Submitted to:
American
Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Related Disorders
By Linda
L. Buettner
Linda L. Buettner,
PhD, CTRS is an assistant professor and coordinator of Alzheimers
Education Services at Decker School of Nursing, Binghamton
University, Binghamton, NY
Phone: (607)-777-6171
Fax: (607)-777-4440
This project was funded by a
New York State Department of Health Dementia Intervention
Grant.
ABSTRACT
The Simple Pleasures
research team investigated the effects of 30 handmade recreational
items on the behavior of nursing home residents with dementia.
The impact on family visits, staff knowledge, and volunteer
involvement was also examined during the course of this study.
Twenty-three items were found therapeutically valuable and
acceptable for nursing home use. Family visits, use of recreational
items, and satisfaction with visits significantly improved
during the intervention. Residents were significantly less
agitated at one nursing home and slightly less agitated at
the other nursing home. Over 540 volunteers of all ages were
trained and made Simple Pleasures items during this project.
KEYWORDS: nursing home,
dementia, activities, visits, volunteers
SIMPLE PLEASURES:
A MULTI-LEVEL SENSORIMOTOR INTERVENTION FOR NURSING HOME
RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA
Approximately 10 percent of the
population over 65 years of age has Alzheimers disease
(AD) or a related disorder and currently 17,000 nursing homes
in the United States care for an estimated 1.3 million residents
with AD1. Holmes et al2 estimated that
60 to 70 percent of all new admissions to long term care
facilities have AD. The National Alzheimers Association3 has
approximated that there are over 1500 special care units
housing over 50,000 residents with dementia. As the number
of older adults with dementia continues to grow in nursing
homes, so do concerns about the availability of quality of
age- and stage-appropriate activities for residents, the
quality of visits with family members, and the valid use
of community volunteers for nursing home residents with dementia.
Literature
Review
Previous studies have shown that
specific types of therapeutic activities could serve as powerful
interventions for nursing home residents with dementia and
agitation 4,5,6. In a quasi-experimental study
completed using a cross-over design two different approaches
were evaluated on a special care unit. The efficacy of sensorimotor
recreation therapy was compared to traditional nursing home
activities programming for a group of 36 residents. 5 This
study demonstrated a significant difference between groups
receiving traditional nursing home activities and those receiving
functionally matched sensorimotor recreation therapy. When
involved in the sensorimotor therapy, the residents were
able to demonstrate improved strength, flexibility, and lower
levels of agitation during programs.
In a longer, randomized 30-week
study, 66 residents were provided with either a functionally
matched sensorimotor activities program by a nursing-recreation
therapy team, or a program of usual activities and care. 7 All
residents were evaluated at baseline, 10 weeks, 20 weeks,
and 30 weeks by a team of geriatric nurse practitioners blind
to group assignment. In the first ten weeks of this study
residents in the experimental group improved in overall functioning,
mobility, cognitive status, levels of depression, and agitation.
The control group declined on all areas. The goal was to
train nursing home staff to continue the project as the clinical
specialist gradually withdrew. The final data collection
showed that the improvements were maintained for a second
10-week period while the clinical specialist was involved
for half of the time. During the last ten week period, however,
the integrated sensorimotor methods were abandoned and residents
declined below baseline. These studies show the importance
of stimulation and activity for special care residents with
dementia. But programs of this type require a highly trained
therapist, and unfortunately, are very difficult for nursing
homes to maintain.
Sensorimotor materials
Appropriate sensorimotor recreation
materials and stimulus objects have been used successfully
with this population to reduce boredom and provide an outlet
for motor restlessness.8,9 However, despite agreement
that these materials are beneficial, an adequate supply of
items is seldom a reality in long term care environments.
Activity directors have indicated that they feel they are
doing their best to provide good services in an environment
characterized by inadequate funding for materials.10 Administrators
report that they are struggling to create a therapeutic environment
without adequate resources to renovate, redecorate, or increase
staffing levels.11 With shrinking resources, it
is not surprising that expenditures for recreation and sensorimotor
materials have low priority.
Fortunately, many of the sensorimotor
materials best-suited for use by this population are simple
to fabricate. In fact, a glace through speciality catalogs
will reveal that many of the objects sold could, in fact,
be handmade by nursing home staff, had they time to spare.
(It is clear that they dont!) However, there are amble
community resources with untapped skills to contribute. Many
individuals and groups are eager to donate their time and
effort, 12 but the items they make are typically
around holiday themes, and are not influenced by knowledge
of what might be appropriate for residents with Alzheimers
disease.
Successful selection of appropriate
recreational items for special care residents cannot be haphazard.
If handmade items are to be constructed and used in nursing
homes rather than purchased from therapeutic catalogs, careful
attention must be paid to their selection and design. Design
of handmade recreational items must be grounded in a sound
knowledge of therapeutic recreation and must include safety
and toxicity considerations. Instructions for their construction
must be carefully planned, as well as information, about
their appropriate use. 13
Thus this project goes beyond
the needs of the residents themselves. Alzheimers disease
has a ripple effect; from the person with dementia to the
caregiving staff working with the person to the family and
the community. This multi-level research projects goal
was to decrease the impermeability of the boundaries between
nursing home and community, between resident and family members.
Enhancing the quality of visits
Research has also shown that
residents are less agitated when they have visitors. 14 However,
family visits to nursing homes are often characterized by
discomfort. It has been found, however, that friends and
family are more comfortable expressing their feelings of
love through "instrumental" interactions such as baking cookies
for a loved one or making a gift for a person rather than
through talking or assisting with personal care. 15.. In
addition, nursing homes often have volunteers who want to
provide some service but feel "useless" with the residents
with dementia. Thus, it makes sense that non-verbal, sensorimotor
interactions can be a positive means of interaction for both
the person with dementia and the family member or volunteer.
The purpose of this project was threefold: 1) to design and
produce age- and stage- appropriate sensorimotor recreational
items for nursing home residents with dementia, 2) to reduce
isolation, inactivity, and agitated behaviors in nursing
home residents with dementia by enriching their environment
with readily accessible, attractive sensorimotor items, and
3) to teach staff, volunteers, and families how to make the
items and how to use the items to interact with nursing home
residents with dementia.
The research
project
Description of the facilities
and residents
- All nursing homes that participated
in the project are in Broome County in New York State
and included one facility without
a special care unit, and two facilities with well established
special care units. The facility without the special care
unit was used as the pilot site for preliminary testing of
the recreational items.
The research sample included
55 residents with a dementia diagnosis and their family/friends
from the three participating nursing homes. The average age
of the residents was 87.4 years. Eighty-one percent of the
sample was female. The mean mini-mental state score was 6.7.
Forty-three staff members took part in the staff survey component
of the project. Fifty-one families, twenty from one research
facility and thirty-one from the other, were interviewed
in the family visit component of the project.
Research Design
The research took part in two
phases. Phase one allowed the principal researchers to undertake
a three month pilot test of recreational items in a nursing
home not involved in the phase two research. Phase two involved
testing the intervention in two 40-bed dementia special care
units. This phase used a clinical cross-over design with
one facility receiving the Simple Pleasures intervention
for six months on then six months off. The other facility
received the same intervention in the opposite order.
Phase I - Pilot
Thirty hand-made, therapeutically
based sensorimotor recreational items were designed and tested
for appeal, safety, and therapeutic value for residents of
different functioning levels. Twenty-three of the items were
found safe, appealing, and therapeutically sound for the
intervention phase of the project. Written and illustrated "how
to make" and "how to use" instruction sheets were created
for each item. These printed hand-outs were the basis of
Simple Pleasures and were disseminated and promoted to family
members and community volunteers of all ages. Volunteer groups
were provided with a 30 minute Dementia Education Program
and invited to take part in the Simple Pleasures Project.
Phase II - Formal research
The research team set out to
scientifically test the intervention using a clinical cross-over
design in two nursing home dementia units. The three major
research questions were: 1) Will age- and stage-appropriate
sensorimotor recreational items, constructed by family members
and volunteers for nursing home residents with dementia,
positively affect frequency and quality of visits? 2) Will
an increased supply of these handmade recreational items,
and ready access to them, increase the time spent by residents
in purposeful activities and decrease agitated behaviors?
3) Which Simple Pleasures items
are most appropriate for the residents at each stage of the
disease?
Measurement Instruments
The Folstein Mini-Mental State
Examination (MMSE) was used to determine each residents
level of cognitive functioning. Its convergent validity with
other procedures has been documented as .902 or better. 16 It
correlates highly with overall intellectual functioning,
as measured with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. 17
The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation
Inventory (CMAI) measures 29 agitated behaviors, rating each
on a seven-point scale of frequency. 18 This scale
has been found to provide reliable and valid measures for
agitation in older adults even if the older adult cannot
participate. The nurse manager on each dementia unit completed
this rating scale for each participant at baseline, mid-point,
and end-point.
A ten-item sub-scale from the
Penn State Nursing Home Survey was used to evaluate staff
knowledge and attitudes. This survey was given to all certified
nursing assistants as a pre-test post-test evaluation during
each phase of the intervention. This survey was administered
by the research assistant.
The Scanning the Environment
Tool was designed by the research team to be used in time
sampling the environment for resident activity. This tool
measured the number of residents in a specific area of the
unit, and coded exactly what they were doing at that moment
in time. Activity was coded from random videotaped segments
and from direct observation in three specific areas of their
nursing unit (nurses station, activity lounge, and
corridor). This tool was used by the family liaison coordinator,
research assistant, and principal investigator.
The Time Engaged With Item Scale
was developed by the research team to separate residents
by stage or MMSE scores to determine which residents preferred
particular Simple Pleasures items at each level of functioning.
This allowed researchers to determine what items worked best
with a particular group of residents.
The Family Interview form was
developed by the research team to determine if the perceived
quality of family visits improved, increased, and if recreational
items were used during visits. This interview was completed
by the family liaison coordinator and the PI. The idea behind
the interview was to get at the basic information in just
a few questions. The three questions asked were: 1) In the
past six months did you have (more, about the same, or less)
visits than in the month prior to the study beginning?, 2)
During your visits during the past six months did you use
any recreational items with your family member?, which items?
and 3) Would you say you were more satisfied with the visit,
less satisfied with the visit, or about the same amount of
satisfaction with the visit during the past six months?
In addition to this formal data
collection, an informal count of community volunteer involvement
was maintained by the PI and the Project Director.
Variables
The evaluation variables for
the residents included: agitation, inactivity-activity, social
interactions and family visits. The variable examined for
staff was knowledge/attitude on the Penn State Nursing Home
Survey. Variables for family members included: frequency
of visits, use of recreation items, and satisfaction with
visits.
Methods/Procedures
for collecting data
Resident assessments
All residents in the study underwent
screening for dementia using the MMSE and chart review for
diagnosis of dementia. Each resident was assigned a confidential
ID number by the research team. Baseline data was collected
on residents with a score of less than 20 who agreed to take
part in the study. A research assistant, the project director
(PD), and one of the principal investigator(PI) assessed
each participant at baseline, two mid-points separated by
a one month wash-out period, and end-point. Residents were
observed through random videotaping and by direct observation
using a time sampling method, to find out which items appealed
to, and were useful for specific residents.
Staff questionnaires
All staff were assigned a confidential
ID number by the research team. These numbers were used to
identify subjects who had returned the Staff Survey questionnaires
at baseline, two mid-points to allow for a one month washout
period, and end-point. Information concerning who had completed
questionnaires and what their responses had been was not
shared with Nursing Home Personnel. This data was collected
by the graduate research assistant.
Family interviews
Fifty-one families agreed to
take part in an interview at mid-point and end-point of the
study. The interview was completed by the family liaison
coordinator of the research team with follow-up information
gathered by the PI. Data from the interview was coded by
research site.
Community volunteer involvement
- During the course of this
project volunteers were recruited, trained, and asked to
fabricate
Simple Pleasures items for the
nursing homes. A count of volunteers who were officially
trained and made at least one item was maintained by the
PI and the PD.
Data and results
Research question #1: Will age-
and stage-appropriate materials constructed by volunteers
and families for nursing home residents with dementia, positively
affect the frequency and the quality of visits?
Families were interviewed
in January, 1997 after the first six months of the project
and again in July, 1997. Data was analyzed using SPSS program
and crosstabs analysis and Chi-Square tests. Families at
both sites reported significantly more visits during the
intervention phase of the project. Families at both sites
reported that they used recreational items during visits
significantly more often during the intervention phase
of the project. Families at both nursing homes stated they
were more satisfied with their visits during the intervention
phase of the project. Summary of these findings is reported
on Tables 1-6.
Volunteers: During the
18 months of the pilot study and the intervention study 540
volunteers were recruited and trained to make Simple Pleasures
items. Items that were popular for childrens groups
to make were: squeezies, wave machines, home decorator books,
dominoes, sewing cards and message magnets. Adult groups
were able to choose items to make based on materials they
had available and the skills of the group. Many additional
volunteer groups have requested Simple Pleasures training,
and have asked to work on Simple Pleasures items as Christmas
gifts for residents with dementia since the research project
has ended. Two corollary grants have been awarded to volunteer
groups. One was used to train 4-H leaders throughout the
state, a second grant was recently awarded to the Retired
Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) of Broome County. This group
will be fabricating Simple Pleasures items for sensory kits
for the Southern Tier Alzheimers Association to use
in a lending library for family caregivers.
Research question #2:
Will an increased supply of the sensorimotor recreational
items, and ready access to them, increase the time spent
by residents in purposeful activities and decrease agitated
behaviors?
Residents were observed using
a time sampling method and videotaping at 99 different time
points at both intervention sites during the Simple Pleasures
intervention and during the non-intervention period. Researchers
evaluated resident activity and inactivity at the nurses
station, the corridor leading to the nurses station, and
in the activity lounge with a counting system. At each location
the researchers coded the numbers of residents who were:
Not doing anything, Doing something with miscellaneous, clothing,
simple pleasures item, food/drink, another resident. Residents
who were sleeping were not included in the coding. Mean scores
were tallied for the intervention and non-intervention periods
of the project. During the Simple Pleasures intervention
at both facilities the number of residents "not doing anything" dramatically
declined. During the intervention phase residents were more
involved with the recreational items and with other residents.
At research site #1 residents were less frequently found
at the nursing station and more frequently found in the activity
lounge. At research site #2 the numbers of residents increased
at the nursing station and in the activity lounge during
the intervention phase. These scores can be found on Tables
7 and 8.
The researchers felt it was vital
to educate the staff as to the importance of approach and
use of the activities items so that staff would use the items
as interventions for boredom and (or) disturbed behaviors.
Weekly 10 minute in-services were provided at change of shift
to introduce new items. Certified nursing assistants were
given a sub-scale from the Penn State Nursing Home Survey
as a pre-test post-test survey to evaluate knowledge/attitude
during the control phase and the intervention phase of the
project. Using SPSS paired t-tests were run to analyze the
staff survey scores. Despite weekly training there was no
change in staff attitude/knowledge at either research site
during either phase of the project.
Residents were assessed for levels
of agitated behaviors at four time points during the study:
baseline, two mid-points separated by a one month washout
period, and at endpoint. The nurse manager was first trained
by the PI and then assigned to score study participants on
the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. Reliability testing
was completed using videotaped episodes of agitation. The
reliability scores were acceptable at all time points (+.95).
Using SPSS repeated measures ANOVA we determined that there
was a significant treatment effect and a significant time
effect. A series of paired t-tests were then run to identify
differences in agitation between the different time points.
During the intervention phase at research site #1 there was
a significant drop in agitation (p>.001). There was a
slight drop in agitation at research site #2 but the change
was not significant. The mean scores for agitation can be
found on Table 9.
Research question #3.
Which items are most appropriate for the residents at each
stage of the disease process?
The research assistant and family
liaison coordinator completed multiple videotape and direct
observations of each resident in the study to determine the
Simple Pleasures items that were most appealing to
each individual. An open cart of items was placed near the
residents so they could freely choose from the selection
on the cart. We documented the item selected and timed how
long the individual remained actively involved with the item. After
this data was collected we tabulated each residents
MMSE score and the behavior problem most often exhibited.
A chart was compiled listing the specific Simple Pleasures
items, the number of residents who freely choose to use the
item, the average length of time the item was used, and the
average MMSE score of those residents. The final column delineates
the behavior most commonly seen in that group of residents
and the effect the item has on the behaviors. This data can
be found on Table 10.
The most popular item on the
chart is the tether ball. Forty-seven residents chose to
interact with the item. This item had appeal to residents
at all levels and held their attention for over 20 minutes.
It is interesting to note that the wandering cart and the
polar fleece hot water bottles were only useful for a small
number of lower functioning residents but they were used
for over 40 minutes.
Discussion
of results
- This project had different
implications for each facility involved. Research site
#1 did not
have a full-time activities professional
providing regular activities on the dementia unit. Someone
from the activities department came to the unit to do scheduled
programs for a few residents at several points during the
day. There was a high degree of wandering and general agitation
due to boredom prior to the intervention. Introducing the
project on this unit with high boredom and agitation levels
had a powerful impact. Agitation levels significantly and
dramatically declined. Unfortunately, family involvement
and staff involvement at this facility was low. Many families
lived out of the immediate area and stated to the research
team that they "depended on the staff to provide care and
meaningful activities". The local families did become interested
but the general opinion at the end of the intervention period
seemed to be "let the staff take care of it". When the intervention
team left there was very little carry-over effect. Simple
Pleasures items were no longer made available to residents
on a daily basis or adequately maintained, repaired, or replaced
during the control period.
Research site #2 started the
project with relatively low agitation levels. The unit activities
program was well developed and staffed by 1.5 trained activities
professionals. Families were very involved with the care
of residents on this unit. Because the staff and families
were in the control phase first, they were very anxious to
become involved. Each week when new items were delivered
to the unit families and staff were waiting for them. Families
volunteered to make items and many families began to bring
children during visits to play tether volleyball or table
ball. Staff at this facility, from administrators, to social
workers, and auxiliary staff were interested in learning
how to make and use the different items. At the end of the
intervention research site #2 hired the family liaison coordinator
to continue the project. Although the agitation scores did
not significantly change at this facility the administration
recognized the benefits of the project and hired a part-time
staff member to maintain it.
The impact on staff did not show
up in the data collected. Through direct observation, however,
the research team has found Simple Pleasures items being
used regularly by staff at both facilities. One medication
nurse used Simple Pleasures items on her medication cart
to give out as a diversion. Another staff member stocked
her cleaning cart with items for residents. An aide at one
facility found it useful to use items during the bathing
process. Activities leaders at the second research site use
the Simple Pleasures items as part of their regular programming.
The impact on families perceptions
of visits was very powerful at both facilities. The families
viewed their visits much more positively during the intervention
at both facilities. The individuals interviewed stated they
visited more often, stayed longer, used recreational items
during the visits, and were more satisfied with visits.
It is interesting to note that
several of the Simple Pleasures items that had a calming
effect were also items that warmed the residents. For example,
the "fleecy muff", the "polar fleece hot water bottle", and
the "sensory vest" were all made from polar fleece fabric.
It appeared that a certain degree of disruptive behavior
was caused by residents feeling cold. When given the items
mentioned above the disruptive behavior disappeared within
minutes.
Discussion
of cost vs. benefits
The cost of making the Simple
Pleasure items is very low. For the most involved project,
a volunteer group might spend $20.00. Many of the items can
be made for under $5.00 or with donated materials. A community
group could make all the projects in the training manual
for about $150.00! These same items could be purchased in
speciality catalogs for $1500.00, but the benefits go beyond
saving money. Community volunteers learn about a disease
for which there is no cure, but realize there is something
they can do to help. These volunteers often visit a nursing
home for the first time. They make a connection and give
something important to someone who has suffered many losses.
Families benefit from this project because they also feel
there is something they can do to help. Instead of trying
to have a conversation that leads to frustration, visits
become fun. Children become re-involved with grandparents
or great grandparents through these simple activities. The
nursing home resident with dementia reaps the most benefits
from this project. Residents have an enriched environment
with items to hold or interact with as they choose. Residents
receive more frequent visits from family and make new connections
in the community. Residents also begin socializing with each
other using the Simple Pleasures items as a stimulus.
The training manual produced
during this project was made available to every nursing home
in the state for free as part of the dissemination plan.
Recommendations
Most nursing home residents with
dementia have a problem with inactivity and
boredom. Some estimates reveal
residents with dementia spend 60-80% of their time with nothing
to do. 18 It is during this unstructured time
that most disturbing behaviors occur. Residents are often
seeking stimulation, movement, or comfort which leads to "needs-driven
dementia-compromised behaviors". 19 Clearly there
is not enough time or money to keep residents active and
involved in meaningful activities. This project can be used
as an intervention to enrich the environment of any nursing
home that has volunteers and an open-minded staff and administration.
On-site training and re-training
of volunteers and staff must be done for this project to
succeed. It is difficult for volunteers to pick up the training
manual and fabricate items without hands-on training and
sample items to look at. It is also difficult for staff to
understand how to use the items without seeing a trainer
demonstrate the effectiveness. Simple Pleasures also has
great potential for patients with dementia in acute care
settings, adult day health programs and for community dwelling
older adults with dementia. Additional research is needed
to explore this potential in these other settings.
REFERENCES
1. Kosberg J, Garcia
J, Dulka I. Encsuring the adequacy of long term care of AD
patients: Special challenges and advocacy mechanisms. American
Journal of Alzheimers Disease.1997;12(1):3-9.
2.Holmes D, Teresi J, Monaco
C. Special care units in nursing homes: prevalence in five
states. Gerontologist. 1992;32(2):191-196.
3. Alzheimers Association.
Alzheimers special care in nursing homes: Is it really
special? Chicago, IL: ADRDA, 1994.
4. Buettner L. Therapeutic recreation
for persons with dementia and agitation: a case history of
Mrs. M. Therapeutic Recreation Journal. 1995;29(1),63-69.
5. Buettner L, Lundegren H, Lago
D, Farrell P, Smith R. Therapeutic recreation for persons
with dementia and agitation. American Journal of Alzheimers
Disease. 1996;11(5),4-12.
6.Buettner L. A team approach
to therapeutic programming on the special care unit. Journal
of Gerontological Nursing. 1998; 24(1):23-30.
7. Buettner L, Ferrario J. A
therapeutic intervention for nursing home residents with
dementia. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation. 1997-1998;
8. Mayers, K & Griffin, M.
The play project: use of stimulus objects with demented patients. Journal
of Gerontological Nursing. 1990;16(1), 32-37.
9. Mace, N. Principles of activities
for persons with dementia. Physical and Occupational Therapy
in Geriatrics. 1987, 5(3) 13-27.
10. Pieper, H. & Gray, S. Activities,
Adaptation, and Aging, 1992;17(2),65-73.
11. Sandel, S., Fisher, J., & Hollander,
A. A program for patients with dementia: a
management challenge. Journal
of Long-Term Care Administration. 1989; 17(1),20-23.
12. Greenstein, D. Twenty-four
projects for 4-Hers to make for elderly people.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension, 1994.
13. Greenstein, D. Its
childs play. In J.C. Galvin and M. Scherer (Eds.), Evaluating,
selecting, and using appropriate assistive technology. Boulder,
CO:Aspen, 1995.
14. Cohen-Mansfield J, Werner
P. Environmental influences on agitation: An integrated summary
of an observational study. American Journal of Alzheimers
Disease. 1995;10(1),32-39.
15. Greenstein D. Quantitative
evaluation and empowerment. Networking Bulletin: Empowerment
and Family Support. 1992;2(2),21-24.
16. Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh
P. Mini-mental state: a practical method of grading the cognitive
state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric
Residence. 1975;12(6),189-198.
17.Farber JF, Schmidt D, Logue
PE. Predicting intellectual level from the mini-mental state
examination. Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 1988;38(6),506-510.
18. Cohen-Mansfield J, Werner
P, Marx M. Observational data on time use and behavior problems
in the nursing home. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 1992;11(1)114-117.
19. Algase D, Beck C, Kolanowski
A, Whall A, Berent S, Richards K, Beattie E. Need-driven
dementia-compromised behavior: An alternative view of disruptive
behavior. American Journal of Alzheimers Disease. 1996;11(6);10-19.
Table 1-Results of family interview for
frequency of visits
More visits per month during 7/96-12/96 than in the previous
months
|
Yes |
No |
Total |
Research site #1_ |
17*** |
3 |
20 |
Research site #2 |
14 |
15 |
31 |
_intervention period ***P<.006
|
Table 2-Results of family interview for frequency
of visits
More visits per month 1/97-6/97 than in previous months
|
Yes |
No |
Total |
Research site #1 |
5 |
15 |
20 |
Research site #2_ |
23*** |
8 |
31 |
_intervention period ***p<.000
|
Table 3-Results of family interview for using recreation
item
Used recreation item during visit 7/96-12/96
|
Yes |
No |
Total |
Research site #1_ |
10*** |
10 |
20 |
Research site #2 |
3 |
28 |
31 |
_intervention period ***p<.001
|
Table 4-Results of family interview for using recreation
item
Used recreation item during visit 1/97-6/97
|
Yes |
No |
Total |
Research site #1 |
5 |
15 |
20 |
Research site #2_ |
25 |
6 |
31 |
_intervention period ***p<.000
|
Table 5-Results of family interview for satisfaction
with visit
More satisfied with visits 7/96-12/96 than in past
|
Yes |
No |
Total |
Research site #1_ |
14*** |
6 |
20 |
Research site #2 |
15 |
16 |
31 |
_intervention period ***p<.011
|
Table 6-Results of family interview for satisfaction
with visit
More satisfied with visits 1/97-6/97 than in past
|
Yes |
No |
Total |
Research site #1 |
6 |
14 |
20 |
Research site #2_ |
30*** |
1 |
31 |
_intervention period ***p<.000
|
Items found most popular with
families: home decorator books (n=21), tether ball
(n=20), butterflies/fish (n=17), picture dominoes (n=15),
message magnets (n=11).
Table 9
Agitation Scores at baseline, mid-point 1, mid-point 2, & endpoint
|
Research site #1 |
Research site #2 |
|
Mean |
Mean |
Baseline |
2.30 intervention starts |
1.29 control |
Mid-point 1 |
1.30*** |
1.25 |
Mid-point 2 |
1.8 control |
1.28 intervention starts |
Endpoint |
1.90 |
1.26 |
Highlighted scores post test intervention period
***p<.001
|
Table 7
Mean Scores - Scanning the Environment
Site 1-99 Observations
|
7/96-12/96* |
1/97-6/97 |
Nurses station Total: |
7.86 |
11.93 |
Not doing anything |
4.69 |
11.00 |
Doing something with:
Misc. |
.51 |
.66 |
Clothing |
.53 |
- |
S.P. item |
1.01 |
- |
Food/drink |
.57 |
.10 |
Another resident |
.59 |
.17 |
Corridor Total: |
3.51 |
2.66 |
Not doing anything |
1.81 |
2.50 |
Doing something with:
Misc. |
.55 |
.16 |
Clothing |
- |
- |
S.P. item |
1.04 |
- |
Food/drink |
- |
- |
Another resident |
.11 |
- |
Lounge Total: |
9.93 |
5.41 |
Not doing anything |
1.76 |
4.02 |
Doing something with:
Misc. |
1.16 |
.32 |
Clothing |
1.19 |
.34 |
S.P. item |
3.20 |
.39 |
Food/drink |
1.18 |
- |
Another resident |
1.44 |
.33 |
*Intervention period Control period
|
Table 8
Mean Scores - Scanning the Environment
Site 2-99 Observations
|
7/96-12/96 |
1/97-6/97* |
Nurses station Total: |
9.45 |
11.32 |
Not doing anything |
8.76 |
5.95 |
Doing something with:
Misc. |
.14 |
.61 |
Clothing |
.01 |
.49 |
S.P. item |
- |
3.30 |
Food/drink |
.31 |
.47 |
Another resident |
.22 |
.48 |
Corridor Total: |
2.08 |
1.64 |
Not doing anything |
1.92 |
1.52 |
Doing something with:
Misc. |
- |
- |
Clothing |
- |
- |
S.P. item |
- |
.05 |
Food/drink |
- |
- |
Another resident |
.16 |
.06 |
Lounge Total: |
6.81 |
11.67 |
Not doing anything |
4.68 |
3.38 |
Doing something with:
Misc. |
.04 |
.10 |
Clothing |
.99 |
.10 |
S.P. item |
- |
4.45 |
Food/drink |
.51 |
.47 |
Another resident |
.59 |
3.17 |
* Intervention period Control period
|
|