Despite many guidelines for the management of gestational diabetes available internationally, little work has been done to summarize and assess the content of existing guidelines. A paucity of analysis guidelines within in a unified system may be one explanatory factor. So this study aims to analyze and evaluate the contents of all available guidelines for the management of gestational diabetes. Relevant clinical guidelines were collected through a search of relevant guideline websites and databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, etc.). Fourteen guidelines were identified, and each guideline was assessed for quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Two independent reviewers extracted guideline recommendations using a “recommendation matrix” through which basic guideline information and consistency between search strategy and selection of evidence, between selected evidence and interpretation, and between interpretation and resulting recommendations were analyzed. Fourteen documents were analyzed, and a total of 361 original recommendations for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) management were assessed. In all guidelines included, the recommendations were developed in five domains, namely, diagnosis of GDM, prenatal care, intrapartum care, neonatal care and postpartum care. Different guidelines appeared to have significant discrepancy in consistency of guideline content, but overall, there was consistency between search strategy and selection of evidence, between selected evidence and interpretation, and between interpretation and resulting recommendations (scilicet 49.31, 57.20 and 58.17%, respectively). Although commonality in most recommendations existed, there were still some discrepancies between guidelines. Consistency of guidelines on the management of GDM in pregnancy is highly variable and needs to be improved.

Background: Nursing care is essential to overall quality of healthcare experienced by patients and families—especially during childbearing. However, evidence regarding quality of nursing care during labor and birth is lacking, and established nurse-sensitive outcome indicators have limited applicability to maternity care. Nurse-sensitive outcomes need to be established for maternity care, and prior research suggests that the initiation of human milk feeding during childbirth hospitalization is a potentially nurse-sensitive outcome. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between nurse-reported staffing, missed nursing care during labor and birth, and exclusive breast milk feeding during childbirth hospitalization as a nurse-sensitive outcome. Methods: 2018 Joint Commission PC-05 Exclusive Breast Milk Feeding rates were linked to survey data from labor nurses who worked in a selected sample of hospitals with both PC-05 data and valid 2018 American Hospital Association Annual Survey data. Nurse-reported staffing was measured as the perceived compliance with Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses staffing guidelines by the labor and delivery unit. Data from the nurse survey were aggregated to the hospital level. Bivariate linear regression was used to determine associations between nurse and hospital characteristics and exclusive breast milk feeding rates. Generalized structural equation modeling was used to model relationships between nurse-reported staffing, nurse-reported missed care, and exclusive breast milk feeding at the hospital level. Results: The sample included 184 hospitals in 29 states and 2,691 labor nurses who worked day, night, or evening shifts. Bivariate analyses demonstrated a positive association between nurse-reported staffing and exclusive breast milk feeding and a negative association between missed nursing care and exclusive breast milk feeding. In structural equation models controlling for covariates, missed skin-to-skin mother–baby care and missed breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth mediated the relationship between nurse-reported staffing and exclusive breast milk feeding rates. Discussion: This study provides evidence that hospitals’ nurse-reported compliance with Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses staffing guidelines predicts hospital-exclusive breast milk feeding rates and that the rates are a nurse-sensitive outcome.

Background: Persons living with dementia (PLWD) in adult day centers (ADCs) represent a complex and vulnerable population whose well-being is at risk based on numerous factors. Greater knowledge of the interaction between dementia, chronic conditions, and social determinants of health would enable ADCs to identify and target the use of their resources to better support clients in need of in-depth intervention. The purpose of this paper is to (a) classify PLWD in ADCs according to their level of medical complexity and (b) identify the demographic, functional, and clinical characteristics of those with the highest degree of medical complexity. Methods: This was a secondary data analysis of 3052 clients with a dementia diagnosis from 53 ADCs across the state of California between 2012 and 2019. The most common diagnosis codes were organized into 28 disease categories to enable a latent class analysis (LCA). Chi-square test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to examine differences among latent classes with respect to clinical and functional characteristics. Results: An optimal 4-class solution was chosen to reflect chronic conditions among PLWD: high medical complexity, moderate medical complexity, low medical complexity, and no medical complexity. Those in the high medical complexity were taking an average of 12.72 (+/− 6.52) medications and attending the ADC an average of 3.98 days (+/− 1.31) per week—values that exceeded any other class. They also experienced hospitalizations more than any other group (19.0%) and met requirements for the nursing facility level of care (77.4%). In addition, the group experienced the greatest frequency of bladder (57.5%) and bowel (15.7%) incontinence. Conclusions: Our results illustrate a high degree of medical complexity among PLWD in ADCs. A majority of PLWD not only have multimorbidity but are socially disadvantaged. Our results demonstrate that a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach that involves community partners such as ADCs is critically needed that addresses functional decline, loneliness, social isolation, and multimorbidity which can negatively impact PLWD.

Our study documented communication workflows across adult day care centers (ADCs) and primary care providers (PCPs) around complex needs of persons living with dementia (PLWD). We also identified barriers and facilitators to productive communication in clinical decision support and clinical information systems. We conducted 6 focus groups with ADC staff (N = 33) and individual semistructured interviews with PCPs (N = 22) in California. The eHealth Enhanced Chronic Care Model was used to frame the directed qualitative content analysis. Our results captured cumbersome and ineffective workflows currently used to exchange information across PCPs and ADCs. Stakeholders characterized current communication as (1) infrequent, (2) delayed, (3) incomplete, (4) unreliable, (5) irrelevant, and (6) generic. Conversely, communication that was bidirectional, relevant, succinct, and interdisciplinary was needed to elevate the standard of care for PLWD. ADCs possess a wealth of information that can support clinical decision-making across community-based providers involved in the care of PLWD, especially PCPs. However, effective information exchange is mired by complicated workflows that rely on antiquated technologies (eg, facsimile) and standard templates. Current information exchange largely focuses on satisfying regulatory guidelines rather than supporting clinical decision-making. Integrating community-based services into the health care continuum is a necessary step in elevating the standard of care for PLWD. In the absence of interoperable electronic health records, which may not be financially viable for ADCs, other options, such as mobile health, should be explored to facilitate productive information exchange of personalized relevant information.

Background: Making a care-related decision is a complex cognitive process. Patient decision aids could provide information on potential options about risks and benefits, incorporate individual values and preferences, and help people with dementia or their family carers make decisions about palliative and end-of-life care. Objective: This systematic review aimed to critically evaluate and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of digital decision aids to support decision-making in palliative and end-of-life care for patients with dementia, their family carers, or clinicians. Methods: A systematic literature search in 4 health-related databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was performed in September 2024. Articles were included if the study focused on the development and evaluation of a digital decision support tool on end-of-life dementia care, used an experimental design, and was available in full text in English. Studies using a nonexperimental design were excluded. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool Version 2.0 or the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions Version 2.0 was used to assess risk of bias. Narrative synthesis and meta-analyses were performed to comprehensively summarize the technologies and outcomes of the decision aids. Results: The literature search across datasets identified a total of 1274 records. With an additional 5 records from citation searching and reference reviewing, a total of 20 articles were included, with 10 studies using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 pretest-posttest pilot studies. Technologies of visual aids, videos, web pages, and telehealth were reported in the included studies to support decision-making for end-of-life dementia care. Most decision aids focused on the decision about the primary goal of care (life-prolonging care, limited care, and comfort care), except for 1 visual aid focusing on the decisions about feeding tube placement and drug treatment for dementia. Most decision aids engaged both patients and their family carers. Pilot studies examining feasibility showed that most participants found these decision aids relevant to their needs and easy to use, and were able to complete the intervention sessions. Meta-analyses of 4 RCTs showed that video decision aids were effective in increasing the proportion of participants opting for comfort care (odds ratio 3.81, 95% CI 1.92-7.56) but inconclusive for the proportion of documented do-not-hospitalize orders (odds ratio 1.60, 95% CI 0.70-3.67), compared to the control group. Conclusions: Internet-based decision aids offer a feasible and acceptable approach to support the shared decision-making between patients, families, and clinicians. The included studies reported various outcome measures, including preferred goal of care, quality of palliative care, decision-making performance, and health care use. More large-scale RCTs are needed, and consistent outcome measures should be considered to evaluate the effects of end-of-life decision aids. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024621321; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024621321