Conectar
To review current evidence on the implementation and impact of virtual nursing care in long-term aged care.
An integrative rapid literature review.
Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, Ageline and Scopus.
The review included studies involving virtual care interventions provided by nurses (or by a multidisciplinary team including nurses) to older people in residential aged care that reported health outcomes or stakeholder experiences. Consistent with PRISMA guidelines, databases were systematically searched in July and August 2024, focusing on literature published since 2014. Studies were screened in Covidence by three team members, with conflicts resolved by additional reviewers. Studies not involving nurses or not set in aged care were excluded.
The search identified 13 studies, which included quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method approaches, conducted in both Australian and international settings, as well as in rural and metropolitan locations. Nurses were often involved as part of an existing virtual care programme, typically located in a hospital setting. The training and credentials of nurses delivering VN varied in terms of specialisation and advanced practice. The model of care in general was ad hoc, though in some cases there were regular, scheduled VN consultations. The time requirements for onsite staff and nurses were not well articulated in any of the studies, and information on the funding models used was also lacking.
There is some evidence that VN interventions in aged care may improve communication, enhance person-centred care and reduce emergency department presentations and hospitalisations.
Rigorous, ongoing evaluation of VN interventions is required to ensure their appropriate application in residential aged care.
This study aims to assess the association between neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation and outcomes reflecting comprehensive diabetes care (CDC).
Retrospective cohort study
US Medicare Advantage (MA) data, 2015–2020.
National sample of MA enrollees with diabetes.
Primary outcomes included six indicators of CDC from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set: haemoglobin (Hb) A1c (HbA1c) testing, HbA1c control (9%), blood pressure control (
There were 827 227 enrolments included in the final analysis. After adjusting for demographic (age, sex, race/ethnicity and dual eligibility) and regional characteristics (rurality and primary care providers per capita), high neighbourhood deprivation was associated only with worse glycaemic control (for HbA1c>9%, risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07). This relationship was significant for white and Asian patients (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11 and RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.32, respectively); outcomes for black and Hispanic patients were worse overall but independent of neighbourhood deprivation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05 and RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03, respectively). In the fully adjusted model, neighbourhood deprivation was not associated with measures that directly reflect access to care, including the occurrence of HbA1c testing and receipt of eye exams (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04 and RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05).
An increased risk of poor glycaemic control was observed for patients from areas of high neighbourhood deprivation, independent of individual socioeconomic status. Neighbourhood factors and their intersection with racial and ethnic disparities are important considerations for achieving equity in diabetes care.
FreshRSS