Co-Designing a Palliative Dementia Care Framework to Support Holistic Assessment and Decision Making: The EMBED-Care Framework.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia have complex palliative care needs that are often unmet, including physical and psycho-social needs. It is essential to empower people with dementia, family carers and professionals to better assess and manage care needs. We aimed to co-design a palliative dementia care Framework delivered through a digital app to support holistic assessment and decision making for care in the community and care homes-the EMBED-Care Framework. METHODS: A systematic co-design approach was adopted to develop the EMBED-Care Framework across three stages: 1) Framework analysis to synthesise data from preceding evidence reviews, large routine clinical data and cohort studies of unmet palliative dementia care need; 2) Co-design using iterative workshops with people with dementia, family carers and health and social care professionals to construct the components, design of the app and implementation requirements; and 3) User testing to refine the final Framework and app, and strengthen use for clinical practice and methods of evaluation. RESULTS: The Framework was co-designed for delivery through an app delivered by aTouchAway. It comprised five main components: 1) holistic assessment of palliative care needs using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-Dementia (IPOS-Dem); 2) alert system of IPOS-Dem scores to highlight unmet needs; 3) IPOS-Dem scores and alerts enable shared decision making between the practitioner, patient and/or carer to support priority setting and goals of care; 4) evidence-informed clinical decision support tools automatically linked with identified needs to manage care; and 5) Training package for users incorporating face-to-face sessions, clinical champions who received additional face-to-face sessions, animated videos and manual covering the main intervention components and email and telephone support from the research team. CONCLUSIONS: This is a novel digital palliative dementia care intervention to link holistic assessment with clinical decision support tools that are practical and easy to use but address the complexity of palliative dementia care. The Framework is ready for feasibility testing and pilot studies for people with dementia residing at home or in a care home. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We were guided by our Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group consisting of three people with mild dementia, including younger onset dementia, and seven family carers throughout the project. They supported the overall development of the Framework, including planning of workshops, interpreting findings and testing the framework in our PPI meetings.

Co-design of the EMBED-Care Framework as an intervention to enhance shared decision-making for people affected by dementia and practitioners, comprising holistic assessment, linked with clinical decision support tools: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making intends to align care provision with individuals' preferences. However, the involvement of people living with dementia in decision-making about their care varies. We aimed to co-design the EMBED-Care Framework, to enhance shared decision-making between people affected by dementia and practitioners. METHODS: A theory and evidence driven co-design study was conducted, using iterative workshops, informed by a theoretical model of shared decision-making and the EMBED-Care Framework (the intervention) for person-centred holistic palliative dementia care. The intervention incorporates a holistic outcome measure for assessment and review, linked with clinical decision-support tools to support shared decision-making. We drew on the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Participants included people with dementia of any type, current or bereaved family carers and practitioners. We recruited via established dementia groups and research and clinical networks. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to explore how and when the intervention could enhance communication and shared decision-making, and the requirements for use, presented as a logic model. RESULTS: Five co-design workshops were undertaken with participants comprising people affected by dementia (n = 18) and practitioners (n = 36). Three themes were generated, comprising: (1) 'knowing the person and personalisation of care', involving the person with dementia and/or family carer identifying the needs of the person using a holistic assessment. (2) 'engaging and considering the perspectives of all involved in decision-making' required listening to the person and the family to understand their priorities, and to manage multiple preferences. (3) 'Training and support activities' to use the Framework through use of animated videos to convey information, such as to understand the outcome measure used to assess symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention developed sought to enhance shared decision-making with individuals affected by dementia and practitioners, through increased shared knowledge of individual priorities and choices for care and treatment. The workshops generated understanding to manage disagreements in determining priorities. Practitioners require face-to-face training on the intervention, and on communication to manage sensitive conversations about symptoms, care and treatment with individuals and their family. The findings informed the construction of a logic model to illustrate how the intervention is intended to work.

Co-design of a theory-based implementation plan for a holistic eHealth assessment and decision support framework for people with dementia in care homes.

Background: Despite positive findings around the use of eHealth in dementia care, it is rarely translated into routine practice. This can be facilitated by early involvement of end-users in the development of an implementation plan. This study aimed to co-design strategies to implement an eHealth intervention, the EMBED-Care Framework, to support assessment and decision-making for people with dementia in care homes. Methods: A qualitative co-design method was applied through a series of workshops. Participants included family carers and health and social care practitioners. People with dementia were included through a series of stakeholder engagement meetings. The workshops focused on co-developing strategies in response to identified determinants of implementation. A codebook thematic analytic approach was taken, guided by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Results: Three workshops were conducted from July 2021 to November 2021, attended by 39 participants. Three overarching phases of implementation were identified which aligned with the constructs of the NPT: (a) incentivising adoption of the Framework, which requires promotion of its benefits and alignment with recommendations for good quality dementia care to engage stakeholders, relating to 'coherence' and 'cognitive participation' constructs; (b) enabling its operation, which requires ensuring compatibility with care home processes, provision of training and support from 'champions', relating to 'collective action'; (c) sustaining use of the Framework, which requires monitoring of implementation and appraisal of its effects, relating to 'reflexive monitoring'. Conclusions: We have developed a multi-strategy, theoretically driven plan to implement eHealth to support assessment and decision-making for people with dementia in care homes. Successful implementation requires incentivisation to adopt, ability to operate and motivation to sustain use of eHealth. The plan is strengthened through collaborating with end-users to increase its value, credibility and real-world relevance. The theoretically informed strategies target mechanisms of the NPT, demonstrated to shape the implementation process and outcomes, ready for testing.

How do person-centered outcome measures enable shared decision-making for people with dementia and family carers?-A systematic review.

Objectives: To identify published evidence on person-centered outcome measures (PCOMs) used in dementia care and to explore how PCOMs facilitate shared decision-making and improve outcomes of care. To build a logic model based on the findings, depicting linkages with PCOM impact mechanisms and care outcomes. Design: Mixed-methods systematic review. We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ASSIA from databases and included studies reporting experiences and/or impact of PCOM use among people with dementia, family carers, and/or practitioners. Groen Van de Ven's model of collaborative deliberation informed the elements of shared decision-making in dementia care in the abstraction, analysis, and interpretation of data. Data were narratively synthesized to develop the logic model. Setting: Studies were conducted in long-term care, mixed settings, emergency department, general primary care, and geriatric clinics. Participants: A total of 1064 participants were included in the review. Results: Ten studies were included. PCOMs can facilitate shared decision-making through "knowing the person," "identifying problems, priorities for care and treatment and goal setting," "evaluating decisions", and "implementation considerations for PCOM use." Weak evidence on the impact of PCOMs to improve communication between individuals and practitioners, physical function, and activities of daily living. Conclusions: PCOMs can enable shared decision-making and impact outcomes through facilitating collaborative working between the person's network of family and practitioners to identify and manage symptoms and concerns. The constructed logic model demonstrates the key mechanisms to discuss priorities for care and treatment, and to evaluate decisions and outcomes. A future area of research is training for family carers to use PCOMs with practitioners.

Implementation of eHealth to Support Assessment and Decision-making for Residents With Dementia in Long-term Care: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: As dementia progresses, symptoms and concerns increase, causing considerable distress for the person and their caregiver. The integration of care between care homes and health care services is vital to meet increasing care needs and maintain quality of life. However, care home access to high-quality health care is inequitable. eHealth can facilitate this by supporting remote specialist input on care processes, such as clinical assessment and decision-making, and streamlining care on site. How to best implement eHealth in the care home setting is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify the key factors that influence the implementation of eHealth for people living with dementia in long-term care. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL was conducted to identify studies published between 2000 and 2020. Studies were eligible if they focused on eHealth interventions to improve treatment and care assessment or decision-making for residents with dementia in care homes. Data were thematically analyzed and deductively mapped onto the 6 constructs of the adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies were included, focusing on a variety of eHealth interventions, including remote video consultations and clinical decision support tools. Key factors that influenced eHealth implementation were identified across all 6 constructs of the CFIR. Most concerned the inner setting construct on requirements for implementation in the care home, such as providing a conducive learning climate, engaged leadership, and sufficient training and resources. A total of 4 novel subconstructs were identified to inform the implementation requirements to meet resident needs and engage end users. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing eHealth in care homes for people with dementia is multifactorial and complex, involving interaction between residents, staff, and organizations. It requires an emphasis on the needs of residents and the engagement of end users in the implementation process. A novel conceptual model of the key factors was developed and translated into 18 practical recommendations on the implementation of eHealth in long-term care to guide implementers or innovators in care homes. Successful implementation of eHealth is required to maximize uptake and drive improvements in integrated health and social care.

The acceptability and effectiveness of eHealth interventions to support assessment and decision-making for people with dementia living in care homes: A systematic review.

Introduction: As dementia progresses, care needs increase leading many to require 24-h care in care homes. eHealth interventions have the potential to improve care processes of assessment and decision-making for people with dementia. However, little is known on the acceptability and effectiveness in care homes. Aim: To identify and explore the components, acceptability and effectiveness of eHealth interventions for people with dementia, families and staff to support assessment and decision-making in care homes. Methods: A mixed methods systematic review using narrative synthesis. Four databases were searched (Embase, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL) from 2000 to July 2021. Quality appraisal used validated assessment tools appropriate for the study design. Results: Twenty-six studies met eligibility criteria. Study designs and interventions were heterogeneous. Overall quality was high to moderate. Interventions that promoted supportive, practical learning through integrated working and provided staff with language to communicate resident symptoms were favored by staff. We found evidence that indicated residents were willing to use video consultations; however, families preferred face-to-face consultations. Fifteen studies considered effectiveness. Use of eHealth interventions indicates an improvement in resident outcomes in appropriate prescribing and advance care planning. Staff knowledge, confidence, and wellbeing were also improved. Hospitalisations were reduced when a video consultation component was implemented. Discussion: Care home staff require support to meet the often multiple and changing care needs of residents with dementia. eHealth interventions can improve outcomes for staff and residents and facilitate integrated working with external professionals to support assessment and management of care. Further work is required to understand acceptability for residents and their families and effectiveness on family outcomes, particularly in non-Western cultures and low-middle income countries. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=254967, identifier: CRD42021254967.

Quality indicators for dementia and older people nearing the end of life: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Robust quality indicators (QIs) are essential for monitoring and improving the quality of care and learning from good practice. We aimed to identify and assess QIs for the care of older people and people with dementia who are nearing the end of life and recommend QIs for use with routinely collected electronic data across care settings. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, including five databases and reference chaining. Studies describing the development of QIs for care of older people and those with dementia nearing the end of life were included. QIs were categorized as relating to processes or outcomes, and mapped against six care domains. The psychometric properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) of each QI were assessed; QIs were categorized as robust, moderate, or poor. RESULTS: From 12,980 titles and abstracts screened, 37 papers and 976 QIs were included. Process and outcome QIs accounted for 780 (79.7%) and 196 (20.3%) of all QIs, respectively. Many of the QIs concerned physical aspects of care (n = 492, 50.4%), and very few concerned spiritual and cultural aspects of care (n = 19, 1.9%). Three hundred and fifteen (32.3%) QIs were robust and of those 220 were measurable using routinely collected electronic data. The final shortlist of 71 QIs came from seven studies. CONCLUSIONS: Of the numerous QIs developed for care of older adults and those with dementia nearing the end of life, most had poor or moderate psychometric properties or were not designed for use with routinely collected electronic datasets. Infrastructure for data availability, combined with use of robust QIs, is important for enhancing understanding of care provided to this population, identifying unmet needs, and improving service provision.

Priorities and opportunities for palliative and end of life care in United Kingdom health policies: a national documentary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Access to high-quality palliative care is inadequate for most people living and dying with serious illness. Policies aimed at optimising delivery of palliative and end of life care are an important mechanism to improve quality of care for the dying. The extent to which palliative care is included in national health policies is unknown. We aimed to identify priorities and opportunities for palliative and end of life care in national health policies in the UK. METHODS: Documentary analysis consisting of 1) summative content analysis to describe the extent to which palliative and end of life care is referred to and/or prioritised in national health and social care policies, and 2) thematic analysis to explore health policy priorities that are opportunities to widen access to palliative and end of life care for people with serious illness. Relevant national policy documents were identified through web searches of key government and other organisations, and through expert consultation. Documents included were UK-wide or devolved (i.e. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales), health and social care government strategies published from 2010 onwards. RESULTS: Fifteen policy documents were included in the final analysis. Twelve referred to palliative or end of life care, but details about what should improve, or mechanisms to achieve this, were sparse. Policy priorities that are opportunities to widen palliative and end of life care access comprised three inter-related themes: (1) integrated care - conceptualised as reorganisation of services as a way to enable improvement; (2) personalised care - conceptualised as allowing people to shape and manage their own care; and (3) support for unpaid carers - conceptualised as enabling unpaid carers to live a more independent lifestyle and balance caring with their own needs. CONCLUSIONS: Although information on palliative and end of life care in UK health and social care policies was sparse, improving palliative care may provide an evidence-based approach to achieve the stated policy priorities of integrated care, personalised care, and support for unpaid carers. Aligning existing evidence of the benefits of palliative care with the three priorities identified may be an effective mechanism to both strengthen policy and improve care for people who are dying.

Development, feasibility, and acceptability of an intervention to improve care for agitation in people living in nursing homes with dementia nearing the end-of-life.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a staff training intervention for agitation in people with severe dementia, reaching end-of-life, residing in nursing homes (NHs), test feasibility, acceptability, and whether a trial is warranted. DESIGN: Feasibility study with pre- and post-intervention data collection, qualitative interviews, and focus groups. SETTING: Three NHs in South East England with dementia units, diverse in terms of size, ownership status, and location. PARTICIPANTS: Residents with a dementia diagnosis or scoring ≥2 on the Noticeable Problems Checklist, rated as "severe" on Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, family carers, and staff (healthcare assistants and nurses). INTERVENTION: Manualized training, delivered by nonclinical psychology graduates focusing on agitation in severe dementia, underpinned by a palliative care framework. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcomes were feasibility of recruitment, data collection, follow-up, and intervention acceptability. We collected resident, family carer, and staff demographics. Staff provided data on resident's agitation, pain, quality of life, and service receipt. Staff reported their sense of competence in dementia care. Family carers reported on satisfaction with end-of-life care. In qualitative interviews, we explored staff and family carers' views on the intervention. RESULTS: The target three NHs participated: 28 (49%) residents, 53 (74%) staff, and 11 (85%) family carers who were eligible to participate consented. Eight-four percent of staff attended ≥3 sessions, and we achieved 93% follow-up. We were able to complete quantitative interviews. Staff and family carers reported the intervention and delivery were acceptable and helpful. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was feasible and acceptable indicating a larger trial for effectiveness may be warranted.