Long term care facilities in England during the COVID-19 pandemic-a scoping review of guidelines, policy and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on long term care facility (LTCF) residents has highlighted the need for clear, consistent guidance on the management of pandemics in such settings. As research exploring the experiences of LTCFs during the pandemic and the implications of mass hospital discharge, restricting staff movement, and limiting visitation from relatives are emerging, an in-depth review of policies, guidance and recommendations issued during this time could facilitate wider understanding in this area. AIMS: To identify policies, guidance, and recommendations related to LTCF staff and residents, in England issued by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, developing a timeline of key events and synthesizing the policy aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes. METHOD: A scoping review of publicly available policy documents, guidance, and recommendations related to COVID-19 in LTCFs in England, identified using systematic searches of UK government websites. The main aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes reported in included documents were extracted. Data was analysed using thematic synthesis following a three-stage approach: coding the text, grouping codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes. RESULTS: Thirty-three key policy documents were included in the review. Six areas of recommendations were identified: infection prevention and control, hospital discharge, testing and vaccination, staffing, visitation and continuing routine care. Seven areas of implementation were identified: funding, collaborative working, monitoring and data collection, reducing workload, decision making and leadership, training and technology, and communication. DISCUSSION: LTCFs remain complex settings, and it is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences during COVID-19 to ensure that future pandemics are managed appropriately. This review has synthesized the policies issued during this time, however, the extent to which such guidance was communicated to LTCFs, and subsequently implemented, in addition to being effective, requires further research. In particular, understanding the secondary effects of such policies and how they can be introduced within the existing challenges inherent to adult social care, need addressing.

Implementation of an Advance Care Planning Intervention in Nursing Homes: An International Multiple Case Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The inability of individuals in the advanced stage of dementia to communicate about preferences in care at the end-of-life poses a challenge for healthcare professionals and family carers. The proven effective Family Carer Decision Support intervention has been designed to inform family carers about end-of-life care options available to a person living with advanced dementia. The objectives of the mySupport study were to adapt the application of the intervention for use in different countries, assess impact on family satisfaction and decision-making, and identify costs and supportive conditions for the implementation of the intervention. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multiple-case study design was chosen where the nursing home was the case. Nursing homes were enrolled from six countries: Canada, Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, Republic of Ireland, and United Kingdom. RESULTS: Seventeen cases (nursing homes) participated, with a total of 296 interviews completed including family carers, nursing home staff, and health providers. Five themes relevant to the implementation of the intervention were identified: supportive relationships; committed staff; perceived value of the intervention; the influence of external factors on the nursing home; and resource impact of delivery. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a commonality of facilitators and barriers across countries when introducing practice innovation. A key learning point was the importance of implementation being accompanied by committed and supported nursing home leadership. The nursing home context is dynamic and multiple factors influence implementation at different points of time.

A family carer decision support intervention for people with advanced dementia residing in a nursing home: a study protocol for an international advance care planning intervention (mySupport study).

BACKGROUND: Where it has been determined that a resident in a nursing home living with dementia loses decisional capacity, nursing home staff must deliver care that is in the person's best interests. Ideally, decisions should be made involving those close to the person, typically a family carer and health and social care providers. The aim of the Family Carer Decisional Support intervention is to inform family carers on end-of-life care options for a person living with advanced dementia and enable them to contribute to advance care planning. This implementation study proposes to; 1) adopt and apply the intervention internationally; and, 2) train nursing home staff to deliver the family carer decision support intervention. METHODS: This study will employ a multiple case study design to allow an understanding of the implementation process and to identify the factors which determine how well the intervention will work as intended. We will enrol nursing homes from each country (Canada n = 2 Republic of Ireland = 2, three regions in the UK n = 2 each, The Netherlands n = 2, Italy n = 2 and the Czech Republic n = 2) to reflect the range of characteristics in each national and local context. The RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework will guide the evaluation of implementation of the training and information resources. Our mixed methods study design has three phases to (1) establish knowledge about the context of implementation, (2) participant baseline information and measures and (3) follow up evaluation. DISCUSSION: The use of a multiple case study design will enable evaluation of the intervention in different national, regional, cultural, clinical, social and organisational contexts, and we anticipate collecting rich and in-depth data. While it is hoped that the intervention resources will impact on policy and practice in the nursing homes that are recruited to the study, the development of implementation guidelines will ensure impact on wider national policy and practice. It is our aim that the resources will be sustainable beyond the duration of the study and this will enable the resources to have a longstanding relevance for future advance care planning practice for staff, family carers and residents with advanced dementia.

A Core Outcome Set for Nonpharmacological Community-Based Interventions for People Living With Dementia at Home: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is questionable whether existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) in dementia research reflect what key stakeholders' value. We attained consensus from more than 300 key stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and identified 13 core outcome items for use in nonpharmacological and community-based interventions for people with dementia living at home. In this systematic review, we review OMIs that have previously been used in dementia care research to determine how, or even if, the 13 core outcome items can be measured. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We extracted self-reported OMIs from trials, reviews, and reports of instrument development. Searches were undertaken in the ALOIS database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and COSMIN databases. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties of OMI items for face validity with the core outcome items, content validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness. We held a coresearch workshop involving people living with dementia and care partners in order to ratify the findings. RESULTS: In total 347 OMIs were located from 354 sources. Of these, 76 OMIs met the inclusion criteria. No OMIs were deemed to have sufficient face validity for the core outcome set (COS) items, and no OMIs proceeded to further assessment. The "best" available OMI is the Engagement and Independence in Dementia Questionnaire. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study provides a practical resource for those designing dementia research trials. Being able to measure the COS items would herald a paradigm shift for dementia research, be responsive to what key stakeholders value and enhance the ability to make comparisons.

Supporting Adults Bereaved Through COVID-19: A Rapid Review of the Impact of Previous Pandemics on Grief and Bereavement.

The global COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have a major impact on the experience of death, dying, and bereavement. This study aimed to review and synthesize learning from previous literature focused on the impact on grief and bereavement during other infectious disease outbreaks. We conducted a rapid scoping review according to the principles of the Joanna Briggs Institute and analyzed qualitative data using thematic synthesis. From the 218 identified articles, 6 were included in the analysis. They were four qualitative studies, one observational study, and a systematic review. Studies were conducted in West Africa, Haiti, and Singapore. No research studies have focused on outcomes and support for bereaved people during a pandemic. Studies have tended to focus on survivors who are those who had the illness and recovered, recognizing that some of these individuals will also be bereaved people. Previous pandemics appear to cause multiple losses both directly related to death itself and also in terms of disruption to social norms, rituals, and mourning practices. This affects the ability for an individual to connect with the deceased both before and after the death, potentially increasing the risk of complicated grief. In view of the limited research, specific learning from the current COVID-19 crisis and the impact on the bereaved would be pertinent. Current focus should include innovative ways to promote connection and adapt rituals while maintaining respect. Strong leadership and coordination between different bereavement organisations is essential to providing successful postbereavement support.

What is important to people living with dementia?: the 'long-list' of outcome items in the development of a core outcome set for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and social care interventions.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) prioritise outcomes based on their importance to key stakeholders, reduce reporting bias and increase comparability across studies. The first phase of a COS study is to form a 'long-list' of outcomes. Key stakeholders then decide on their importance. COS reporting is described as suboptimal and this first phase is often under-reported. Our objective was to develop a 'long-list' of outcome items for non-pharmacological interventions for people with dementia living at home. METHODS: Three iterative phases were conducted. First, people living with dementia, care partners, health and social care professionals, policymakers and researchers (n = 55) took part in interviews or focus groups and were asked which outcomes were important. Second, existing dementia trials were identified from the ALOIS database. 248 of 1009 pharmacological studies met the inclusion criteria. Primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from a 50% random sample (n = 124) along with eight key reviews/qualitative papers and 38 policy documents. Third, extracted outcome items were translated onto an existing qualitative framework and mapped into domains. The research team removed areas of duplication and refined the 'long-list' in eight workshops. RESULTS: One hundred seventy outcome items were extracted from the qualitative data and literature. The 170 outcome items were consolidated to 54 in four domains (Self-Managing Dementia Symptoms, Quality of Life, Friendly Neighbourhood & Home, Independence). CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents a transparent blueprint for 'long-list' development. Though a useful resource in their own right, the 54 outcome items will be distilled further in a modified Delphi survey and consensus meeting to identify core outcomes.

Involving people living with dementia in research: an accessible modified Delphi survey for core outcome set development.

BACKGROUND: Recent recommendations promote the inclusion of people living with dementia beyond the role of 'participant' to involvement in all areas of the research process. This reflects shifts in dementia studies from 'research on' to 'research with' people living with the condition. In this paper, we describe the design process and features of a modified Delphi survey devised through consultation with people living with dementia. METHODS: This article focusses on consultation with people living with dementia and care partners to design an accessible Delphi survey to facilitate participation in core outcome set development. We used the COINED model of co-research developed through the ESRC/NIHR Neighbourhoods and Dementia Study to structure consultation on three features of modified Delphi design. Consultation was achieved through 1:1 and group sessions with a total of 28 individuals (18 people living with dementia and seven care partners). RESULTS: A flexible, responsive and adaptive approach to ongoing consultation with people living with dementia and care partners through 1:1 face-to-face sessions facilitated: (1) the development of a 3-point non-categorical importance scale; (2) the translation of 54 outcome areas into 'accessible statements' for a two-round Delphi survey administered to five stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, health and social care professionals, policy-makers and researchers); and (3) the delivery of a Delphi survey. These features of core outcome set development facilitated the involvement of people living with dementia in study design and as research participants in the data collection phase. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of people living with dementia as a key stakeholder group is not reflected in studies using Delphi survey methods for core outcome set development. Time, resources, researcher expertise and support, underpinned through targeted funding facilitate meaningful and productive inclusive approaches, now an expectation of dementia research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on the COMET Initiative .

Developing a core outcome set for people living with dementia at home in their neighbourhoods and communities: study protocol for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and social care interventions.

BACKGROUND: The key aim of the study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people living at home with dementia. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing on the guidance and approaches of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), this study uses a four-phase mixed-methods design: 1 Focus groups and interviews with key stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, relevant health and social care professionals, researchers and policymakers) and a review of the literature will be undertaken to build a long list of outcomes. 2 Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be used with key stakeholder groups. Statements for the Delphi surveys and participation processes will be developed and informed through substantial member involvement with people living with dementia and care partners. A consensus meeting will be convened with key participant groups to discuss the key findings and finalise the COS. 3 A systematic literature review will be undertaken to assess the properties of tools and instruments to assess components of the COS. Measurement properties, validity and reliability will be assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement (COSMIN) and COMET guidance. 4 A stated preference survey will elicit the preferences of key stakeholders for the outcomes identified as important to measure in the COS. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use a modified Delphi process to involve people living with dementia as a participant group. Though the study is confined to collecting data in the United Kingdom, use of the COS by researchers will enhance the comparability of studies evaluating non-pharmacological and community-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on the COMET initiative, registered in 2014 at comet-initiative.org .

UK and Twenty Comparable Countries GDP-Expenditure-on-Health 1980-2013: The Historic and Continued Low Priority of UK Health-Related Expenditure.

It is well-established that for a considerable period the United Kingdom has spent proportionally less of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health-related services than almost any other comparable country. Average European spending on health (as a % of GDP) in the period 1980 to 2013 has been 19% higher than the United Kingdom, indicating that comparable countries give far greater fiscal priority to its health services, irrespective of its actual fiscal value or configuration. While the UK National Health Service (NHS) is a comparatively lean healthcare system, it is often regarded to be at a 'crisis' point on account of low levels of funding. Indeed, many state that currently the NHS has a sizeable funding gap, in part due to its recently reduced GDP devoted to health but mainly the challenges around increases in longevity, expectation and new medical costs. The right level of health funding is a political value judgement. As the data in this paper outline, if the UK 'afforded' the same proportional level of funding as the mean average European country, total expenditure would currently increase by one-fifth.

Patient choice for older people in english NHS primary care: theory and practice.

In the English National Health Service (NHS), patients are now expected to choose the time and place of treatment and even choose the actual treatment. However, the theory on which patient choice is based and the implementation of patient choice are controversial. There is evidence to indicate that attitudes and abilities to make choices are relatively sophisticated and not as straightforward as policy developments suggest. In addition, and surprisingly, there is little research on whether making individual choices about care is regarded as a priority by the largest NHS patient group and the single largest group for most GPs-older people. This conceptual paper examines the theory of patient choice concerning accessing and engaging with healthcare provision and reviews existing evidence on older people and patient choice in primary care.