Dementia Caregiver Virtual Support—An Implementation Evaluation of Two Pragmatic Models during COVID-19
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Context
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Methods
2.2. Quantitative Data
2.3. Qualitative Data
3. Results
3.1. Caregivers First
3.2. Facilitator Themes
3.3. Participant Feedback
3.4. Alzheimer’s Tennessee
3.5. Facilitator Feedback
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Greenberg, N.E.; Wallick, A.; Brown, L.M. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on community-dwelling caregivers and persons with dementia. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2020, 12, S220–S221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, H.J.; McCarthy, M.J.; E Garcia, Y.; Bacon, R.; Dunn, D.J.; A Baldwin, J. Addressing the needs of rural caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias during and beyond coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Public Policy Aging Rep. 2020, 30, 178–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center. About the Middle Tennessee Geriatrics Work-force Enhancement Program (GWEP). Vanderbilt Center on Aging. 2021. Available online: https://www.vumc.org/mtgwep/middle-tennessee-geriatric-workforce-enhancement-program-gwep (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- Cary, J.M.P.; Smith, V.A.; Shepherd-Banigan, M.; Lindquist, J.H.; Chapman, J.G.; Hastings, S.N.; Van Houtven, C.H. Moderators of treatment outcomes from family caregiver skills training: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. OBM Geriatr. 2019, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ogrinc, G.; Mooney, S.E.; Estrada, C.; Foster, T.; Goldmann, D.; Hall, L.W.; Huizinga, M.M.; Liu, S.K.; Mills, P.; Neily, J.; et al. The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: Explanation and elaboration. Qual. Saf. Health Care 2008, 17 (Suppl. 1), i13–i32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hempel, S.; Shekelle, P.G.; Liu, J.; Danz, M.S.; Foy, R.; Lim, Y.-W.; Motala, A.; Rubenstein, L.V. Development of the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS): A tool for critical appraisal of quality improvement intervention publications. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2015, 24, 796–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bédard, M.; Molloy, D.W.; Squire, L.; Dubois, S.; Lever, J.A.; O’Donnell, M. The zarit burden interview: A new short version and screening version. Gerontologist 2001, 41, 652–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Arroll, B.; Goodyear-Smith, F.; Crengle, S.; Gunn, J.; Kerse, N.; Fishman, T.; Falloon, K.; Hatcher, S. Validation of PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 to screen for major depression in the primary care population. Ann. Fam. Med. 2010, 8, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Damschroder, L.J.; Aron, D.C.; E Keith, R.; Kirsh, S.R.; A Alexander, J.; Lowery, J.C. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement. Sci. 2009, 4, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Moore, R.C.; Hancock, J.T. Older adults, social technology, and the coronavirus pandemic. Challenges, strengths and strategies for support. Soc. Media Soc. 2021, 12, 461–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reckrey, J.M.; Gazarian, P.; Reuben, D.B.; Latham, N.K.; McMahon, S.K.; Siu, A.L.; Ko, F.C. Barriers to implementation of STRIDE, a national study to prevent fall-related injuries. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2021, 69, 1334–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Educational Sessions | ||
Classes (participants/class) | 16 (4.0) | |
Caregiver relationship | ||
Wife | 24 (85.7%) | |
Husband | 1 (3.6%) | |
Daughter | 2 (7.1%) | |
Non-family relationship | 1 (3.6%) | |
Sex | ||
Female | 27 (96%) | |
Male | 1 (4%) | |
Age | ||
Years | 68 | |
Delivery method | ||
In-person | 2 (7%) | |
Video | 9 (32%) | |
Telephone | 17 (61%) | |
Mileage and travel saved | ||
Total miles saved | 8640 | |
Average participant distance | 44 | |
Total hours of travel saved | 172 | |
Average per participant | 6 | |
Positive Caregiver Burden Score | ||
Difference (first to last class) | +1 | |
Positive Caregiver Depression Scores (3–6) | ||
Difference (first to last class) | No difference |
CFIR Domain | CFIR Construct | Theme | Subthemes | Quotes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Outer setting | Relative advantage | VA commitment to caregivers of veterans | Aligns with VA mission National Caregiver Support Program (CSP) Exacerbated needs of veteran caregivers | President Abraham Lincoln said years ago to care for those who basically care for the veterans—so we are honoring that commitment years ago that President Lincoln made by providing care to those veteran caregivers so they can continue that care for the veteran. |
External policies and incentive | National social distancing mandates | Social isolation | I think it was actually extra important having the Caregivers Support session during the COVID pandemic, because sometimes we would be the only people they would have communication with. | |
Inner Setting | Adaptability | Semi-structured | Relatable Effective communication tools | It’s a grab-and go curriculum and we follow that, but a lot of the times, the things in the curriculum, it will give the caregiver a chance to express themselves and so they can express and say how they relate to a particular topic –and a lot of the times, whatever we’re talking about that time, it’s exactly what the caregiver is going through. And so, they’re able to relate to those particular topics and they’re able to share with other caregivers. Then, when they start sharing with the other caregivers, they start feeling like they’re not alone |
Individuals involved | Self-efficacy | Facilitators have a wealth of caregiver support experience | Personal experience Professional experience | I do have a history of doing groups, so I do hope I have the skill especially being a social worker just being openly able talk to someone and also, you know, if you do groups, they tend to kinda flow. They tend to talk to each other and listen to each other so it just kinda flows through. |
Process | Engaging | Structured implementation | Facilitator training Facilitator handbook Participant workbooks | They provided a training for us, so we were able to go over even that training of those materials with them, if we had any questions, before we presented the training with the caregivers, so no, I think it went very smoothly. |
Executing | Technical issues Fluctuation in attendance | Communication Lack of piloting No-shows | Some people were further away and didn’t want to drive to Nashville Campus. They went to one of our CBOCs and the goal there was they go into the clinic and the clinics could connect them to [the] group virtually. On one instance, one person didn’t show up as scheduled to the clinic; another instance, they had technical challenges and wasn’t able to set up, or we weren’t able to hear them clearly. So, of course, we’re trying to call the clinic, get a representative to go to the group room to help the caregiver figure out what’s wrong with the computer. So, you know, you just have those little snags, and you ask for forgiveness and you move forward. | |
Intervention | Relative priority | Accessibility | Easy to access Barriers for those without internet access Participant distractions | Our caregivers live all over middle TN. And driving to downtown Nashville because of the distance, because of the traffic, because of the parking now they don’t have to, that barrier is alleviated when we do it virtually. Because you’re on that computer, because you don’t have that personal interaction, you may hear background noise, or the caregiver may be taking care of veteran and participate at the same time, so the caregiver is trying to multitask. |
Design quality and packaging | Empowering caregivers to identify needs | Well-structured Caregiver-centered | I—honestly I think it really went according to the, to the plan—other than having to do it by VVC—but the caregivers first started in, I think in Durham—they have a really, have this set up so well. The way we document in the records so there is a template set up. They give us a subject per session. I think the VA as well as other companies can see now that, you know, we can provide good services virtually, that we have the capability of doing that. And veterans and caregivers can still receive quality services virtually. You don’t necessarily have to be in the office or directly in-person with someone to receive good quality care. | |
Reflecting and evaluating | Need to address access barriers | Technological equipment Broadband access | You know, one thing that I do feel that the veterans and caregivers would benefit and you know if we were like able to provide them with a tablet or with a laptop or something that they would be able to use for those who do not have it —if we would be able to, to issue those, because there is that gap of the people that really would like to join, but that they’re not able to. Of course, you know, we would also run into if they have the internet capability as well. |
Domain | CFIR Construct | Theme | Subthemes | Quotes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Outer Setting | Relative advantage | Outreach to greater number of caregivers | Ease of accessibility Eliminates geographic barriers | I have to say, it’s been a wonderful service to be able to give to people. And we likely will maintain some family caregiver support groups too because when you can just take an hour out of your week and just go log onto your computer and your loved one can be with you, in a manner of speaking, in the same house or the same room, the barriers are gone, and you have a place to be heard and to receive support. |
External policies and incentives | National social distancing mandates | Exacerbated needs Lack of caregiver support | Once the restrictions of the pandemic were in place, we knew we had to continue to offer support services. Just because the pandemic stopped a lot of things, or the restrictions did, Alzheimer’s didn’t stop and the need for supports and services didn’t stop—if anything it was exacerbated. So, we made a decision about a year ago at this time to go virtual as a support group. | |
Inner Setting | Adaptability | Contact time with caregivers Addresses barriers to social support services Easy referral for additional services | Frequency Minimize time away from loved one with dementia Area Agency on Aging Local Alzheimer’s TN Chapters | Virtually, we’re doing it every week, because we felt that people needed to be connected and they need that check-in once a week and for some, that’s all they get. Also, even one challenge can be “Who is going to take care of my loved one while I attend the support groups?” Just for an example, we have one lady who attends a support group… early on, she said “Now, I’m going to be on this support group, but I probably won’t say anything, but I just love to hear what folks are saying because that does help me. The reason I won’t say anything is because my husband is right here, but at least I can hear what is going on and I can receive support in that sense too.” If anything, it just provided another platform to get the support they receive. There was a man on the [Caregiver Support Group] line, and you could tell he was very desperate caring for his mom… we fill out a sheet and its entered into a computer program and if he called [his local Alzheimer’s TN Chapter], they could immediately meet him where he was. |
Individuals involved | Self-efficacy | Facilitators have wealth of caregiver support experience Strong organizational resources | Professional experience Personal experience Community knowledge Community connection | For me personally, I have a long background in Alzheimer’s dementia care, and a background as a clinician therapist, and I facilitated many support groups in-person. Great thing about Alzheimer’s Tennessee as an umbrella organization is they have knowledge, information and connections in the community. If we don’t know it, we can find that information |
Process | Executing | Lack of initial planning of long-term virtual services Initial conference calls gradually lost participation | Rapid implementation Interactive Zoom calls Conference call difficulties | Back then, we thought “Oh, we’ll be back together in the summer.” We’re starting to think that these folks, because they have suppressed immune systems, they will be the last that will want to mingle together. We didn’t do Zoom until August, and conference call numbers dwindled to 0–2 people per call. As soon as we tried Zoom, we get at least 10 people each week. Some of our folks who call in, they may have some technical issues like with screens freezing and maybe there’s a delay in the phone calls, but that’s just technology and we can’t control it. What we’ve learned to do, is we’re very flexible, of course you have to be anyway. Since it is informal, we can laugh together, we can cry together if you want to do that too, it’s part of the norm when you’re doing this. |
Intervention | Relative priority | Would rather have in-person support group meetings Hybrid model likely in the future | Non-verbal communication barriers Technological barriers Effective support tool | While we do love and appreciate virtual support groups, I will say in-person is always better. It’s better because you can actually see someone. Like when you’re doing a virtual support group, as you probably know, you have a gallery of course and we all can see each other but we can’t touch each other and we can see some body language because you know nonverbal’s about 80% of our communication anyway. We want to really be able to support people and give them another tool to provide care and support for themselves. It’s all worthwhile so that’s why I hope we keep some of these continued past the deadline. |
Design quality and packaging | Ability to see and hear participants was beneficial | Participant-driven Non-verbal body language | There’s some structure, but it’s a loose, flexible structure… I try to be flexible because I’m aware we have caregivers along all sections of a journey, and so if we have a new person… I gave [them] longer to speak, and other people chimed in, which helped them in their journey because there’s something powerful about helping somebody else. | |
Reflecting and evaluating | Piloting the program would have been helpful | Troubleshooting Learning with caregivers | It would have been nice to play around with the virtual platform so I could best talk people through any problems they had getting on, but we were learning together. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Weems, J.A.; Rhodes, S.; Powers, J.S. Dementia Caregiver Virtual Support—An Implementation Evaluation of Two Pragmatic Models during COVID-19. Geriatrics 2021, 6, 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030080
Weems JA, Rhodes S, Powers JS. Dementia Caregiver Virtual Support—An Implementation Evaluation of Two Pragmatic Models during COVID-19. Geriatrics. 2021; 6(3):80. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030080
Chicago/Turabian StyleWeems, Jacy A., Shana Rhodes, and James S. Powers. 2021. "Dementia Caregiver Virtual Support—An Implementation Evaluation of Two Pragmatic Models during COVID-19" Geriatrics 6, no. 3: 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030080
APA StyleWeems, J. A., Rhodes, S., & Powers, J. S. (2021). Dementia Caregiver Virtual Support—An Implementation Evaluation of Two Pragmatic Models during COVID-19. Geriatrics, 6(3), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030080