Search

INTRODUCTION: iWHELD is a digital person‐centered care program for people with dementia in nursing homes adapted for remote delivery during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: A 16‐week two‐arm cluster‐randomized controlled trial in 149 UK nursing homes compared iWHELD with treatment as usual (TAU). Primary outcome was the overall quality of life with secondary outcomes of agitation and psychotropic use. RESULTS: iWHELD conferred benefit to quality of life on the primary (F = 4.3, p = 0.04) and secondary measures of quality of life (F = 6.45, p = 0.01) and reduced psychotropic medication use (χ2 = 4.08, p = 0.04) with no worsening of agitation. Benefit was seen in participants who contracted COVID‐19, those with agitation at baseline, and those taking psychotropic medications. DISCUSSION: iWHELD confers benefits to quality of life and key measures of well‐being, can be delivered during the challenging conditions of a pandemic, and should be considered for use alongside any emerging pharmacological treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Highlights: iWHELD is the only remote, digital delivery nursing home training programme for dementia careiWHELD improved quality of life in people with dementia and reduced antipsychotic use without worsening of agitationResidents who contracted Covid‐19 during the study also experienced benefits from iWHELDiWHELD offers a valuable, pandemic‐safe tool for improving dementia care [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim was to provide evidence of mortality and community care costs of people living in care homes and to investigate its association with mental health based on the Mental Health Clustering Tool (MHCT). In an observational study, 5,782 residents living in 104 care homes were followed from 2014 to 2016. Residents were categorised into four groups using the MCHT: three with mental health conditions, 'non-psychotic', 'psychotic' or 'organic'; and one without mental health conditions, 'non-clustered'. Generalised estimating equations were used to explore associations between mean community care costs over 6 months per patient and the clustering of residents into the four groups. Differences in survival rates of residents were plotted using Kaplan–Meier curves and tested with the log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. Community care costs were similar among residents with dementia (£431) and without mental health conditions (£407), while costs were higher among residents with non-psychotic (£762) and psychotic (£1,724) mental health conditions. After adjusting for patient and care home characteristics, residents with dementia were 30 per cent less likely to die compared with residents without mental health conditions. Similarly, residents with psychotic conditions and residents with non-psychotic conditions were 25 and 20 per cent less likely to die, respectively, than residents without mental health conditions. The MHCT seems to provide an informative stratification of care home residents with regards to survival and community care use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Agitation is a common, challenging symptom affecting large numbers of people with dementia and impacting on quality of life (QoL). There is an urgent need for evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial interventions to improve these outcomes, particularly in the absence of safe, effective pharmacological therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a person-centred care and psychosocial intervention incorporating an antipsychotic review, WHELD, on QoL, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes, and to determine its cost. Methods and findings This was a randomised controlled cluster trial conducted between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015 that compared the WHELD intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in people with dementia living in 69 UK nursing homes, using an intention to treat analysis. All nursing homes allocated to the intervention received staff training in person-centred care and social interaction and education regarding antipsychotic medications (antipsychotic review), followed by ongoing delivery through a care staff champion model. The primary outcome measure was QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy). Secondary outcomes were agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version [NPI-NH]), antipsychotic use, global deterioration (Clinical Dementia Rating), mood (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly), mortality, quality of interactions (Quality of Interactions Scale [QUIS]), pain (Abbey Pain Scale), and cost. Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. In all, 847 people were randomised to WHELD or TAU, of whom 553 completed the 9-month randomised controlled trial. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy Z score 2.82, p = 0.0042; mean difference 2.54, SEM 0.88; 95% CI 0.81, 4.28; Cohen's D effect size 0.24). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (CMAI Z score 2.68, p = 0.0076; mean difference 4.27, SEM 1.59; 95% CI -7.39, -1.15; Cohen's D 0.23) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI-NH Z score 3.52, p < 0.001; mean difference 4.55, SEM 1.28; 95% CI -7.07,-2.02; Cohen's D 0.30). Benefits were greatest in people with moderately severe dementia. There was a statistically significant benefit in positive care interactions as measured by QUIS (19.7% increase, SEM 8.94; 95% CI 2.12, 37.16, p = 0.03; Cohen's D 0.55). There were no statistically significant differences between WHELD and TAU for the other outcomes. A sensitivity analysis using a pre-specified imputation model confirmed statistically significant benefits in DEMQOL-Proxy, CMAI, and NPI-NH outcomes with the WHELD intervention. Antipsychotic drug use was at a low stable level in both treatment groups, and the intervention did not reduce use. The WHELD intervention reduced cost compared to TAU, and the benefits achieved were therefore associated with a cost saving. The main limitation was that antipsychotic review was based on augmenting processes within care homes to trigger medical review and did not in this study involve proactive primary care education. An additional limitation was the inherent challenge of assessing QoL in this patient group. Conclusions These findings suggest that the WHELD intervention confers benefits in terms of QoL, agitation, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, albeit with relatively small effect sizes, as well as cost saving in a model that can readily be implemented in nursing homes. Future work should consider how to facilitate sustainability of the intervention in this setting. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62237498, Author(s): Clive Ballard 1,*, Anne Corbett 1, Martin Orrell 2,3, Gareth Williams 4, Esme Moniz-Cook 5, Renee Romeo 6, Bob Woods 7, Lucy Garrod 6, Ingelin Testad 1,8, Barbara Woodward-Carlton [...]

Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population. Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome. DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was –2.11 points (95% CI –4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle. No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study explored the experiences of a range of health and social care professionals employed in the role of trainer/coaches to support care home staff to implement a psychosocial intervention for residents living with dementia. It aimed to identify the factors which are pertinent to these roles, in the context of a cascade model of training. Method: A focus group was convened involving dementia trainer/coaches and supervisors who had worked on Well-being and Health for people with Dementia randomised control trial. Twelve participants explored their preparedness for and experiences of their role as 'Well-being and Health for people with Dementia therapists'. They reflected on their perceptions of the resources and support required. The data were transcribed verbatim and subjected to inductive thematic analysis. Results: Three main themes emerged from the data. Within the theme of 'skills in relationship building' were two subthemes of developing trust and getting to know individual staff and each care home. In the second main theme of 'making use of tangible resources' two subthemes relating to using the Well-being and Health for people with Dementia manuals and the supervision of the therapists arose. The third theme, 'being an agent for change' contained three subthemes: effective training methods, creating opportunities for Dementia Champions to reflect and therapists' perceived rewards of their role. Conclusion: The findings provide new insights into the trainer/coach role applicable to the practices of services recruiting, training and providing ongoing professional support to practitioners in-reaching into care homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To contribute to improvements in the design and delivery of intervention research in care homes by adopting a collaborative approach that listens to the experiences of care home staff who had participated in a clinical trial aimed at optimising and evaluating a psychosocial intervention package for people with dementia. Methods: Qualitative study involving focus group discussions (FGDs) involving 41 staff across 6 care homes with the UK. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and interpret the data. Results: Three overarching themes emerged as influential: Recognising preparedness; working together and learning more than expected. The findings highlighted the need to be attentive in addressing staff expectations, the value of sustained relationships and recognition of good practice. The FGDs also identified areas of unanticipated learning that staff and managers adopted. Conclusions: The FGDs showed the importance of considering the overall experience of care home staff who are involved in research and the importance of valuing the skills and experience they hold through positive affirmation. There are often unanticipated consequences of research involvement both on staff practice and on relationships which if promoted could help sustain effective ways of working together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]