Risk assessment for people living with dementia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review identified key components of risk assessment for people with dementia, examined attitudes toward risk identification and risk assessment, and appraised existing risk assessment tools. METHODS: Systematic searches of five databases on two platforms (EBSCO, OVID) and gray literature databases (Open Grey, Base) were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion based on predetermined eligibility criteria and quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were tabulated and synthesized using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Our review found people with dementia, their family carers, and healthcare professionals differed in how risk is conceptualized, with views being shaped by media perceptions, personal experiences, socio-cultural influences, dementia knowledge, and dementia severity. We found that mobilization (causing falls inside and getting lost outside) is the most frequently identified risk factor. Our findings show people with dementia are generally risk-tolerant, while healthcare professionals may adopt risk-averse approaches because of organizational requirements. We found factors that disrupt daily routines, living and caring arrangements, medication management, and unclear care pathways contribute toward adverse risk events. We discovered that most studies about risk and risk assessment scales did not consider insight of the person with dementia into risks although this is important for the impact of a risk. No risk instrument identified had sufficient evidence that it was useful. CONCLUSION: Accurate risk assessment and effective communication strategies that include the perspectives of people with dementia are needed to enable risk-tolerant practice. No risk instrument to date was shown to be widely acceptable and useful in practice.

Differences in care between younger and older patients in the 2019 English national memory service audit.

AIMS AND METHOD: This paper analyses how practice varied between patients aged <65 and ≥65 years in the 2019 UK national memory service audit. RESULTS: Data on 3959 patients were analysed. Those aged <65 (7% of the sample) were less likely than those aged ≥65 to be diagnosed with dementia (23 v. 67%) and more likely to receive a functional, psychiatric or no diagnosis. Younger patients were more likely to have magnetic resonance imaging; use of dementia biomarkers was low in both groups. Frontotemporal dementia and functional cognitive disorder were diagnosed infrequently. Use of dementia navigators/advisors and carer psychoeducation was similar between groups; younger patients were less likely to be offered but more likely to accept cognitive stimulation therapy. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Memory services seeing younger people need expertise in functional cognitive disorder, alongside clinical skills and technologies to diagnose rarer forms of dementia. Further work is needed to understand why cognitive stimulation therapy is less frequently offered to younger people.

Co-designing complex interventions with people living with dementia and their supporters.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We engaged people living with dementia, family carers and health and social care professionals in co-designing two dementia care interventions: for family carers and people living with dementia (New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS)-family and home-care workers (NIDUS-professional training programme). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Over October 2019-March 2020, we invited public and patient (PPI) and professional members of our NIDUS co-design groups to complete the PPI Engagement Evaluation Tool (designed to assess engagement activities), and non-professional PPI members to participate in qualitative telephone interviews. We thematically analysed and integrated mixed-methods findings. RESULTS: Most (15/20; 75%) of the PPI members approached participated. We identified four themes: (1) Creating the right atmosphere: participants found group meetings positive and enabling, though one health professional was unsure how to position themselves within them; (2) Participants influencing the outcome: while most members felt that they had some influence, for one carer consultation seemed too late to influence; (3) Having the right information: several carers wanted greater clarity and more regular updates from researchers; (4) Unique challenges for people living with dementia: memory problems presented challenges in engaging with substantial information, and within a large group. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We reflect on the importance of providing accessible, regular updates, managing power imbalances between co-design group members with lived and professional experiences; and ensuring needs and voices of people living with dementia are prioritised. We encourage future studies to incorporate evaluations of co-design processes into study design.