WHAT IS A 'GOOD DAY OUT?' ON-SITE OBSERVATIONS IN DAY RESPITE CENTERS FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA. (11th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fielding, E; MacAndrew, M; Wyles, K; Stirling, C; O'Reilly, M; Bolsewicz, K; Fleming, R; Beattie, E
• Is Part Of: Innovation in aging. Volume 2(2018)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 142
• Page End: 142
• Publication Date: 2018-11-11
• Subjects: Aging -- Periodicals; Gerontology -- Periodicals; 612.67
• DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igy023.515
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2399-5300

Abstract

Abstract: Attendance at day respite centers (DRCs) provides stimulation and socialization for people with dementia and respite time for family carers. Yet little is known about the quality of the dementia-specific care provided in DRCs. We conducted two-day on-site observational studies of seven Australian DRCs in 2017. Methods included: (A) assessing dementia-friendliness of the setting via the Environmental Audit Tool (EAT); (B) live documenting of activities via a highly structured, manualized protocol; and (C) qualitative field notes organized by topic, e.g. activities, engagement, communication. EAT results were moderately high, with means of 79% (SD 15%) for entry, 85% (SD 12%) for main and 80% (SD 14%) for exit area. One center was an outlier: entry score 53%, main 65% and exit 53 percent. Unexpectedly, given the strict protocol and consistent observer training, method B yielded little variation across time periods or centers, with recorded activities being mainly group-based (77%) with most clients (94%) and staff (98%) actively engaged. Method C (field notes) yielded the most interesting and variable information. Décor and furniture was deemed to be generally age-appropriate and comfortable; however, one center reminded the observer "more of a space for children than a space for adults." In one center, some clients were "left to themselves if appropriate, " whereas in another, doors were closed, discouraging the use of rooms other than the main activity room. Most communication between staff and clients was respectful and age-appropriate; occasional interactions were regarded as infantilizing. Observational methods A and C provided the richest data.