Cited by 47Geriatric Care and Nursing HomesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Dimensions of Care for Dementia Sufferers in Long-Term Care Institutions: Are They Related to Outcomes?

Chappell, N. L., Reid, R. C.·2000·The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study empirically examined whether dimensions of care cluster in special care units (SCUs) compared with non-SCUs. The relationship between SCU status plus separate measures of the dimensions of care and outcomes for dementia sufferers was then investigated. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Intermediate Care Facility Project. The sample (N = 510) included residents with dementia, aged 65 and older, in intermediate care facilities throughout the province of British Columbia. Canada. Longitudinal data included 6 outcomes: cognitive function, behavioral problems of agitation and social skills, physical functioning, and quality of life measured through affect and expressive language skills. Separate multiple linear regression equations were estimated, relating each of these outcomes to 5 dimensions of care: preadmission and admission procedures. staff training and education, nonuse of physical and chemical restraints, flexible care routines and resident-relevant activities, and the environment. RESULTS: The results showed there is virtually no clustering of dimensions along SCU/non-SCU lines. Neither SCU status nor the individual dimensions were highly predictive of outcomes. Residents' affect at t1 emerged as a characteristic that was significantly correlated with other outcomes. DISCUSSION: This Canadian research can be added to the few but growing number of rigorous studies that suggest SCUs are not homogeneous and do not necessarily provide better care than non-SCUs. Moreover, it raises questions about the benefits of "best practice" dimensions of care, regardless of SCU status.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geronb/55.4.s234

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chappell, N. L., & Reid, R. C.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
Chappell, N. L.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
Published
2000-07-01
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
S234-S244
ISSN
  • 1079-5014 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5368
OpenAlex
W2165176985
Cited by
47
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series B (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
dementia care, long-term care facilities, special care units, dimensions of care, quality of care, cognitive function, behavioral problems, agitation, physical function, quality of life, affect, employee training, care routines, residential environment, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, British Columbia, Female, Humans, Intermediate Care Facilities, Long-Term Care, Male, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Care Team, Quality of Health Care, Social Environment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review