Effectiveness of a Mouth Care Program Provided by Nursing Home Staff vs Standard Care on Reducing Pneumonia Incidence: A Cluster Randomized Trial

The organisms responsible for pneumonia live in the mouth. Technically, nearly all pneumonias are due to aspiration. At least one RCT in Japan showed that excellent oral hygiene (by dental hygienists) in NHs can reduce the incidence of pneumonia. This study showed that enhanced oral hygiene performed by nurses reduced pneumonia episodes for the first year, and then the effect waned. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

Importance: Pneumonia affects more than 250 000 nursing home (NH) residents annually. A strategy to reduce pneumonia is to provide daily mouth care, especially to residents with dementia.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Mouth Care Without a Battle, a program that increases staff knowledge and attitudes regarding oral hygiene, changes mouth care, and improves oral hygiene, in reducing the incidence of pneumonia among NH residents.

Design, setting, and participants: This pragmatic cluster randomized trial observing 2152 NH residents for up to 2 years was conducted from September 2014 to May 2017. Data collectors were masked to study group. The study included 14 NHs from regions of North Carolina that evidenced proportionately high rehospitalization rates for pneumonia and long-term care residents. Nursing homes were pair matched and randomly assigned to intervention or control groups.

Intervention: Mouth Care Without a Battle is a standardized program that teaches that mouth care is health care, provides instruction on individualized techniques and products for mouth care, and trains caregivers to provide care to residents who are resistant and in special situations. The control condition was standard mouth care.

Main outcomes and measures: Pneumonia incidence (primary) and hospitalization and mortality (secondary), obtained from medical records.

Results: Overall, the study enrolled 2152 residents (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [12.4] years; 1281 [66.2%] women; 1180 [62.2%] white residents). Participants included 1219 residents (56.6%) in 7 intervention NHs and 933 residents (43.4%) in 7 control NHs. During the 2-year study period, the incidence rate of pneumonia per 1000 resident-days was 0.67 and 0.72 in the intervention and control NHs, respectively. Neither the primary (unadjusted) nor secondary (covariate-adjusted) analyses found a significant reduction in pneumonia due to Mouth Care Without a Battle during 2 years (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.90; upper bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 1.24; P = .27; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92; upper bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 1.27; P = .30). In the second year, the rate of pneumonia was nonsignificantly higher in intervention NHs. Adjusted post hoc analyses limited to the first year found a significant reduction in pneumonia incidence in intervention NHs (IRR, 0.69; upper bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.94; P = .03).

Conclusions and relevance: This matched-pairs cluster randomized trial of a mouth care program compared with standard care was not effective in reducing pneumonia incidence at 2 years, although reduction was found during the first year. The lack of significant results in the second year may be associated with sustainability. Improving mouth care in US NHs may require the presence and support of dedicated oral care aides.

Author/s:

Zimmerman, S., Sloane, P.D., Ward, K., Wretman, C.J., Stearns, S.C., Poole, P., Preisser, J.S.

Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care

John Bayhi — Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:53:04 +0000

Date Added:

September 30, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Frontiers in Oncology

Publisher:

Frontiers Media S.A.

Publication Date:

June 28, 2018

Type:

Clinical Decision Aids

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.3389/fonc.2018.00238

Keywords

cancer screening

clinical decision-making

prostate cancer

prostate-specific antigen

shared decision-making

PMID (1):

30003062

MeSH

early detection of cancer

Surveys and Questionnaires

This tool was developed and tested in primary care settings as a way to facilitate discussions about prostate cancer screening. Both clinicians and patients seemed to like it. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

The link to the study is available here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30003062

BACKGROUND:

As prostate cancer (PCa) screening decisions often occur in outpatient primary care, a brief tool to help the PCa screening conversation in busy clinic settings is needed.

METHODS:

A previously created 9-item tool to aid PCa screening discussions was tested in five diverse primary care clinics. Fifteen providers were recruited to use the tool for 4 weeks, and the tool was revised based upon feedback. The providers then used the tool with a convenience sample of patients during routine clinic visits. Pre- and post-visit surveys were administered to assess patients' knowledge of the option to be screened for PCa and of specific factors to consider in the decision. McNemar's and Stuart-Maxwell tests were used to compare pre-and post-survey responses.

RESULTS:

14 of 15 providers completed feedback surveys and had positive responses to the tool. All 15 providers then tested the tool on 95 men aged 40-69 at the five clinics with 2-10 patients each. The proportion of patients who strongly agreed that they had the option to choose to screen for PCa increased from 57 to 72% (p = 0.018) from the pre- to post-survey, that there are factors in the personal or family history that may affect PCa risk from 34 to 47% (p = 0.012), and that their opinions about possible side effects of treatment for PCa should be considered in the decision from 47 to 61% (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION:

A brief conversation tool for the PCa screening discussion was well received in busy primary-care settings and improved patients' knowledge about the screening decision.

Author/s:

Misra-Hebert, AD, Hom, G, Klein, EA, Bauman, JA, Gupta, N, Ji, X, Stephenson, AJ, Jones, JS, Kattan, Kattan, MW