Search

BACKGROUND: The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitab

BACKGROUND: Providing psychological support to people living with terminal illness is a fundamental part of hospice care. Recent research on delivery of psychological services in hospices in the United Kingdom (UK) on a national level, including inequalities or variation in practice, is limited. A nationwide survey will highlight any differences in provision and in doing so help focus future research and inform best practice both within the UK, and internationally. The specific objectives of this survey are to (1) chart the types of psychological support available to adult patients in hospices in the UK in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence model; (2) explore how services are organised; and (3) gather service perspectives on adequacy of care, and facilitators and barriers to appropriate practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey emailed to adult hospices in the UK in November-December 2019. One staff member involved in the delivery and/or organisation of psychological support was invited to participate per hospice. Of 193 invited hospices, 116 took part. RESULTS: Sixteen percent rated their hospice psychological service as wholly adequate. The majority reported that services can access specialist professionals, but many relied on external referrals. Barriers to best practice included funding and staff capacity; facilitators included clear referral structures, audit and appropriate needs and outcome assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Access to psychological professionals has improved since the last survey 15 years ago, but the majority of responders felt their overall service was not wholly adequate. Basic emotional support is largely felt to be sufficient, but our results indicate a need for improvements in access to more specialist care. Partnerships with external mental health services may be key. Our findings highlight core facilitators and barriers to providing good psychological care at the end of life that should be considered by se

BACKGROUND: Keeping people living with advanced dementia in their usual place of residence is becoming a key governmental goal but to achieve this, family carers and health care professionals must negotiate how to provide optimal care. Previously, we reported a realist analysis of the health care professional perspective. Here, we report on family carer perspectives. We aimed to understand the similarities and differences between the two perspectives, gain insights into how the interdependent roles of family carers and HCPs can be optimised, and make recommendations for policy and practice. METHOD: Qualitative study using a realist approach in which we used the criteria from guidance on optimal palliative care in advanced dementia to examine key contexts, mechanisms and outcomes highlighted by family carers. RESULTS: The themes and views of family caregivers resonate with those of health care professionals. Their overlapping anxieties related to business-driven care homes, uncertainty of families when making EOL decisions and the importance of symptom management referring to contexts, mechanisms and outcomes, respectively. Contexts specific to family carers were ad hoc information about services, dementia progression and access to funding. Not all family carers identified dementia as terminal, but many recognised the importance of continuity of care and knowing the wishes of the person with dementia. New mechanisms included specific resources for improving EOL care and barriers to discussing and planning for future care. Family carers identified the importance of comfort, being present, the meeting of basic care needs and feeling the right decisions have been made as good outcomes of care. CONCLUSIONS: Family carers and health care professionals share similar concerns about the challenges to good EOL dementia care. Better understanding of the effects of dementia at the advanced stages would improve confidence in EOL care and reduce uncertainty in decision making for

BACKGROUND: Increasing number of people are dying with advanced dementia. Comfort and quality of life are key goals of care. AIMS: To describe (1) physical and psychological symptoms, (2) health and social care service utilisation and (3) care at end of life in people with advanced dementia. DESIGN: 9-month prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Greater London, England, people with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Scale 6e and above) from 14 nursing homes or their own homes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At study entry and monthly: prescriptions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pressure sore risk/severity (Waterlow Scale/Stirling Scale, respectively), acute medical events, pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), quality of life (Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia Scale), resource use (Resource Utilization in Dementia Questionnaire and Client Services Receipt Inventory), presence/type of advance care plans, interventions, mortality, place of death and comfort (Symptom Management at End of Life in Dementia Scale). RESULTS: Of 159 potential participants, 85 were recruited (62% alive at end of follow-up). Pain (11% at rest, 61% on movement) and significant agitation (54%) were common and persistent. Aspiration, dyspnoea, septicaemia and pneumonia were more frequent in those who died. In total, 76% had 'do not resuscitate' statements, less than 40% advance care plans. Most received primary care visits, there was little input from geriatrics or mental health but contact with emergency paramedics was common. CONCLUSION: People with advanced dementia lived with distressing symptoms. Service provision was not tailored to their needs. Longitudinal multidisciplinary input could optimise symptom control and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Many people with dementia die in nursing homes, but quality of care may be suboptimal. We developed the theory-driven 'Compassion Intervention' to enhance end-of-life care in advanced dementia. OBJECTIVES: To (1) understand how the Intervention operated in nursing homes in different health economies; (2) collect preliminary outcome data and costs of an interdisciplinary care leader (ICL) to facilitate the Intervention; (3) check the Intervention caused no harm. DESIGN: A naturalistic feasibility study of Intervention implementation for 6 months. SETTINGS: Two nursing homes in northern London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty residents with advanced dementia were assessed of whom nine were recruited for data collection; four of these residents' family members were interviewed. Twenty-eight nursing home and external healthcare professionals participated in interviews at 7 (n=19), 11 (n=19) and 15 months (n=10). INTERVENTION: An ICL led two core Intervention components: (1) integrated, interdisciplinary assessment and care; (2) education and support for paid and family carers. DATA COLLECTED: Process and outcome data were collected. Symptoms were recorded monthly for recruited residents. Semistructured interviews were conducted at 7, 11 and 15 months with nursing home staff and external healthcare professionals and at 7 months with family carers. ICL hours were costed using Department of Health and Health Education England tariffs. RESULTS: Contextual differences were identified between sites: nursing home 2 had lower involvement with external healthcare services. Core components were implemented at both sites but multidisciplinary meetings were only established in nursing home 1. The Intervention prompted improvements in advance care planning, pain management and person-centred care; we observed no harm. Six-month ICL costs were £18 255. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation was feasible to differing degrees across sites, dependent on context. Our data inform future testing

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of dementia is rising worldwide and many people will die with the disease. Symptoms towards the end of life may be inadequately managed and informal and professional carers poorly supported. There are few evidence-based interventions to improve end-of-life care in advanced dementia. AIM: To develop an integrated, whole systems, evidence-based intervention that is pragmatic and feasible to improve end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia and support those close to them. DESIGN: A realist-based approach in which qualitative and quantitative data assisted the development of statements. These were incorporated into the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to achieve consensus on intervention components. Components were mapped to underlying theory of whole systems change and the intervention described in a detailed manual. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from people with dementia, carers and health and social care professionals in England, from expert opinion and existing literature. Professional stakeholders in all four countries of the United Kingdom contributed to the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method process. RESULTS: A total of 29 statements were agreed and mapped to individual, group, organisational and economic/political levels of healthcare systems. The resulting main intervention components are as follows: (1) influencing local service organisation through facilitation of integrated multi-disciplinary care, (2) providing training and support for formal and informal carers and (3) influencing local healthcare commissioning and priorities of service providers. CONCLUSION: Use of in-depth data, consensus methods and theoretical understanding of the intervention components produced an evidence-based intervention for further testing in end-of-life care in advanced dementia.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the number of people who die with dementia is increasing. The importance of a palliative approach in the care of people with dementia is recognised and there are national polices to enhance current care. In the UK implementation of these polices is promoted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Dementia Quality Standards (QS). Since publication of the QS new care interventions have been developed. AIM: To explore critically the current international research evidence on effect available to inform NICE Dementia QS relevant to end of life (EOL) care. DESIGN: We used systematic review methods to seek the research evidence for three statements within the Dementia QS. These are those that recommend: (1) a case management approach, (2) discussing and consideration of making a statement about future care (SFC) and (3) a palliative care assessment (PCA). We included evaluative studies of relevant interventions that used a comparative design, such as trials and cohort studies, and measured EOL care outcomes for persons dying with moderate to severe dementia. Our primary outcome of interest was whether the intervention led to a measurable impact on wellbeing for the person with dementia and their family. We assessed included studies for quality using a scale by Higginson and colleagues (2002) for assessment of quality of studies in palliative care, and two authors undertook key review processes. Data sources included Cinahl, Embase, and PsychINFO from 2001 to August 2014. Our search strategy included free text and medical subject headings relevant to population and recommended care. RESULTS: We found seven studies evaluating a care intervention; four assessed SFC, three PCA. None assessed case management. Studies were of weak design; all used retrospective data and relied on others for precise record keeping and for accurate recall of events. There was limited overlap in outcome measurements. Overall reported benefits were mixed