Search

Introduction: Many people living with advanced dementia live and die in nursing care homes. The quality of life, care and dying experienced by these people is variable. Namaste Care is a multisensory programme of care developed for people with advanced dementia. While there is emerging evidence that Namaste Care may be beneficial for people with dementia, there is a need to conduct a feasibility study to establish the optimum way of delivering this complex intervention and whether benefits can be demonstrated in end-of-life care, for individuals and service delivery. The aim of the study is to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a full trial of the Namaste Care intervention., Methods and Analysis: A feasibility study, comprising a parallel, two-arm, multicentre cluster controlled randomised trial with embedded process and economic evaluation. Nursing care homes (total of eight) who deliver care to those with advanced dementia will be randomly allocated to intervention (delivered at nursing care home level) or control. Three participant groups will be recruited: residents with advanced dementia, informal carers of a participating resident and nursing care home staff. Data will be collected for 6 months. Feasibility objectives concern the recruitment and sampling of nursing homes, residents, informal carers and staff; the selection and timing of primary (quality of dying and quality of life) and secondary clinical outcome measures (person centredness, symptom presence, agitation, quality of life, resource use and costs and residents' activity monitored using actigraphy). Acceptability, fidelity and sustainability of the intervention will be assessed using semistructured interviews with staff and informal carers., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been approved by NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 17/WA0378). Dissemination plans include working with a public involvement panel, through a website (http://www.namastetrial.org.uk), social media, academic and practice conferences and via peer reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN14948133; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Context: Trends in symptoms and functional ability are known toward the end of life, but less is understood about quality of life, particularly prospectively following service referral., Objectives: This study compares quality of life trajectories of people with and without cancer, referred to volunteer-provided palliative care services., Methods: A secondary analysis of the ELSA trial (n = 85 people with cancer and n = 72 without cancer) was performed. Quality of life data (WHOQOL-BREF) were collected at baseline (referral), four weeks, eight weeks, and 12 weeks. Sociodemographic data were collected at baseline. We specified a series of joint models to estimate differences on quality of life trajectories between groups adjusting for participants who die earlier in the study., Results: People with cancer had a significantly better quality of life at referral to the volunteer-provided palliative care services than those with nonmalignant disease despite similar demographic characteristics (Cohen d's = 0.37 to 0.45). More people with cancer died during the period of the study. We observed significant differences in quality of life physical and environmental domain trajectories between groups (b = -2.35, CI -4.49, -0.21, and b = -4.11, CI -6.45, -1.76). People with cancer experienced a greater decline in quality of life than those with nonmalignant disease., Conclusion: Referral triggers for those with and without cancer may be different. People with cancer can be expected to have a more rapid decline in quality of life from the point of service referral. This may indicate greater support needs, including from volunteer-provided palliative care services., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical care alone at the end of life is unlikely to meet all needs. Volunteers are a key resource, acceptable to patients, but there is no evidence on care outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether support from a social action volunteer service is better than usual care at improving quality of life for adults in the last year of life., Methods: A pragmatic, multi-centre wait-list controlled trial, with participants randomly allocated to receive the volunteer support intervention either immediately or after a 4 week wait. Trained volunteers provided tailored face-to-face support including befriending, practical support and signposting to services, primarily provided within the home, typically for 2-3 hours per week. The primary outcome was rate of change of quality of life at 4 weeks (WHO QOL BREF, a general, culturally sensitive measure). Secondary outcomes included rate of change of quality of life at 8 weeks and Loneliness (De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), social support (mMOS-SS), and reported use of health and social care services at 4 and 8 weeks., Results: In total, 196 adults (61% (n = 109) female; mean age 72 years) were included in the study. No significant difference was found in main or secondary outcomes at 4 weeks. Rate of change of quality of life showed trends in favour of the intervention (physical quality of life domain: b = 3.98, CI, -0.38 to 8.34; psychological domain: b = 2.59, CI, -2.24 to 7.43; environmental domain: b = 3, CI, -4.13 to 4.91). Adjusted analyses to control for hours of volunteer input found significantly less decrease in physical quality of life in the intervention group (slope (b) 4.43, CI, 0.10 to 8.76). While the intervention also favoured the rate of change of emotional (b = -0.08; CI, -0.52 to 0.35) and social loneliness (b = -0.20; CI, -0.58 to 0.18), social support (b = 0.13; CI, -0.13 to 0.39), and reported use of health and social care professionals (b = 0.16; CI, -0.22 to 0.55), these were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported., Conclusions: Clinicians can confidently refer to volunteer services at the end of life. Future research should focus on 'dose' to maximise likely impact., Trial Registration: The trial was prospectively registered. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN12929812 , registered 20 May 2015.