| Literature DB >> 25391537 |
Miriam Ortiz1, Eva Soom Ammann, Corina Salis Gross, Katharina Schnabel, Torsten Walbaum, Sylvia Binting, Herbert Felix Fischer, Michael Teut, Jan Kottner, Ralf Suhr, Benno Brinkhaus.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 'Kneipp Therapy' (KT) is a form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) that includes a combination of hydrotherapy, herbal medicine, mind-body medicine, physical activities, and healthy eating. Since 2007, some nursing homes for older adults in Germany began to integrate CAM in the form of KT in care. The study investigated how KT is used in daily routine care and explored the health status of residents and caregivers involved in KT.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25391537 PMCID: PMC4246522 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-14-443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Figure 1Study participants´ flow chart.
Socio-demographic data of residents and caregivers (quantitative component)
| n | Gender female | Age (years)* | Height (cm)* | Weight (kg)* | BMI (kg/m 2)* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 64 | n = 53 (82.8%) | 83.2 ± 8.1 | 161.9 ± 9.3 | 72.1 ± 16.1 | 27.4 ± 5.4 |
|
| 29 | n = 29 (100%) | 42.0 ± 11.7 | 166.7 ± 6.2 | 76.3 ± 16.6 | 27.3 ± 5.9 |
BMI = Body Mass Index, SD = Standard Deviation, n = Number, *Mean ± SD.
Outcome parameter of residents (quantitative component)
| n | Mean (±SD) | Scale range (points) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 64 | 60.8 ± 24.4 | 0-100 |
|
| 52 | 22.3 ± 6.3 | 0-30 |
|
| |||
| Nursing relationship | 64 | 18.5 ± 3.5 (88%) | 0 - 21 |
| Positive affect | 64 | 15.9 ± 3.0 (88%) | 0 - 18 |
| Negative affect* | 64 | 7.2 ± 1.7 (80%) | 0 - 9 |
| Restless, tense behaviour* | 64 | 5.3 ± 1.4 (58%) | 0 - 9 |
| Positive self-perception | 64 | 7.1 ± 2.3 (78%) | 0 - 9 |
| Social relationships | 64 | 14.1 ± 3.8 (78%) | 0 -18 |
| Social isolation* | 64 | 8.0 ± 1.6 (89%) | 0 - 9 |
| Feeling familiar | 64 | 11.0 ± 2.2 (91%) | 0 - 12 |
| Having something to do | 64 | 3.4 ± 2.0 (56%) | 0 - 6 |
|
| 64 | 25.2 ± 3.1 | 0-28 |
|
| 64 | 43.2 ± 8.1 | 0-100 |
|
| 64 | 56.9 ± 8.2 | 0-100 |
MMSE = Mini Mental Status Examination, SF = Short Form, SD = Standard Deviation, n = Number.
*higher rating means less marked.
Outcome parameters of caregivers (quantitative component)
| n | Mean (± SD) | Scale range | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 28 | 49.2 ± 8.0 | 0-100 |
|
| 28 | 54.1 ± 6.6 | 0-100 |
|
| 23 | 37.4 ± 5.1 | 7-49 |
SD = Standard Deviation, n = Number.
Aspects of subjective perspectives of residents and caregivers (qualitative component)
| Residents | Caregivers |
|---|---|
| • Experience of care and naturopathic applications | • Experience of care and naturopathic applications |
| • Therapeutic relationship | • Relationship with residents |
| • Health complaints | • Professional self-concept |
| • Illness experience | • Illness perceptions and concepts |
| • Illness perceptions and concepts | • Working conditions, job satisfaction |
| • Self-efficacy, control of reinforcement, sense of coherence | • Stress |
| • Perspectives on the future | • Identification with the employing organization |
| • Motivation | |
| • Quality of care, caring competencies | |
| • Co-operation within the caring team | |
| • Self-experiences with naturopathy |
Note: These items were pre-defined and informed a set of practice-oriented open questions collected in a field manual. Questions were situationally adapted to meet the interviewee (be it nursing home directors, heads of nursing, nurses, nurses’ aides or residents).
Systematic overview of interpretive categories re implementation (qualitative component)
| Nursing home C | Nursing home D |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Individual KT treatments conducted by a KT trainer (→ specialized knowledge) | individual KT treatments conducted by all nurses and nurses’ aides (→ generalized knowledge) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| Explanation of symbolic order: director, head of nursing and KT trainer | explanation of symbolic order: director and head of nursing |
| Keepers of specialized knowledge: KT trainer and a few nurses/nurses’ aides externally trained in KT | keeper of specialized knowledge: head of nursing (who is a trained KT trainer) |
| Knowledge transfer: voluntary internal schooling by KT trainer | knowledge transfer: compulsory element of job introduction for nurses and nurses’ aides |
| Application of KT treatments: KT trainer (according to trainer’s treatment plan) | application of KT treatments: care staff (according to residents‘ treatment plans) |
| Additional KT activities: care staff (voluntary, within daily basic care activities); attendants (individual attendance in daily activities); therapists and social workers (their activities are integrated into the KT concept); kitchen crew (cooking healthy menus) | additional KT activities: nurses’ aides, attendants and volunteers (group activities and individual attendance in daily activities); therapists (their activities are integrated into the KT concept) |
|
|
|
| KT treatments are done by the KT trainer, in a manner that stresses individual attention (giving time, serving the individual needs of the resident) | Head of nursing instructs the staff how to apply KT |
| Therapist applies complex, time-consuming treatments, which are popular among the residents (hot/cold baths, massages, hot rolls etc.) | Each staff member applies KT according to pragmatic instructions |
| Nurses and nurses’ aides are invited to apply KT as well, but do it seldom because they do not feel in a position to give the same amount of time and individual attention as the KT trainer does | Treatments are chosen that integrate well into the daily tasks and routines of care (washings, gushes, brushing, simple baths etc.) |
| A few nurses and nurses’ aides punctually apply single elements in basic care (e.g. brush massages) and in treatment of indispositions (e.g. herbal teas, poultices) | Residents get a fixed treatment plan compulsory for staff |
|
|
|
| No time pressure: KT treatments can be done in a careful, individually adapted manner and therefore stress the attentive aspects. Only the KT trainer does treatments; frequency and regularity is hard to achieve. | KT treatments are done regularly, several times a week. This requests planning, offers liability for residents, and obliges staff to apply KT. |
| Treatments have an enchanted character; they are individual gifts of absolute attention. | Treatments have a pragmatic, everyday character; they are part of the standard services. |
| Treatments focus on well-being and indulging. | Focus on simplicity (cold washes, gushes) and regularity also leads to observable physiological effects; therefore, residents and staff tend to be convinced about positive long-term effects on health. |
| Treatments and the person of the therapist are very popular among residents. | ‘Cold‘ treatments are regarded as unpopular among residents, which leads some team members to replace unpopular treatments by more appreciated ones (such as the brush massages); this brings in the gift dimension (cf. organization C). |
| Nurses and nurses’ aides acknowledge that ‘doing Kneipp’ is ‘something beautiful‘ they do not have the possibilities to do in their daily care work. | |
|
|
|
| Residents may co-determine KT within the concrete interactions during a treatment since treatments focus on situational needs of the residents. | Residents have a therapy plan in their rooms and know what treatments they are supposed to get. Treatments are therefore part of standard services the residents have a right to. |
| Treatments are closely tied to the person of the therapist and tend to be experienced as personal and comprehensive ‘caring about’. | Residents may claim treatments on the basis of this plan, they may also negotiate situational changes in treatments (e.g. receiving a brush massage instead of a cold washing). They may, however, not influence who does the treatment (i.e. KT is not person-bound). |
| Residents have no explicit claim to receive treatments; they are perceived as occasional gifts, not regular services. | The power to define KT lies with the head of nursing (who puts up the treatment plan); the power to apply KT lies with the staff, but is negotiable for the residents. |
| The power to define and to apply KT treatments is not perceived to be available to residents. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| Gains for organization: uniqueness, i.e. the Kneipp nursing home is a better place to reside and a better place to work; more continuity in staff; lower material costs (medication, skin care products) | |
| Gains for staff: emotional and functional gains from more contented residents; wider scope of action (especially nurses’ aides), more variety in basic care | |
| Limitations: time; compulsion to ‘do Kneipp’ | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|