Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
North Carolina Medical Journal
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal
  • My alerts
  • Log in
North Carolina Medical Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Follow ncmj on Twitter
  • Visit ncmj on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Articles

Academic-Practice Partnership for Caregiver Training and Support

The Duke Elder Family/Caregiver Training (DEFT) Center

Cristina C. Hendrix, Doreen Matters, Tamara Griffin, Heather Batchelder, Patricia Kramer, Judy R. Prewitt, Loretta Matters, Kay Lytle, Yesol Yang, Hyeyoung Park, Richard F. Riedel, Jessica Y. Choi and Eleanor McConnell
North Carolina Medical Journal July 2020, 81 (4) 221-227; DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.81.4.221
Cristina C. Hendrix
associate professor and division chair of health systems and analytics, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina; core investigator, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: cristina.hendrix@duke.edu
Doreen Matters
DEFT program director, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tamara Griffin
DEFT social worker, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Batchelder
DEFT intake specialist, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patricia Kramer
case management director, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Judy R. Prewitt
associate chief nurse clinical practice (retired), Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Loretta Matters
associate director, Center for Geriatric Nursing Excellence, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kay Lytle
chief nursing information officer, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yesol Yang
DEFT nurse, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hyeyoung Park
DEFT nurse, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard F. Riedel
associate professor, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; member, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jessica Y. Choi
DEFT intake specialist, Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina; MSc candidate, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eleanor McConnell
associate professor, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina; core investigator, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND After a hospital stay, many older adults rely on their caregivers for assistance at home. Empirical evidence demonstrates that caregiver support programs in hospital-to-home transitions are associated with favorable caregiver and patient outcomes. We tested the feasibility of implementing the Duke Elder Family/Caregiver Training (DEFT) program in an academic medical center.

METHODS: We recruited adult caregivers of homebound patients who were aged 55 years or older from Duke University Hospital in Durham, North Carolina. Caregivers attended a face-to-face caregiver training and received two telephone checks after hospital discharge with DEFT services ending at 14 days of hospital discharge. We used a one-item survey to measure overall DEFT satisfaction. We also monitored 30-day readmissions of patients whose caregivers completed the DEFT program.

RESULTS: The DEFT Center received 104 consult orders in six months. Of these, 61 agreed to participate but nine caregivers were unable to schedule the DEFT training and three decided to eventually withdraw from participation. Forty-nine caregivers received the DEFT training, 12 of whom were ineligible to continue because of change in patients' disposition plan. Of the remaining 37 caregivers, 15 completed the full program and reported high satisfaction; one patient was readmitted within 30 days of discharge.

LIMITATIONS: The DEFT implementation was based on academic-medical partnership and relied on electronic medical records for consult and documentation. Replicability and generalizability of findings are limited to settings with similar capabilities and resources.

CONCLUSION: The implementation of a caregiver training and support program in an academic medical center was feasible and was associated with favorable preliminary outcomes.

Following the pattern of age demographic shifts in the United States, the number of older adults in North Carolina will rise dramatically. In 2018, approximately 1.6 million North Carolinians (or about 16% of the state population) were aged 65 years and above, and by 2025, 1 in 5 North Carolinians will comprise this age group [1]. Older adults account for 1 in every 3 hospital discharges in North Carolina [2]. The physiologic consequences and comorbidities of aging place many older adults at high risk for complicated recovery [3-4]. They also frequently experience a decline in physical function as a result of hospitalization that may limit their capacity to independently live at home [5].

Many older adults rely on their family and friends (hereafter, “caregivers”) for care and support after their hospital discharge [6-9]. However, many caregivers are ill-prepared for home caregiving, which may lead to preventable uses of health care services and hospital readmissions by patients [10-12]. One in five older adults is readmitted within 30 days of their discharge, and the 30-day readmission rate increases to about 31% for those who are medically vulnerable and frail [13-14].

Evidence suggests that programs that support older patients and their caregivers during the hospital-to-home transition are associated with a reduction in 30-day readmissions, decreased hospital length of stay, and improved satisfaction and quality of life among patients and their caregivers [15-21]. Providing a training before hospital discharge has also been found to promote confidence and preparedness among caregivers [11, 22-24]. Improvement of caregiver knowledge, skills, and confidence in the care of their loved ones may reduce caregiver burden and stress [25-27].

The American Association of Retired Persons formally acknowledged caregivers as the bedrock for home support when they sponsored the Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act initiative [28]. Briefly, the CARE Act requires hospitals to record the caregiver's information, share the discharge plans with the caregiver at least 24 hours prior to the discharge date, and provide the caregiver with education and live demonstration/training of medical tasks needed for the patient's home care [29]. The live training sessions are documented in the patient's medical record, indicating, at a minimum, the date, time, and contents of the training. In 2018, 36 states, excluding North Carolina, had passed versions of the CARE Act into law [30-31].

In 2016, the Duke University School of Nursing (DUSON) received a three-year funding grant from The Duke Endowment to develop and implement the Duke Elder Family/Caregiver Training (DEFT) Center. The DEFT Center is a collaborative endeavor between DUSON and the Duke University Health System (DUHS). Guided by evidence and expertise of the DEFT team, the DEFT Center intends to provide an infrastructure for caregiver training and support for enhanced hospital discharge preparation [16-17, 23-24, 32].

We launched a pilot study of the DEFT program to determine its feasibility in an academic medical center as well as its acceptability by hospital clinicians and caregivers. We also collected data to determine preliminary impact of the program on caregiver and patient outcomes. The feasibility study was intended to provide data for modifications of the program, if needed, before a hospital-wide implementation is launched.

Methods

The DEFT pilot was conducted as a quality improvement program and received an exempt status from the DUHS Institutional Review Board. We used a single caregiver group and a pretest-posttest design to measure caregiver outcomes.

Setting and Participants

Two hospital units at Duke University Hospital (DUH) located in Durham, North Carolina, participated as pilot sites for the DEFT program. Each unit has 32 inpatient beds. In 2015, 9,877 (32.2%) of DUH discharges to home were patients aged 65 years and older.

Caregivers who were aged 18 years or older and expected to assist a family member or friend (patient) aged 55 years or older after hospital discharge to home were eligible to participate in the DEFT program. By virtue of the DEFT team being fluent in English only, we excluded caregivers who cannot speak in English. Also, caregivers of patients receiving hospice care and caregivers whose loved ones were discharged to a facility were not eligible to participate.

Measures

To determine the feasibility of the DEFT workflow process, the number of DEFT consults were tracked every month. Our hypothesis was that consults would increase every month if our workflow was useful for clinicians and not too cumbersome. For feasibility and acceptability of the DEFT program by caregivers, we monitored the number of caregivers who agreed to participate over the number who were referred to DEFT. We requested that caregivers who participated in the training complete a survey about the training session. We also monitored the number of caregivers who fully completed the DEFT program.

To explore the preliminary impact of the DEFT program on caregiver satisfaction, we used a one-item survey (How satisfied are you with the knowledge and support that you have received thus far for your role as a caregiver?) using a 1–10 score, with 10 being the highest. We reviewed DUHS medical records of patients whose caregivers participated in the DEFT program for 30-day readmissions.

Procedure

Prior to start of the DEFT feasibility trial, the DEFT team, with heavy input from hospital clinicians and leaders, spent several months developing the DEFT workflow (Figure 1) and training curriculum. A workflow manual was developed by the DEFT program director to catalogue revisions to workflow and curriculum that occurred from multiple deliberations by the DEFT team and clinical partners. The DEFT team sought assistance from the DUHS informatics team to develop items for its caregiver assessment and template for documentation on the DUHS electronic health record system (EPIC). Thereafter, the DEFT team rounded in participating units to describe the program to hospital providers such as physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and case managers. The DEFT team demonstrated how to place consults using EPIC. The DEFT team requested that the hospital providers consult DEFT when they identified a caregiver who would care for a patient they were planning to discharge home.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

The DEFT Center Workflow From Initial Intake to Post-hospital Discharge

The DEFT consult template contained a menu of topics and selected skills that are relevant for post-hospital home care. We included topics that have been identified in the literature as relevant after hospital discharge, such as medication management, identification of red flags and who to call, follow-up appointments, nutrition and mobility, and prevention of falls. For skills, we selected those that were identified by hospital providers as common needs of their patients such as wound care, tube feeding, subcutaneous shots, and drain care. From this menu, hospital providers selected topics and skills that they believed were relevant for the caregivers to know based on their loved one's medical status.

Upon receipt of the electronic consult order, the DEFT intake specialist reviewed records to determine eligibility of caregivers. If eligible, the intake specialist called the caregiver to describe the DEFT program and to invite participation. If interested in participating, the caregiver was then scheduled for a face-to-face training session. In the pilot, the DEFT team offered a training class four times a week in one of the hospital classrooms.

A DEFT nurse and a DEFT case manager led each training session. A session began with caregivers completing a survey that queried their anticipated needs at home, such as financial resources, work obligations, transportation, support from others, and patient care. A baseline survey on caregiver satisfaction was also completed. Thereafter, interactive discussions on topics identified by hospital providers ensued. The DEFT team implemented several active learning approaches such as case studies with problem-solving discussions, teach-back strategies, and demonstration and return demonstration of skills. Supplies similar to what the hospital used for patient care and procedures (such as gastrojejunostomy tubes, syringes, and transparent dressing) were used by the DEFT nurse for skills training to increase familiarity of their use among caregivers. Caregivers had the option to video record skills training sessions using their smartphones. Before each session ended, the DEFT case manager provided information on community services to address anticipated needs at home as identified by the caregivers in the survey that they completed at the beginning of the session. The DEFT trainings were scheduled before a patient was discharged from the hospital. Up to four caregivers could participate in each training session, which lasted for about an hour.

The DEFT team utilized training materials that had been vetted by the DUHS Patient and Family Education Governance Council. Additionally, DEFT used pre-appraised, evidence-based materials available from federal agencies such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Examples of materials used were information on nutrition from https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/ and on falls prevention from https://www.ahrq.gov/topics/falls-prevention.html.

After the face-to-face training, the DEFT team monitored hospital records for discharge dates of patients of participating caregivers. After hospital discharge, the DEFT team conducted two phone check-ins with caregivers to provide an opportunity to ask questions about home caregiving. These phone calls happened within 3-5 days and 8-10 days of discharge. After each contact with caregivers, the DEFT team documented pertinent information about the patient's recovery shared by the caregiver on the medical record. The DEFT service ended at approximately 14 days of hospital discharge. At this time, caregivers responded again to the one-item satisfaction survey.

Data Analysis

Because of the preliminary nature of the pilot, only descriptive statistics were employed.

Results

The DEFT feasibility study began in April 2017 and ended in September 2017. As seen in Figure 2, in six months of implementation, the DEFT program received 104 consult orders, with the number of unique monthly consults incrementally increasing over time from 7 to 28. The number of caregivers enrolled in the program followed the same trend as consults, from 0 in April to 14 in September.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Consort Diagram for DEFT Pilot Program

Of those who were deemed eligible to participate (N = 95), 61 (64.2%) were interested and enrolled in the DEFT program. Because of their busy schedules, nine caregivers were unable to attend our caregiver training class. Three caregivers withdrew from participation after initially agreeing. Of the 49 caregivers who received DEFT training, 12 were deemed ineligible to continue participation because of changes in their patients' disposition. Of the 37 remaining, 15 (41%) completed the full DEFT program (training, two calls, and a discharge call), 15 (41%) had training and at least one phone call, and seven (18%) were lost to follow-up after hospital discharge.

Caregivers rated the caregiver training session very highly (Table 1). The 15 caregivers who completed the full DEFT program rated their satisfaction toward knowledge and support for patient care higher after participating in the DEFT program (8.50 versus 9.45, N = 12). Only one caregiver (6.7%) had a patient who was readmitted within 30 days of hospital discharge.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1.

Caregiver Satisfaction with the DEFT Training (N=40)a

Discussion

Based on published evidence that caregiver training and support may deliver favorable caregiver and patient outcomes, we developed and pilot-tested the feasibility of the DEFT program in an academic medical center [11, 15-16]. The DEFT team's careful deliberation in designing its workflow to minimize, as much as possible, disruptions to hospital services may have contributed to the initial acceptance of the program by hospital providers. The ability to access medical records via EPIC has also allowed the DEFT team to tailor the training and education based on patients' medical conditions.

Although an academic-practice partnership is touted as a collaborative opportunity in health care, this endeavor is replete with complexities [33, 34]. The operating systems of academic institutions and practice systems are vastly dissimilar. Academic faculty and personnel often lack the operational knowledge about hospital services and work culture. They also have limited top-level participation in hospital decision-making processes. To launch a health-system-wide initiative, buy-in from key stakeholders and hospital leadership is crucial. In DEFT's case, the team engaged in many presentations to hospital leadership to disseminate widely how DEFT can provide value-added benefits to the health system. Authorship in national presentations involved clinical partners. DEFT endeavors were deliberately organized with a win-win mindset for DUSON and DUHS.

With any new projects, pilot implementation is an important preliminary step toward identifying and improving inaccurate assumptions and inefficient processes. This preliminary testing will also afford the “outside” team an opportunity to get acculturated with the hospital workflow processes, resources, and environment. This is relevant as any new hospital program will need to align its goals and outcomes with the hospital's strategic priorities. Additionally, hospital leaders are often wary about costs associated with new services, thus sustainability discussions will have to involve program data to showcase an acceptable return on investment. For DEFT, the team intends to perform cost-effectiveness analyses that take into consideration its annual budget versus potential revenues including savings associated with reduction in readmissions (if any).

As a result of this pilot implementation, our team learned several important lessons that need to be addressed before we scale up the program. Of the 104 consult orders we received, the discharge disposition of 16 patients changed from home to skilled nursing facility after the caregivers had already consented to participate in the training. This may suggest that the consult orders were made too early before discharge decisions were finalized. A caveat, however, is that if consult orders were made too late or on the day of discharge, contacting the caregiver and scheduling a face-to-face training would not be possible. Thus, further discussions around optimal timing of placing consult orders are needed.

The first version of the DEFT consult template required the providers to enter caregiver information, including caregiver's contact phone number. However, providers often faced difficulty in obtaining caregiver information as caregivers were frequently not at the bedside during clinical rounds. Many providers stated that more consults could be made if caregiver phone number was optional. As a response, we modified this requirement and opted to use next-of-kin information on the medical record as an avenue for obtaining caregiver contact information.

During the first three months of our pilot study, we presented our program to various groups of medical learners (i.e., interns, residents, fellows) only to discover that these learners were only in the unit for a short time because of the nature of their clinical rotation. To reduce workload associated with repeated presentations, we decided to focus our efforts on medical directors, staff nurses, and case managers who were permanently assigned to a unit. We then requested that these permanent providers share the DEFT information with their respective learners.

In the preliminary study, the DEFT team contacted each caregiver by phone immediately upon receipt of the consult order. In addition to describing the DEFT program and scheduling a training session if a caregiver was interested in participating, the caregiver survey was also completed by phone. However, this proved to be quite taxing for caregivers, as it often took about 15-20 minutes to complete the assessment. Additionally, because the protocol required a completed survey before a caregiver could participate in the training, an incomplete caregiver survey meant no scheduled training for the caregiver. To address this issue, the DEFT team reconfigured the mode of assessment to a paper survey, which was to be completed during the in-person training. Caregivers acknowledged that completing written questionnaires and surveys in person was easier and quicker than being asked to respond to each item over the phone.

In the early phase of the pilot, the DEFT trainers mostly led the discussions in training sessions. However, this tactic often resulted in passive learning with caregivers doing more listening than talking. Therefore, the DEFT trainers revised their teaching approach to follow a more conversational flow with the dictum of “less is more” and an emphasis toward practical strategies. For instance, instead of going over risk factors for falls, a photo of a cluttered room was presented. Caregivers were asked to identify items in the photo that could contribute to falls. Each caregiver was also asked to reflect and describe the layout of furniture in the patient's bedroom at home and share one to two strategies for improving it. This conversational approach allowed the DEFT team to tailor information based on the caregiver's baseline knowledge and input. Lastly, the training site was originally scheduled at the DUSON, a 15-minute walk from DUH, where state-of-the-art technology such as mannequins and simulations can be used. However, an overwhelming majority of caregivers were reluctant to leave the hospital and opted to have the training in a hospital classroom to stay close to their loved ones.

There were several limitations to our feasibility program. The DEFT program is based on an existing academic-practice partnership. Many hospitals, especially those located in rural areas, do not have academic affiliations. Thus, the DEFT workflow may not be feasible in these hospitals. Additionally, the DEFT workflow process relies on the use of an electronic medical record. Therefore, the communication pathways established by the DEFT team using the EMR are limited to hospitals with the same capability. Lastly, the two pilot units were selected based on existing collaborating relationships between the DEFT center director and physician leads of the two units. Other units where no previous collaboration has been established may not be as receptive to DEFT.

In summary, our pilot study demonstrated that implementing a caregiver training and support program in an academic medical center is feasible and has the potential to produce favorable caregiver and patient outcomes. Findings from the pilot study have given us directions on how to improve our existing processes before we plan for a wider-scale implementation.

Acknowledgements

Financial support. The Duke Endowment.

Potential conflicts of interest. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

  • ©2020 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Vespa J,
    2. Medina L,
    3. Armstrong D
    Demographic Turning Points: Population Projections for the United States: 2020 to 2060. Silver Hill, MD: US Census Bureau; 2018. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2018/jsm/jsm-presentation-pop-projections.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2019.
  2. ↵
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
    Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project: HCUP Facts and Figures 2008 – Section 1. AHRQ website. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/factsandfigures/2008/section1_TOC.jsp. Updated October 7, 2010. Accessed August 13, 2019.
  3. ↵
    1. Quinlan N,
    2. Marcantonio ER,
    3. Inouye SK,
    4. Gill TM,
    5. Kamholz B,
    6. Rudolph JL
    Vulnerability: the crossroads of frailty and delirium. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(suppl 2):S262-S268. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03674.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Kaye KS,
    2. Marchaim D,
    3. Chen TY, et al.
    Effect of nosocomial bloodstream infections on mortality, length of stay, and hospital costs in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(2):306-311. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12634
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Joy S,
    2. Subhashni D
    Easing transition after hospital discharge. Am J Nurs. 2013;113(5):67. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000430244.27014.9f
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Freedman VA,
    2. Spillman BC
    Disability and care needs among older Americans. Milbank Q. 2014;92(3):509-541. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gitlin LN,
    2. Wolff J
    Family involvement in care transitions of older adults: what do we know and where do we go from here? Annu Rev Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;31(1):31-64. doi: 10.1891/0198-8794.31.31
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wolff JL,
    2. Spillman BC,
    3. Freedman VA,
    4. Kasper JD
    A national profile of family and unpaid caregivers who assist older adults with health care activities. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(3):372-379. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7664
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Spillman BC,
    2. Wolff J,
    3. Freedman VA,
    4. Kasper JD
    Informal Caregiving for Older Americans: An Analysis of the 2011 National Study of Caregiving. https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/informal-caregiving-older-americans-analysis-2011-national-study-caregiving. Published April 1, 2014. Accessed August 13, 2019.
  8. ↵
    1. Mazanec SR,
    2. Reichlin D,
    3. Gittleman H,
    4. Daly BJ
    Perceived needs, preparedness, and emotional distress of male caregivers of postsurgical women with gynecologic cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2018;45(2):197-205. doi: 10.1188/18.ONF.197-205
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Hendrix CC,
    2. Bailey DE Jr.,
    3. Steinhauser KE, et al.
    Effects of enhanced caregiver training program on cancer caregiver's self-efficacy, preparedness, and psychological well-being. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(1):327-336. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2797-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Grant JS,
    2. Graven LJ
    Problems experienced by informal caregivers of individuals with heart failure: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;80:41-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.12.016
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Jencks SF,
    2. Williams MV,
    3. Coleman EA
    Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0803563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Kahlon S,
    2. Pederson J,
    3. Majumdar SR, et al.
    Association between frailty and 30-day outcomes after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2015;187(11):799-804. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150100
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Naylor MD,
    2. Bowles KH,
    3. McCauley KM, et al.
    High-value transitional care: translation of research into practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(5):727-733. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01659.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Jones CE,
    2. Hollis RH,
    3. Wahl TS, et al.
    Transitional care interventions and hospital readmissions in surgical populations: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2016;212(2):327-335. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.04.004
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Hendrix C,
    2. Tepfer S,
    3. Forest S, et al.
    Transitional care partners: a hospital-to-home support for older adults and their caregivers. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2013;25(8):407-414. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2012.00803.x
    OpenUrl
    1. Cancino RS,
    2. Manasseh C,
    3. Kwong L,
    4. Mitchell SE,
    5. Martin J,
    6. Jack BW
    Project RED Impacts patient experience. J Patient Exp. 2017;4(4):185-190. doi: 10.1177/2374373517714454
    OpenUrl
    1. Bishop D,
    2. Miller I,
    3. Weiner D, et al.
    Family intervention: telephone tracking (FITT): a pilot stroke outcome study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014;21(suppl 1):S63-S74. doi: 10.1310/tsr21S1-S63
    OpenUrl
    1. Ghane G,
    2. Farahani MA,
    3. Seyedfatemi N,
    4. Haghani H
    The effect of supportive educative program on the quality of life in family caregivers of hemodialysis patients. J Educ Health Promot. 2017;6:80. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_78_16
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Belgacem B,
    2. Auclair C,
    3. Fedor MC, et al.
    A caregiver educational program improves quality of life and burden for cancer patients and their caregivers: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(6):870-876. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.04.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Mittelman MS,
    2. Haley WE,
    3. Clay OJ,
    4. Roth DL
    Improving caregiver well-being delays nursing home placement of patients with Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2006;67(9):1592-1599.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Hendrix CC,
    2. Hastings SN,
    3. Van Houtven C, et al.
    Pilot study: individualized training for caregivers of hospitalized older veterans. Nurs Res. 2011;60(6):436-441. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e31823583c7
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Hendrix CC,
    2. Landerman R,
    3. Abernethy AP
    Effects of an individualized caregiver training intervention on self-efficacy of cancer caregivers. West J Nurs Res. 2013;35(5):590-610. doi: 10.1177/0193945911420742
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Kales HC,
    2. Gitlin LN,
    3. Stanislawski B, et al.
    Effect of the WeCareAdvi-sor™ on family caregiver outcomes in dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0801-8
    OpenUrl
    1. Lorig K,
    2. Ritter PL,
    3. Laurent DD,
    4. Yank V
    Building better caregivers: a pragmatic 12-month trial of a community-based workshop for caregivers of cognitively impaired adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2019;38(9):1228-1252. doi: 10.1177/0733464817741682
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Boyacıoğlu NE,
    2. Kutlu Y
    The effectiveness of psychoeducational interventions in reducing the care burden of family members caring for the elderly in Turkey: a randomized controlled study. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2017;31(2):183-189. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.09.012
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. AARP
    From Home Alone to the CARE Act: Collaboration for Family Caregivers. Washington, DC: AARP; 2017. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2017/08/from-home-alone-to-the-care-act.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2019.
  23. ↵
    1. Reinhard S,
    2. Ryan E
    Stepping Up to Support Family Caregivers. AARP website. http://blog.aarp.org/2016/06/07/stepping-up-to-support-family-caregivers/. Published June 7, 2016. Accessed May 23, 2019.
  24. ↵
    Oklahoma Passes First In The Nation “Care Act” Supporting Family Caregivers [press release]. Washington, DC: AARP; May 12, 2014. https://press.aarp.org/2014-05-12-Oklahoma-Passes-First-In-The-Nation-Care-Act-Supporting-Family-Caregivers. Accessed May 23, 2019.
  25. ↵
    1. Mason D
    JAMA Forum: Supporting Family Caregivers, One State at a Time: The CARE Act. JAMA website. https://newsatjama.jama.com/2017/12/13/jama-forum-supporting-family-caregivers-one-state-at-a-time-the-care-act/. Published December 13, 2017. Accessed May 23, 2019.
  26. ↵
    1. Naylor MD,
    2. Shaid EC,
    3. Carpenter D, et al.
    Components of comprehensive and effective transitional care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(6):1119-1125. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14782
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Campbell SL,
    2. Prater M,
    3. Schwartz C,
    4. Ridenour N
    Building an empowering academic and practice partnership mode. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 2001;26(1):35-44.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Roche JP,
    2. Lamoureux E,
    3. Teehan T
    A partnership between nursing education and practice: using an empowerment model to retain new nurses. J Nurs Adm. 2004;34(1):26-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

North Carolina Medical Journal: 81 (4)
North Carolina Medical Journal
Vol. 81, Issue 4
July-August 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on North Carolina Medical Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Academic-Practice Partnership for Caregiver Training and Support
(Your Name) has sent you a message from North Carolina Medical Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the North Carolina Medical Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
11 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Academic-Practice Partnership for Caregiver Training and Support
Cristina C. Hendrix, Doreen Matters, Tamara Griffin, Heather Batchelder, Patricia Kramer, Judy R. Prewitt, Loretta Matters, Kay Lytle, Yesol Yang, Hyeyoung Park, Richard F. Riedel, Jessica Y. Choi, Eleanor McConnell
North Carolina Medical Journal Jul 2020, 81 (4) 221-227; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.81.4.221

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Academic-Practice Partnership for Caregiver Training and Support
Cristina C. Hendrix, Doreen Matters, Tamara Griffin, Heather Batchelder, Patricia Kramer, Judy R. Prewitt, Loretta Matters, Kay Lytle, Yesol Yang, Hyeyoung Park, Richard F. Riedel, Jessica Y. Choi, Eleanor McConnell
North Carolina Medical Journal Jul 2020, 81 (4) 221-227; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.81.4.221
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Examining Health Care Access for Refugee Children and Families in the North Carolina Triangle Area
  • Tracking Trends in the Opioid Epidemic in North Carolina : Early Results from the Opioid Action Plan Metrics
  • Facilitators and Barriers of a Health Department-based Mailed Fecal Testing Program
Show more Original Articles

Similar Articles

About & Contact

  • About the NCMJ
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback

Info for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers

Articles & Alerts

  • Archive
  • Current Issue
  • Get Alerts
  • Upcoming Articles

Additional Content

  • Current NCIOM Task Forces
  • NC Health Data & Resources
  • NCIOM Blog
North Carolina Medical Journal

ISSN: 0029-2559

© 2021 North Carolina Medical Journal

Powered by HighWire