Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology · 2021
Exploring Memory Care Clinics in Minnesota: A Qualitative Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Birkeland Robyn W, McCarron Hayley R, Nkimberg Manka, Gaugler Joseph E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We explored memory clinic care provision in Minnesota, examining diversity and similarities of services provided and challenges faced. We also considered how well their services and care philosophies aligned with national dementia care practice recommendations.
METHODS: We created a 53-question interview guide and interviewed 11 memory clinics across Minnesota in late 2019. Interview transcripts were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analyses in NVivo 12.
RESULTS: We identified 6 themes regarding financial issues, staffing, appointment logistics, care provision during and after the memory evaluation as well as features of an ideal clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: Memory evaluation and care provision were very different across clinics, primarily due to team make-up, particularly team size and specialty. However, memory care providers shared a passion for providing patient-centered memory care, emphasizing family and patient education and partnership. Their care was largely aligned with national memory care recommendations. Common challenges, including maintaining financial stability and clinic efficiency, exerted significant influence on clinic functioning and survival.
METHODS: We created a 53-question interview guide and interviewed 11 memory clinics across Minnesota in late 2019. Interview transcripts were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analyses in NVivo 12.
RESULTS: We identified 6 themes regarding financial issues, staffing, appointment logistics, care provision during and after the memory evaluation as well as features of an ideal clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: Memory evaluation and care provision were very different across clinics, primarily due to team make-up, particularly team size and specialty. However, memory care providers shared a passion for providing patient-centered memory care, emphasizing family and patient education and partnership. Their care was largely aligned with national memory care recommendations. Common challenges, including maintaining financial stability and clinic efficiency, exerted significant influence on clinic functioning and survival.