Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis1, Dorota Talarska2, Sylwia Kropińska3, Krystyna Jaracz4, Sławomir Tobis5, Aleksandra Suwalska6, Hanna Kachaniuk7, Justyna Mazurek8, Agnieszka Dymek-Skoczyńska9, Joanna Rymaszewska10. 1. Department of Palliative Medicine, Laboratory for Geriatrics, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Rusa 55, 61-245 Poznan, Poland. Electronic address: kwt@tobis.pl. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 11 M. Smoluchowskiego Street, 60-179 Poznan, Poland. Electronic address: pati.talarska@neostrada.pl. 3. Department of Palliative Medicine, Laboratory for Geriatrics, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Rusa 55, 61-245 Poznan, Poland. Electronic address: skropins@ump.edu.pl. 4. Department of Neurological and Psychiatric Nursing, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 11 M. Smoluchowskiego Street, 60-179 Poznan, Poland. Electronic address: jaracz@ump.edu.pl. 5. Department of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Święcickiego Street, 60-781 Poznan, Poland Home Hospice, Bednarska Street, 60-571 Poznan, Poland. Electronic address: stobis@gmail.com. 6. Department of Adult Psychiatry, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Szpitalna Street, 60-572 Poznan, Poland. Electronic address: asuwalska@gmail.com. 7. Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Chair of Oncology and Environmental Health, Community Nursing Unit, Medical University of Lublin, Staszica Street, 20-81 Lublin, Poland. Electronic address: hakach@op.pl. 8. Upper Silesian Rehabilitation Centre "Repty", Śniadeckiego Street, 42-604 Tarnowskie Góry, Poland. Electronic address: justyna_mazurek@poczta.onet.pl. 9. Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 11 M. Smoluchowskiego Street, 60-179 Poznan, Poland. Electronic address: agadymek@interia.pl. 10. Department of Psychiatry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wybrzeże L. Pasteura 10, 50-367 Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: joanna.rymaszewska@umed.wroc.pl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly questionnaire (CANE) in assessing the needs of elderly individuals living in long-term care institutions (LTCI) in Poland. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The needs of 173 residents were assessed. The inclusion criteria were age (at least 75 years of age) and the lack of severe cognitive impairment (Mini Mental Scale Examination score of at least 15 points). MEASUREMENTS: In all participants, met and unmet needs were assessed by themselves and by the nursing staff involved in care activities. RESULTS: The number of met needs assessed by the staff was higher than in the users' opinions (p<0.0001), whereas the number of unmet needs was lower (p<0.001). However, the average percentage of the agreement between the user and the staff was as high as 86.2%. The areas characterized by the lowest agreement were Company (65.3%), Memory (75.7%), Eyesight/hearing/communication (70.5%) and Psychological distress (70.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high percentage of agreement reached between the staff and user assessments of needs in our study, we were able to identify the areas of discrepancies between these two perceptions of needs. These can be treated as signals pointing to those aspects of care that should be addressed.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly questionnaire (CANE) in assessing the needs of elderly individuals living in long-term care institutions (LTCI) in Poland. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The needs of 173 residents were assessed. The inclusion criteria were age (at least 75 years of age) and the lack of severe cognitive impairment (Mini Mental Scale Examination score of at least 15 points). MEASUREMENTS: In all participants, met and unmet needs were assessed by themselves and by the nursing staff involved in care activities. RESULTS: The number of met needs assessed by the staff was higher than in the users' opinions (p<0.0001), whereas the number of unmet needs was lower (p<0.001). However, the average percentage of the agreement between the user and the staff was as high as 86.2%. The areas characterized by the lowest agreement were Company (65.3%), Memory (75.7%), Eyesight/hearing/communication (70.5%) and Psychological distress (70.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high percentage of agreement reached between the staff and user assessments of needs in our study, we were able to identify the areas of discrepancies between these two perceptions of needs. These can be treated as signals pointing to those aspects of care that should be addressed.