Background and objectives

Older adults with cognitive impairment often experience poor oral health outcomes due to inadequate oral hygiene practices. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a care partner-assisted intervention to improve the oral hygiene of community-dwelling older adults with cognitive impairment.

Material and methods

The 6-month intervention included 25 older adults with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment, who were randomly assigned to Treatment Group 1 or Treatment Group 2. Treatment Group 1 (n = 7) received an educational booklet. Treatment Group 2 (n = 18) received a booklet, a tailored care plan for the participants with cognitive impairment and the care partner received four coaching sessions to learn to facilitate good oral hygiene. Both groups received electric toothbrushes. The study consisted of a 3-month active intervention and 3-month maintenance phase. The outcomes of gingival index, plaque index and overall oral health status based on the Oral Health Assessment Tool were measured at baseline, 3 months (end of active intervention) and 6 months of the study.

Results

This study had very low dropout rate. Participants' oral hygiene improved in this study. In comparison to Treatment Group 1, participants in Treatment Group 2 had a greater reduction in plaque level and gingival inflammation, and greater improvement in overall oral health status.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the feasibility of this intervention designed to improve the oral health of persons with cognitive impairment and it lays the foundation for using this protocol in a future large randomised clinical trial.

We pilot tested a carepartner-assisted intervention to improve oral hygiene in persons with cognitive impairment (participants) and help carepartners become leaders who can adapt approaches that foster participants' ability to develop new skills for oral hygiene care. Following the intervention, we conducted interviews with participants and carepartners to understand their challenges in working together to learn new oral hygiene skills. Participants reported challenges such as frustration using the electric toothbrush correctly, lack of desire to change, uncertainty about correctness of technique, and difficulty sustaining two minutes of toothbrushing. Carepartners reported challenges such as learning a new way of toothbrushing, learning new communication techniques, switching from instructing to working together, learning to balance leading with being too bossy, and being mindful of word choices. Findings suggested that despite challenges, participants were able to learn adaptive strategies to support new oral hygiene behaviors with support of the carepartner as the adaptive leader.

Purpose

To describe the perceptions of residency candidates, residency practitioners (current residents and preceptors), and residency program directors (RPDs) regarding a virtual interview process for pharmacy residency programs across multiple institutions.

Methods

In May 2021, an anonymous web-based questionnaire characterizing perceptions of the virtual interview process used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was distributed to residency candidates, residency practitioners, and RPDs across 13 institutions. Quantitative responses measured on a 5-point Likert scale were summarized with descriptive statistics, and open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic qualitative methods.

Results

236 residency candidates and 253 residency practitioners/RPDs completed the questionnaire, yielding response rates of 27.8% (236 of 848), and 38.1% (253 of 663), respectively. Overall, both groups perceived the virtual interview format positively. When asked whether virtual interviews should replace in-person interviews moving forward, 60.0% (18 of 30) of RPDs indicated they agreed or strongly agreed, whereas only 30.5% (61 of 200) of current preceptors/residents and 28.7% (66 of 230) of residency candidates agreed or strongly agreed. Thematic analysis of qualitative responses revealed that while virtual interviews were easier logistically, the lack of in-person interactions was a common concern for many stakeholders. Lastly, the majority (65.0%) of residency candidates reported greater than $1,000 in savings with virtual interviews.

Conclusion

Virtual interviews offered logistical and financial benefits. The majority of RPDs were in favor of offering virtual interviews to replace in-person interviews, whereas the majority of residency candidates and practitioners preferred on-site interviews. As restrictions persist with the ongoing pandemic, our results provide insight into best practices for virtual pharmacy residency interviews.