Aims and objectives To identify key areas of competence for digitalisation in healthcare settings, describe healthcare professionals’ competencies in these areas and identify factors related to their competence. Background Digitalisation requires changes in healthcare practices, policies and actions to revise job expectations and workflows. The aspects of patient safety and integration of digitalisation into the professional context necessitate an assessment of healthcare professionals’ competencies in digitalisation. Design Systematic review. Methods A systematic review was conducted following Center of Reviews and Dissemination guidelines, including application of a PRISMA statement. Four databases—CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science and Academic Search Premiere (EBSCO)—were searched for relevant original peer‐reviewed studies published between 2012–2017. Twelve were chosen for final analysis: five quantitative studies and seven qualitative studies, which were, respectively, subjected to narrative and thematic synthesis. Results Key competence areas regarding digitalisation from a healthcare perspective identified encompass knowledge of digital technology and the digital skills required to provide good patient care, including associated social and communication skills, and ethical considerations of digitalisation in patient care. Healthcare professionals need the motivation and willingness to acquire experience of digitalisation in their professional context. Collegial and organisational support appear to be essential factors for building positive experiences of digitalisation for healthcare professionals. Conclusion Healthcare organisations should both pay attention to the social environment of a workplace and create a positive atmosphere if they want to improve the response to digitalisation. The successful implementation of new technology requires organisational and collegial support. Relevance to clinical practice Recommendations for clinical practice include the following: development of competence in digitalisation by healthcare professionals when using technological equipment to minimise errors; provision of sufficient resources, equipment and room for technology usage; and provision of regular education that considers the participants’ competencies.

Aim was to explore the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and related factors among older adults with visual impairment (VI). A total of 39 independently living subjects aged ⩾65 years (83 ± 6.5), referred to the Low Vision Center of the Oulu University Hospital, Finland during one year participated in the study. The participants had low vision or blindness as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The 15D, a generic HRQoL instrument, was used to assess the HRQoL, and an ophthalmic examination was performed to assess vision. A population-based control group ( n = 1074) was available for comparison. The mean 15D index scores for the participants and the control group were 0.768 ( SD = 0.089) and 0.827 ( SD = 0.044), respectively, ( p < .002). In the dimensions of move ( p < .05), see ( p < .001), breath ( p < .05), usual activities ( p < .001), depression ( p < .05), and distress ( p < .05), the study participants scored statistically significantly lower than the control group. However, the participants had better mental function scores (0.856 vs 0.773, p < .05). Among the participants, there was no difference in the 15D by gender (men 0.755, women 0.774, p > .05), habitation (alone 0.768, with someone 0.770, p > .05), or age ( r = –.084), nor did the extent of low vision appear to affect the 15D index in this material. The older adults with VI had poorer 15D index score than Finnish population of equal age, but they scored better in the dimension of mental function. Mental skills may indeed be crucial for independent living despite VI.

This study describes the self-estimated functional ability of older adults with visual impairments (VI) living at home prior to and after 24 months of individual low vision rehabilitation (LVR) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. The LVR was carried out according to regular standard of care in Finland. The study provides knowledge that is relevant for improving both LVR as well as other services for older adults living with VI. Thirty-nine older adults with VI initially participated in the study with 28 remaining for the follow-up at 24 months of LVR. Data were collected by an orally administered questionnaire including items from the Oldwellactive Wellness Profile instrument. Data were analyzed using the marginal homogeneity test, and the outcomes were divided into four categories according to the ICF framework. Comparisons between the baseline and 2-year follow-up revealed statistically significant decreases in daily functions, including going outdoors ( p = .011), washing oneself ( p = .016), taking care for personal hygiene ( p = .046), dressing ( p = .034), preparing meals ( p = .041), and doing heavy housework ( p = .046), following 2 years of received LVR. A statistically significant increase in the need for help was also observed during the study period ( p = .025). The independence of older adults with VI decreased, and the need for external services or help increased during 24 months after the onset of receiving LVR. Visual problems were shown to widely affect functional ability. Activities and participation dimension together with loneliness are most affected and need attention in individual LVR.

Worldwide demographic changes have led to an increased share of older people in the population (Ritchie & Roser, 2019), which is also increasing the number of older people in need of long-term care.In Finland, and in other European countries, safe aging at homewith support from additional nursing and home help services-is a national goal that has shifted the focus of long-term care for older people from residential care to home care (Boerma & Genet, 2012; Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, 2020a). Finland's National Programme on Aging 2030 focusses on preventive measures to improve the functional ability of older people and risk groups (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2020). Vision is a major factor that affects an older person's functioning and living at home. However, up-to-date information on the visual performance of home-dwelling older people receiving home care is not available. In 2019, over 100,000 home-dwelling older people (>65 years of age) received regular home care services in Finland. This represents approximately 8% of this age group (Saukkonen et al., 2020).Although several studies have shown that visual impairment (VI) affects functional ability, overall well-being and quality of

Background/Objective: Low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services aim to help people of all ages with visual impairment (VI) to maintain and improve their quality of life and well-being. However, knowledge about elderly people’s subjective experiences of the usefulness as well as their expectations of LVR is very limited. The aim of this study was therefore to produce new knowledge that can be utilized in the development and improvement of LVR processes and services in order to better support well-being and quality of life, and encourage the ‘active aging’ of elderly people with VI.Methods: Qualitative research methods were used. The data was collected from elderly people with VI (n = 35) by unstructured telephone interviews one year after the onset of individual LVR. The data was analyzed by inductive content analysis.Results: Numerous and varied expectations were expressed for LVR, showing mainly hopes for vision improvement and the need for services and support. The impact of medical care on vision outcome was mentioned in relation to the perceived benefits of LVR. LVR was generally considered useful in terms of overall well-being and quality of life, the main practical benefits being the provision of different visual aids and assistive devices.Conclusions: The results proved the concept, process and multi-sided nature of LVR to be incompletely perceived by the participants in the study. In light of this, we argue that there is a need for improved communication between people with VI and medical staff when discussing the nature and the realistic possibilities of LVR; care should be taken to distinguish it from medical care. The benefits of LVR in enabling independence in daily tasks were commonly recognized, however.