Search

Background and Objectives: Hospitalized persons living with dementia are at risk for functional decline, behavioral symptoms of distress, and delirium, all persisting in the postacute period. In turn, family care partners (FCPs) experience increased anxiety and lack of preparedness for caregiving, compounding existing strain and burden. Family-centered Function-focused Care (Fam-FFC) purposefully engages FCPs in assessment, decision-making, care delivery, and evaluation of function-focused care during and after hospitalization (within 48 hours of discharge, weekly telephone calls for a total of 7 additional weeks, then monthly for 4 months). The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of Fam-FFC., Research Design and Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial included 455 dyads of persons living with dementia and FCPs in 6 medical units in 3 hospitals. Patient outcomes included return to baseline physical function, behavioral symptoms of distress, depressive symptoms, and delirium severity. Family care partner measures included preparedness for caregiving, anxiety, strain, and burden., Results: Multilevel level modeling demonstrated that the likelihood of returning to baseline function across time for Fam-FFC participants was twice that of the control group by the end of 6 months (OR = 2.4, p  = .01, 95% CI 1.2-4.7). Family-centered Function-focused Care was also associated with fewer symptoms of distress ( b  = -1.1, SE  = 0.56, p  = .05) but no differences in the amount of moderate physical activity, depressive symptoms, and delirium severity. Preparedness for caregiving increased significantly only from 2 to 6 months ( b  = 0.89, SE  = 0.45, d  = 0.21, overall p  = .02) in the intervention group, with no group differences in anxiety, strain, and burden., Discussion and Implications: Family-centered Function-focused Care may help prevent some of the postacute functional decline and behavioral symptoms in hospitalized persons living with dementia. Further research is needed to promote sustained improvements in these symptoms with more attention to the postacute needs of the care partner., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.)

Background and Objectives: Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) commonly occur in persons living with dementia. Bright light (BL) interventions have shown some positive impact on BPSD. Ambient lighting is a more efficient approach to delivering BL with better compliance and less staff workload than individual-based lighting interventions. Yet, its effect has not been systematically reviewed. This review synthesized research evidence on the effect of ambient BL on BPSD., Research Design and Methods: This review searched literature from PubMed (Medline), CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane in February 2021. Original research testing the effect of ambient BL on BPSD in persons with dementia was included. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed the quality of each article., Results: Nine studies were reviewed with 1 randomized controlled trial and 8 quasi-experimental studies. The sample size ranged from 14 to 89 participants across care settings. While not all studies showed positive results, evidence from multiple studies revealed the positive effect of ambient BL on depressive symptoms and agitation in persons with dementia. The ambient BL that showed a positive effect targeted at approximately 350-750 lux, 4,500-9,325 K, and/or circadian stimulus = 0.375-0.4 for 10-12 hr a day for 4 weeks or longer. Evidence on other BPSD was mixed or too limited to draw conclusions., Discussion and Implications: A preponderance of evidence suggests that, when properly designed and implemented, ambient BL shows promise in reducing depressive symptoms and agitation. Future research, using more rigorous designs, is needed to further test the effect of ambient BL on BPSD with attention to lighting parameters, measurement approaches, and intervention fidelity., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.)

Background and Objectives: Several systematic reviews exist that examine the efficacy of educational interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to improve formal caregivers' knowledge and skills and/or the outcomes of persons living with dementia. The aim of this article is to summarize existing systematic reviews to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions tested in RCTs and directed at formal caregivers., Research Design and Methods: Smith et al.'s methodology guided this systematic review of systematic reviews. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) for quality appraisals. Reviews were included if they contained interventions with an RCT design that focused on changing staff behavior and/or practice toward persons living with dementia, in any setting and for any health care discipline., Results: We identified six systematic reviews, one rated as high-quality on the AMSTAR 2. Most interventions were directed at nursing staff, in long-term care facilities, focused on agitation, and were atheoretical. There is insufficient evidence to guide implementation of currently tested interventions; however, training in communication skills, person-centered care, and dementia-care mapping with supervision show promise for improving agitation., Discussion and Implications: There's a critical need for additional research with well-designed RCTs, and clear reporting of protocols and findings to inform the field on how best to train and support the workforce. Although there is no conclusive evidence on what interventions are most effective, it could be argued that providing training using interventions with modest evidence of impact is better than no training at all until the evidence base is strengthened., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.)