A process evaluation of the NIDUS-Professional dementia training intervention for UK homecare workers.

INTRODUCTION: This process evaluation was conducted in parallel to the randomised controlled feasibility trial of NIDUS-Professional, a manualised remote dementia training intervention for homecare workers (HCWs), delivered alongside an individualised intervention for clients living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). The process evaluation reports on: (i) intervention reach, dose and fidelity; (ii) contexts influencing agency engagement and (iii) alignment of findings with theoretical assumptions about how the intervention might produce change. METHODS: We report proportions of eligible HCWs receiving any intervention (reach), number of sessions attended (dose; attending ≥4/6 main sessions was predefined as adhering), intervention fidelity and adherence of clients and carers to NIDUS-Family (attending all 6-8 planned sessions). We interviewed HCWs, managers, family carers and facilitators. We integrated and thematically analysed, at the homecare agency level, qualitative interview and intervention recording data. RESULTS: 32/141 (23%) of eligible HCWs and 7/42 (17%) of family carers received any intervention; most who did adhered to the intervention (89% and 71%). Intervention fidelity was high. We analysed interviews with 20/44 HCWs, 3/4 managers and 3/7 family carers, as well as intervention recordings involving 32/44 HCWs. All agencies reported structural challenges in supporting intervention delivery. Agencies with greater management buy-in had higher dose and reach. HCWs valued NIDUS-Professional for enabling group reflection and peer support, providing practical, actionable care strategies and increasing their confidence as practitioners. CONCLUSION: NIDUS-Professional was valued by HCWs. Agency management, culture and priorities were key barriers to implementation; we discuss how to address these in a future trial.

Feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-professional, a training and support intervention for homecare workers caring for clients living with dementia: a cluster-randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the first randomised controlled trial of a dementia training and support intervention in UK homecare agencies, we aimed to assess: acceptability of our co-designed, manualised training, delivered by non-clinical facilitators; outcome completion feasibility; and costs for a future trial. METHODS: This cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, feasibility trial involved English homecare agencies. Intervention arm agency staff were offered group videocall sessions: 6 over 3 months, then monthly for 3 months (NIDUS-professional). Family carers (henceforth carers) and clients with dementia (dyads) were offered six to eight complementary, individual intervention sessions (NIDUS-Family). We collected potential trial measures as secondary outcomes remotely at baseline and 6 months: HCW (homecare worker) Work-related Strain Inventory (WRSI), Sense of Competence (SoC); proxy-rated Quality of Life (QOL), Disability Assessment for Dementia scale (DAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Homecare Satisfaction (HCS). RESULTS: From December 2021 to September 2022, we met agency (4 intervention, 2 control) and HCWs (n = 62) recruitment targets and recruited 16 carers and 16/60 planned clients. We met a priori progression criteria for adherence (≥4/6 sessions: 29/44 [65.9%,95% confidence interval (CI): 50.1,79.5]), HCW or carer proxy-outcome completion (15/16 (93.8% [69.8,99.8]) and proceeding with adaptation for HCWs outcome completion (46/63 (73.0% [CI: 60.3,83.4]). Delivery of NIDUS-Professional costs was £6,423 (£137 per eligible client). WRSI scores decreased and SoC increased at follow-up, with no significant between-group differences. For intervention arm proxy-rated outcomes, carer-rated QOL increased, HCW-rated was unchanged; carer and HCW-rated NPI decreased; DAD decreased (greater disability) and HCS was unchanged. CONCLUSION: A pragmatic trial is warranted; we will consider using aggregated, agency-level client outcomes, including neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Healthcare professionals' experiences and views of providing continence support and advice to people living at home with dementia: "That's a carer's job".

BACKGROUND: People living with dementia at home and their family carers often feel unsupported by healthcare professionals in managing continence problems. In turn, primary and community-based healthcare professionals have reported lacking specific knowledge on dementia-continence. This study aimed to understand more about healthcare professionals' experiences and views of supporting people living with dementia experiencing continence problems, as part of developing acceptable resources. Having a nuanced understanding of unmet need would facilitate the design of engaging resources that enable healthcare professionals to provide more effective continence support to people living with dementia at home. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of healthcare professionals (n = 31) working in primary and community care in the South of England in 2023. Transcribed interviews were uploaded to NVivo 12, then analysed inductively and deductively using a thematic framework. RESULTS: Continence-related conversations were avoided by many healthcare professionals due to lack of dementia-continence specific knowledge. Many considered that continence problems of people living with dementia were largely outside their remit once a physical cause had been ruled out. This contributed to a lack of priority and proactivity in raising the subject of continence in their consultations. Challenges to providing support included limited consultation time and lack of access to specialist services with availability to support individuals. CONCLUSION: There is substantial scope to support primary and community-based healthcare professionals in their provision of continence-related support and advice to people living at home with dementia. This includes addressing knowledge deficits, enhancing confidence and instilling a sense of accomplishment.

Views of homecare staff and carers on oral needs and dental care for people living with dementia: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: People living with dementia are at risk of mouth and dental problems. Many receive help with this aspect of personal care from family carers or homecare workers. We explored the views of homecare providers and carers on how this aspect of personal care is addressed and implemented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this qualitative study we conducted semi-structured interviews with carers (all family members), homecare workers and managers providing support to people living with dementia in their own homes. Interview questions focused on daily care practices, exploring barriers and facilitators to oral care. Interviews were recorded online or over the telephone, transcribed, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Carers (n = 8), homecare workers (n = 9) and homecare managers (n = 15) were recruited from across England in 2021-2022. Across interviews, two main themes were identified: (i) Missed opportunities to address oral care, which is not always seen as a priority despite the importance and potential risk of neglect. (ii) Challenges in delivering oral care, including factors related to the person living with dementia (such as cognitive and physical decline) and factors related to the care infrastructure and policies such as training, perception of roles, allocated time, and consistency of care. DISCUSSION: More emphasis could be given to the training and skills of homecare providers to identify and prevent dental problems and to assist carers. Several strategies and tools (oral care checklists, greater detail around oral care in care assessments and care plans) could be used to enhance this aspect of personal care for people living with dementia.

Co-design development of a decision guide on eating and drinking for people with severe dementia during acute hospital admissions.

INTRODUCTION: Using co-design processes, we aimed to develop an evidence-based decision guide for family carers and hospital professionals to support decision-making about eating and drinking for hospital patients with severe dementia. METHODS: Following a systematic review, we interviewed people with mild dementia, family carers and hospital professionals in England. We then held co-design workshops with family carers and hospital professionals. In parallel with the workshops, we used a matrix to synthesize data from all studies and to develop a decision guide prototype. The prototype was iteratively refined through further co-design workshops and discussions among researchers and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives. We conducted user testing for final feedback and to finalize the decision guide. RESULTS: Most participants acknowledged the limited benefits of tube feeding and would not use or want it for someone with severe dementia. However, they found decision-making processes and communication about nutrition and hydration were emotionally demanding and poorly supported in acute hospitals. The co-design groups developed the aims of the decision guide to support conversations and shared decision-making processes in acute hospitals, and help people reach evidence-based decisions. It was designed to clarify decision-making stages, provide information and elicit the values/preferences of everyone involved. It encouraged person-centred care, best-interests decision-making and multidisciplinary team working. From user testing, family carers and hospital professionals thought the decision guide could help initiate conversations and inform decisions. The final decision guide was disseminated and is being used in clinical practice in England. CONCLUSION: We used rigorous and transparent processes to co-design the decision guide with everyone involved. The decision guide may facilitate conversations about nutrition and hydration and help people reach shared decisions that meet the needs and preferences of people with severe dementia. Future evaluation is required to test its real-world impacts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with mild dementia, family carers and hospital professionals contributed to the design of the decision guide through the interviews and co-design workshops. PPI members helped design study procedures and materials and prepare this manuscript.

A qualitative exploration of older people's lived experiences of homelessness and memory problems - stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of older people experiencing both homelessness and memory problems are growing, yet their complex health, housing and care needs remain undelineated and unmet. There is a critical gap in understanding what can improve the care, support and experiences of this group. In this qualitative study we explore how stakeholders understand memory problems among older people in the context of homelessness and consider what they judge gets in the way of achieving positive outcomes. METHOD: We conducted reflexive thematic analysis of qualitative interviews (n = 49) using a semi-structured topic guide, with 17 older people (aged ≥ 50 years) experiencing memory problems and homelessness, 15 hostel staff and managers, and 17 health, housing and social care practitioners. We recruited participants from six homelessness hostels, one specialist care home and National Health and Local Authority Services in England. RESULTS: We identified four overarching themes. The population is not taken seriously; multiple causes are hard to disentangle; risk of exploitation and vulnerability; and (dis)connection and social isolation. The transience and lack of stability associated with homelessness intensified the disorienting nature of memory and cognitive impairment, and those providing direct and indirect support required flexibility and persistence, with staff moving beyond traditional roles to advocate, provide care and safeguard individuals. Memory problems were perceived by frontline staff and older people to be overlooked, misinterpreted, and misattributed as being caused by alcohol use, resulting in pervasive barriers to achieving positive and desired outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to meet the needs of older people living with memory problems and experiencing homelessness and future interventions must reflect the complexity of their lives, often in the context of long-term alcohol use and current service provision and we make suggestions as to what could be done to improve the situation.

Development of a decision-support framework to support professionals and promote comfort among older hospital inpatients living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Acute hospital wards can be difficult places for many people living with dementia. Promoting comfort and wellbeing can be challenging in this environment. There is little evidence-based support for professionals working on acute care wards on how to respond to distress and maximise comfort and wellbeing among patients living with dementia. OBJECTIVES: Our overall aim was to codesign an evidence-based easy-to-use heuristic decision-support framework, which was acceptable and practical but acknowledges the complex and acute nature of caring for patients with dementia in the hospital. This paper presents the development process and resulting framework. METHODS: A codesign study was informed by data from (1) a literature review of the care and management of people living with dementia in acute hospitals; (2) a cohort study of comfort and discomfort in people with dementia in acute hospitals; and (3) interviews with family carers and health care professionals. We synthesised evidence from these data sources and presented to key stakeholders through codesign meetings and workshops to produce our decision-support framework. RESULTS: The framework consists of a series of flowcharts and operates using a three-stage process of: (1) assess comfort/discomfort; (2) consider causes of discomfort; and (3) address patient needs to manage the discomfort. CONCLUSION: Working with key stakeholders, synthesising diverse quantitative and qualitative evidence to build a clinical framework is a feasible approach to help address the needs of patients living with dementia in an acute hospital setting. The result is a framework which is now ready for evaluation and implementation. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We worked closely with people living with dementia and family carers throughout this study, including the development of the study protocol with input on study development and design, through to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and codesign of the decision support framework.

Views of people living with dementia and their carers on their present and future: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Dementia leads to multiple issues including difficulty in communication and increased need for care and support. Discussions about the future often happen late or never, partly due to reluctance or fear. In a sample of people living with dementia and carers, we explored their views and perceptions of living with the condition and their future. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2018-19 with 11 people living with dementia and six family members in England. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Findings were explored critically within the theory of social death and three themes were developed: (1) loss of physical and cognitive functions, (2) loss of social identity, and (3) social connectedness. Most participants living with dementia and carers wanted to discuss the present, rather than the future, believing a healthy lifestyle would prevent the condition from worsening. Those with dementia wanted to maintain control of their lives and demonstrated this by illustrating their independence. Care homes were often associated with death and loss of social identity. Participants used a range of metaphors to describe their dementia and the impact on their relationships and social networks. CONCLUSION: Focusing on maintaining social identity and connectedness as part of living well with dementia may assist professionals in undertaking advance care planning discussions.

Understanding factors influencing residential respite service use by carers of people living with dementia using Andersen's behavioural model of health services use: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Residential respite (RR) provides a valuable break for family carers, but little known about its offer, take-up or experiences of carers of people living with dementia. This paper aims to further understandings of factors influencing RR use. DESIGN: RR stakeholder workshop and qualitative interviews. SETTING: Stakeholder or living in the community in own home. PARTICIPANTS: RR stakeholders (13); family carers with experience of RR, or had declined it, or were planning to use it for the first time (n = 36). METHODS: Stakeholders participated in a workshop to discuss provision, models and funding of RR. Family carer interviews focused on expectations, experiences and outcomes of use of RR. Data were analysed thematically and mapped against Andersen's model of health service use. RESULTS: Identifying need for RR does not necessarily transpire into use. Planning and ease of booking were crucial for carers, but many felt there was little support with this. Systemic factors concerning funding, planning and booking RR act as barriers to its use. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight how systemic factors influence RR use. Discussing respite need in routine care planning or reviews may support carers and people living with dementia to consider RR, but system changes are needed to address barriers.

Is it worth it? Carers' views and expectations of residential respite for people living with dementia during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The Covid-19 pandemic has taken a heavy toll on many people living with dementia and carers. Caring for a person living with dementia at home with limited avenues for support and a break challenged many carers. Care homes in England closed to visitors, with very few offering opportunities for a short-stay. We investigated impact of Covid-19 on views and expectations of carers of people living with dementia about residential respite. METHODS/DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with 35 carers were conducted March-December 2020: 30 women and 5 men, with ages ranging 30-83 years. Interviews explored experiences, views of residential respite, and expectations post-Covid. Data were thematically analysed and salient concepts were drawn out and discussed within the research team and study advisers. RESULTS: Three themes were identified in transcripts, relating to impact of Covid-19 on views and expectations of respite: (1) Carers described regularly negotiating risks and stresses of Covid, weighing up how to prevent infection and changing family arrangements to facilitate caring; (2) Carers were balancing different needs, prioritising needs of their relatives while bearing the impact of cumulative caregiving responsibilities. (3) Uncertainty about future residential respite continued, in terms of availability, ongoing restrictions and trustworthy information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Residential respite is a positive, acceptable option for some carers to get a break from caring. Covid-19 may have heighted some of caregiving stressors and there may be an increased need for a break. Views of care homes developed during the pandemic suggest that individual confidence to use respite may need to be rebuilt.

Trust and inclusion during the Covid-19 pandemic: Perspectives from Black and South Asian people living with dementia and their carers in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: People from ethnic minority backgrounds living with dementia are more likely to be diagnosed later and have less access to health and social care support than their White counterparts in the United Kingdom (UK). Covid-19 has exacerbated health inequalities and diminished trust from underserved communities in the government and health services. The wider aim of the study was to explore the impact of covid-19 on Black and South-Asian people living with dementia and their carers as well as exploring the experiences of dementia care. The present paper specifically explores their views on trust and mistrust using an ecological model. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 family carers and four people living with dementia from South Asian or Black communities living in the community. Thematic analysis was used to analyse data. DESIGN: An exploratory qualiative design was used. RESULTS: Four main themes were developed exploring trust at the structural, organisational, community and individual level. At the structural level, participants discussed the inequity of Covid-19, some lack of trust in the UK Government and confusion in its messaging, and the anxiety sometimes leading to curtailment of media usage. At the organisational level, there was some evidence of a perceived lack of person-centred and culturally sensitive care from healthcare professionals, as well as concerns around care homes as places of safety. At the neighbourhood community level, participants discussed both a distrust as well as a strengthening of relationships and, at the individual level, factors such as knowledge of services, identity, and faith influenced their experience of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: People living with dementia need support at all levels and this study highlights how the pandemic impacted each level. Ways to improve trust in the Government and health professionals alongside culturally adapted health messaging should be explored. Alongside this, an examination of how cultural values and norms may influence help-seeking responses to dementia and increase trust in services may be helpful post-pandemic.

Rapid development of a COVID-19 care planning decision-aid for family carers of people living with dementia.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected people living with dementia and their carers. Its effects on health and social care systems necessitated a rapid-response approach to care planning and decision-making in this population, with reflexivity and responsiveness to changing individual and system needs at its core. Considering this, a decision-aid to help families of persons with dementia was developed. OBJECTIVES: To coproduce with people living with dementia, and the people who care for them, a decision-aid for family carers of people living with dementia, to support decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken in 2020 with: (1) staff from two English national end-of-life and supportive care organizations; and (2) people living with dementia and family carers. Simultaneously, a rapid review of current evidence on making decisions with older people at the end of life was undertaken. Evidence from these inputs was combined to shape the decision-aid through a series of workshops with key stakeholders, including our patient and public involvement group, which consisted of a person living with dementia and family carers; a group of clinical and academic experts and a group of policy and charity leads. RESULTS: The rapid review of existing evidence highlighted the need to consider both process and outcome elements of decision-making and their effects on people living with dementia and their families. The qualitative interviews discussed a wide range of topics, including trust, agency and confusion in making decisions in the context of COVID-19. The decision-aid primarily focussed on care moves, legal matters, carer wellbeing and help-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: Combining different sources and forms of evidence was a robust and systematic process that proved efficient and valuable in creating a novel decision-aid for family carers within the context of COVID-19. The output from this process is an evidence-based practical decision-aid coproduced with people living with dementia, family carers, clinical and academic experts and leading national dementia and palliative care organizations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We worked with people living with dementia and family carers and other key stakeholders throughout this study, from study development and design to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and dissemination.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a personalised health promotion intervention enabling independence in older people with mild frailty ('HomeHealth') compared to treatment as usual: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is clinically associated with multiple adverse outcomes, including reduced quality of life and functioning, falls, hospitalisations, moves to long-term care and mortality. Health services commonly focus on the frailest, with highest levels of need. However, evidence suggests that frailty is likely to be more reversible in people who are less frail. Evidence is emerging on what interventions may help prevent or reduce frailty, such as resistance exercises and multi-component interventions, but few interventions are based on behaviour change theory. There is little evidence of cost-effectiveness. Previously, we co-designed a new behaviour change health promotion intervention ("HomeHealth") to support people with mild frailty. HomeHealth is delivered by trained voluntary sector support workers over six months who support older people to work on self-identified goals to maintain their independence, such as strength and balance exercises, nutrition, mood and enhancing social engagement. The service was well received in our feasibility randomised controlled trial and showed promising effects upon outcomes. AIM: To test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HomeHealth intervention on maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty in comparison to treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: Single-blind individually randomised controlled trial comparing the HomeHealth intervention to TAU. We will recruit 386 participants from general practices and the community across three English regions. Participants are included if they are community-dwelling, aged 65 + , with mild frailty according to the Clinical Frailty Scale. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive HomeHealth or TAU for 6 months. The primary outcome is independence in activities of daily living (modified Barthel Index) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include instrumental activities of daily living, quality of life, frailty, wellbeing, psychological distress, loneliness, cognition, capability, falls, carer burden, service use, costs and mortality. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models, controlling for baseline Barthel score and site. A health economic analysis and embedded mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home-based, individualised intervention to maintain independence in older people with mild frailty in comparison to TAU, that could be implemented at scale if effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN54268283 . Registered 06/04/2020.

'The time has come': reflections on the 'tipping point' in deciding on a care home move.

OBJECTIVES: Often perceived as a last resort, a care home move for a person living with dementia is often undertaken when all other options have been exhausted. Deciding the right or optimal time is to move remains an important question for many families.To investigate factors that are weighed up in deciding to make a care home move. METHOD: Qualitative in-depth interviews with 21 family carers and 5 care home residents living with dementia in England. Thematic analysis was applied to all transcripts to extract key themes and sub-themes; a summation is provided here. RESULTS: Participants emotionally recollected an accumulation of stressors, exhausting other options of care, a risk/benefit analysis, wishes of person living with dementia, and a readiness to move as indicators of when a 'tipping point' was reached. They also felt strongly that early planning, prior experience of care homes, understanding funding arrangements and having support with decision-making would help. CONCLUSION: Deciding to move to a care home is complex, contextual and deeply personal. Early planning in the form of joining waiting lists, using day centres and respite services may help in creating relationships with intended care homes for the future. There is growing need for support with financial advice and funding arrangements, for both self- and publicly funded individuals.

Professionals' views on the "optimal time" for people living with dementia to move to a care home.

OBJECTIVE: The decision about the best time for a person living with dementia to move to a care home involves the individual and others, particularly family. However, little is known about care professionals' views on the best time to move, particularly those with decision-making authority. This study investigated social workers' and care home managers' views on whether there is an "optimal time" for a move. METHODS: A qualitative, phenomenological approach was employed, using semi-structured interviews with 20 social workers and 20 care home managers in England; all with experience of advising people living with dementia about a care home move and making decisions about funding or acceptance. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four overarching themes emerged from the data: (1) staying at home for as long as possible but avoiding crisis, (2) balancing risks proactively and anticipating triggers, (3) desires for the person living with dementia to be involved in the decision, and (4) the significance of funding in enabling choices about a care home move. CONCLUSIONS: Deciding on the timing of a care home move is context and person specific. Two professional groups with substantial experience of this among their client group both recommended proactive deliberation but funding was overall the deciding factor in the extent to which they considered choice was possible. Future research should avoid seeing all care home moves as negative and explore how practitioners can best encourage discussions prior to crisis point about care home options.

Dementia wellbeing and COVID-19: Review and expert consensus on current research and knowledge gaps.

OBJECTIVES: In response to a commissioned research update on dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic, a UK-based working group, comprising dementia researchers from a range of fields and disciplines, aimed to describe the impact of the pandemic on dementia wellbeing and identify priorities for future research. METHODS: We supplemented a rapid literature search (including unpublished, non-peer reviewed and ongoing studies/reports) on dementia wellbeing in the context of COVID-19 with expert group members' consensus about future research needs. From this we generated potential research questions the group judged to be relevant that were not covered by the existing literature. RESULTS: Themes emerged from 141 studies within the six domains of the NHS England COVID-19 Dementia Wellbeing Pathway: Preventing Well, Diagnosing Well, Treating Well, Supporting Well, Living Well and Dying Well. We describe current research findings and knowledge gaps relating to the impact on people affected by dementia (individuals with a diagnosis, their carers and social contacts, health and social care practitioners and volunteers), services, research activities and organisations. Broad themes included the potential benefits and risks of new models of working including remote healthcare, the need for population-representative longitudinal studies to monitor longer-term impacts, and the importance of reporting dementia-related findings within broader health and care studies. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately negative impact on people affected by dementia. Researchers and funding organisations have responded rapidly to try to understand the impacts. Future research should highlight and resolve outstanding questions to develop evidence-based measures to improve the quality of life of people affected by dementia.

Survival and outcomes for stroke survivors living in care homes: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Stroke survivors living in care homes require high levels of support with everyday living. The aims of this study were to describe the survival, health status and care received by stroke survivors living in care homes at 1-year post-stroke, compared with those in their own homes. METHODS: A total of 3,548 stroke survivors with a first ever stroke between 1998 and 2017 in the South London Stroke Register were identified for survival analysis. A total of 2,272 were included in the 1-year follow-up analysis. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier plots were used to describe survival, stratified into four 5-year cohorts. Health status, medications and rehabilitation received at 1-year post-stroke were compared using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Over the 20-year period, survival improved for stroke survivors discharged to their own home (P < 0.001) but not for those discharged to care homes (P = 0.75). Care home residents were highly disabled (median Barthel index: 6/20, interquartile range: 2-10). Rates of secondary stroke prevention medications at 1-year follow-up increased over time for care home residents, including antiplatelets from 12.3 to 38.1%, although still lower than for those in their own homes (56.3%). Speech and language problems were common in the care home population (40.0%), but only 16% had received speech and language therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of secondary stroke prevention prescribing increased over 20 years but remained lower in care home residents. The lower levels of rehabilitation received by stroke survivors in care homes, despite their higher levels of disability, suggest a gap in care and urgent need for restorative and/or preventative rehabilitation.

How do people living with dementia perceive eating and drinking difficulties? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Eating and drinking problems are common among people living with later-stage dementia, yet few studies have explored their perspectives. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how people living with mild dementia understand possible future eating and drinking problems and their perspectives on assistance. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Community. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 people living with mild dementia. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: (i) awareness of eating and drinking problems; (ii) food and drink representing an individual's identity and agency; (iii) delegating later decisions about eating and drinking to family carers; (iv) acceptability of eating and drinking options; and (v) eating and drinking towards the end of life. For people living with mild dementia, possible later eating and drinking problems could feel irrelevant and action may be postponed until they occur. Fears of being a burden to family and of being treated like a child may explain reluctance to discuss such future problems. People living with mild dementia might wish to preserve their agency and maintain good quality of life, rather than be kept alive at later stages by artificial nutrition and hydration. CONCLUSION: For people with mild dementia, eating and drinking problems may seem unrelated to them and so get left undiscussed. Negative connotations regarding eating and drinking problems may hinder the discussion. The optimal time to discuss possible future problems with eating and drinking with people with mild dementia may need an individual approach.

Enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia.

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 suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study. MAIN RESULTS: We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence).  Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here.

Medical consumerism in the UK, from 'citizen's challenge' to the 'managed consumer'-A symbol without meaning?

BACKGROUND: In Britain's National Health Service (NHS), medical consumerism is disliked by many doctors but managed by NHS leaders. Managed consumers have choices about treatment options, but are expected to help contain costs, improve quality of care, take part in clinical research and advocacy, and increase productivity. There are so many meanings for medical consumerism that it can be categorized, in post-structuralist terms, as a 'symbol without meaning', but meanings are plentiful in the NHS. POLICY EXPECTATIONS: Choices made by discriminating consumers were expected to improve the quality of medical care for all. Extending choice to the many, and not restricting options to the few, would allow gains from choices to accumulate, so that choice would sustain social solidarity. Managed consumerism would in theory, therefore, instil reasonable choices and responsible behaviours in a moralized citizenry, across the nation. The advocates of New Labour's espousal of medical consumerism expected the accumulative effects of customer choices to challenge professional and occupational power, erode the medical model of health and illness, constrain professional judgements, and open the NHS to new ways of working. Almost all their expectations have been thwarted, so far. CONCLUSIONS: Managed consumerism is far from being a meaningless symbol. This discussion paper explores the territory of managed consumerism and suggests realistic ways to make it more effective in shaping the NHS. PATIENT & PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We developed the arguments in this discussion paper with insights provided by a lay expert (see Acknowledgements) with experience of consumerism in both public sector management and a disease-related charity.