. Age and Ageing, 30, 147–153.Google ScholarPubMed
Holbrook, M., & Silkbeck, C. (1983). An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing, 12, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, D.L., Turpie, I.D., MacLeod, J.C., & Cowan, D.D. (2000). A prospective evaluation of a geriatric day hospital. Annals RCPSC, 33, 348–352.Google Scholar
Malone, M., Hill, A., & Smith, G. (2002). Three-month follow up of patients discharged from a geriatric day hospital. Age Ageing, 31, 471–475.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, B.J., Devine, B.J., Santamaria, J., Lewis, S., & Burns, J. (1993). A busy urban geriatric day hospital: Analysis of one year's activity. Health Bulletin (Edinburgh), 51, 20–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Mathiowetz, V., Weber, K., Volland, G., & Kashman, N. (1984). Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surgery [Am], 9A, 222–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, N.E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Ahmed, S., Gordon, C., Higgins, J., McEwen, S., & Salbach, N. (1999). Disablement following stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 258–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCue, J., & Newman, D. (1990). Postoperative muscle strength. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 72, 291–295.Google ScholarPubMed
McNaughton-Cassill, M.E., Bostwick, J.M., Arthur, N.J., Robinson, R.D., & Neal, G.S. (2002). Efficacy of brief couples support groups developed to manage the stress of in vitro fertilization treatment. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 1060–1066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montplaisir, M.L., & Dudgeon Tremblay, S. (1986). L'évaluation multidimensionnelle de l'hôpital de jour. Montréal: Centre hospitalier Côte-des-Neiges.Google Scholar
Payette, H., Guigoz, Y., & Vellas, B.J. (1999). Study design for nutritional assessments in the elderly. In Yu, B.P. (Ed.), Methods in aging research (pp. 301–320). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.Google Scholar
Philp, I., & Ghosh, U. (1992). Community care services: Views of patients attending a geriatric day hospital. Health Bulletin (Edinburgh), 50, 296–301.Google ScholarPubMed
Pitkälä, K. (1998). The effectiveness of day hospital care on home care patients. JAGS, 46, 1086–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhind, V.M., Bird, H.A., & Wright, V.A. (1980). A comparison of clinical assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid disease. Annals of Rheumatoid Diseases, 139, 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, D.W., & Cutrona, C.E. (1991). Social support, stress and depressive symptoms among the elderly: Test of a process model. Psychology and Aging, 6, 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teng, E.L., & Chui, H.C. (1987). The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 48, 314–318.Google ScholarPubMed
Tinetti, M.E. (1986). Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 34, 119–126.Google ScholarPubMed
Tucker, M.A., Davison, J.G., & Ogle, S.J. (1984). Day hospital rehabilitation—Effectiveness and cost in the elderly: A randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 289, 1209–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarit, S.H., Orr, N.K., & Zarit, J.M. (1985). The hidden victims of Alzheimer's disease. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Zarit, S.H., Reever, K.E., & Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: Correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist, 20, 649–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed