Causes of nursing home placement for older people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Up to half of people with dementia in high income countries live in nursing homes and more than two-thirds of care home residents have dementia. Fewer than half of these residents report good quality of life and most older people are anxious about the prospect of moving into a nursing home. Robust evidence is needed as to the causes of admission to nursing homes, particularly where these risk factors are modifiable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify controlled comparison studies in which the primary outcome was admission to nursing home of older adults with dementia. Identified studies were assessed for validity and 26 (17 cohort and 9 case-control) were included. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted, including meta-analysis of 15 studies. RESULTS: Poorer cognition and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) were consistently associated with an increased risk of nursing home admission and most of our meta-analyses demonstrated impairments in activities of daily living as a significant risk. The effects of community support services were unclear, with both high and low levels of service use leading to nursing home placement. There was an association between caregiver burden and risk of institutionalization, but findings with regard to caregiver depression varied, as did physical health associations, with some studies showing an increased risk of nursing home placement following hip fracture, reduced mobility, and multiple comorbidities. CONCLUSION: We recommend focusing on cognitive enhancement strategies, assessment and management of BPSD, and carer education and support to delay nursing home placement.

Identifying the causes, prevention and management of crises in dementia. An online survey of stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Crisis situations in dementia can lead to hospital admission or institutionalisation. Offering immediate interventions may help avoid admission, whilst stabilising measures can help prevent future crises. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify the main causes of crisis and interventions to treat or prevent crisis in persons with dementia based on different stakeholder perspectives. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed to identify the causes of crisis and appropriate interventions in a crisis. Participants included people with dementia, family carers and staff working in health and social care, including emergency and voluntary sectors, and academia. RESULTS: The results ranked the main causes of crisis, interventions that can prevent a crisis and interventions that can be useful in a crisis. Wandering, falls and infection were highly rated as risk factors for crises across all stakeholder groups. Consumers rated aggression as less important but severity of memory impairment as much more important than the other groups did. Education and support for family carers and home care staff were highly valued for preventing crises. Well-trained home care staff, communication equipment, emergency contacts and access to respite were highly valued for managing crises. CONCLUSIONS: We identified triggers and interventions that different stakeholders see as important for crisis in dementia. Recognition of these may be critical to planning effective and accepted support and care for people with dementia.

Case management approaches to home support for people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Over 35 million people are estimated to be living with dementia in the world and the societal costs are very high. Case management is a widely used and strongly promoted complex intervention for organising and co-ordinating care at the level of the individual, with the aim of providing long-term care for people with dementia in the community as an alternative to early admission to a care home or hospital. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of case management approaches to home support for people with dementia, from the perspective of the different people involved (patients, carers, and staff) compared with other forms of treatment, including 'treatment as usual', standard community treatment and other non-case management interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 31 December 2013: ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group,The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science (including Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Social Science Citation Index), Campbell Collaboration/SORO database and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We updated this search in March 2014 but results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of case management interventions for people with dementia living in the community and their carers. We screened interventions to ensure that they focused on planning and co-ordination of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as required by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently extracted data and made 'Risk of bias' assessments using Cochrane criteria. For continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) between groups along with its confidence interval (95% CI). We applied a fixed- or random-effects model as appropriate. For binary or dichotomous data, we generated the corresponding odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity by the I² statistic. MAIN RESULTS: We include 13 RCTs involving 9615 participants with dementia in the review. Case management interventions in studies varied. We found low to moderate overall risk of bias; 69% of studies were at high risk for performance bias.The case management group were significantly less likely to be institutionalised (admissions to residential or nursing homes) at six months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, n = 5741, 6 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.02) and at 18 months (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.61, n = 363, 4 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.003). However, the effects at 10 - 12 months (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08, n = 5990, 9 RCTs, I² = 48%, P = 0.39) and 24 months (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.03, n = 201, 2 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.94) were uncertain. There was evidence from one trial of a reduction in the number of days per month in a residential home or hospital unit in the case management group at six months (MD -5.80, 95% CI -7.93 to -3.67, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001) and at 12 months (MD -7.70, 95% CI -9.38 to -6.02, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001). One trial reported the length of time until participants were institutionalised at 12 months and the effects were uncertain (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.14, P = 0.14). There was no difference in the number of people admitted to hospital at six (4 RCTs, 439 participants), 12 (5 RCTs, 585 participants) and 18 months (5 RCTs, 613 participants). For mortality at 4 - 6, 12, 18 - 24 and 36 months, and for participants' or carers' quality of life at 4, 6, 12 and 18 months, there were no significant effects. There was some evidence of benefits in carer burden at six months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.01, n = 4601, 4 RCTs, I² = 26%, P = 0.03) but the effects at 12 or 18 months were uncertain. Additionally, some evidence indicated case management was more effective at reducing behaviour disturbance at 18 months (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.07, n = 206, 2 RCTs I² = 0%, P = 0.01) but effects were uncertain at four (2 RCTs), six (4 RCTs) or 12 months (5 RCTs).The case management group showed a small significant improvement in carer depression at 18 months (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.01, n = 2888, 3 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.03). Conversely, the case management group showed greater improvement in carer well-being in a single study at six months (MD -2.20 CI CI -4.14 to -0.26, n = 65, 1 RCT, P = 0.03) but the effects were uncertain at 12 or 18 months. There was some evidence that case management reduced the total cost of services at 12 months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02, n = 5276, 2 RCTs, P = 0.01) and incurred lower dollar expenditure for the total three years (MD= -705.00, 95% CI -1170.31 to -239.69, n = 5170, 1 RCT, P = 0.003). Data on a number of outcomes consistently indicated that the intervention group received significantly more community services. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that case management is beneficial at improving some outcomes at certain time points, both in the person with dementia and in their carer. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the interventions, outcomes measured and time points across the 13 included RCTs. There was some evidence from good-quality studies to suggest that admissions to care homes and overall healthcare costs are reduced in the medium term; however, the results at longer points of follow-up were uncertain. There was not enough evidence to clearly assess whether case management could delay institutionalisation in care homes. There were uncertain results in patient depression, functional abilities and cognition. Further work should be undertaken to investigate what components of case management are associated with improvement in outcomes. Increased consistency in measures of outcome would support future meta-analysis.

Causes of crises and appropriate interventions: the views of people with dementia, carers and healthcare professionals.

The aims of this study were to identify which factors may lead to crisis for people with dementia and their carers and identify interventions these individuals believe could help in crisis. Qualitative study using focus groups to compare the perspectives of people with dementia, family carers and healthcare professionals on causes of crises and crisis interventions. To help in a crisis, people with dementia were favourable towards support from family and friends, access to mobile phones and home adaptations to reduce risks. Carers were keen on assistive technology and home adaptation. Both carers and staff valued carer training and education, care plans and well-coordinated care. Staff were the only group emphasizing more intensive interventions such as emergency home respite and extended hours services. In terms of causes of crises, people with dementia focused on risks and hazards in their home, whereas family carers emphasized carer stress and their own mental health problems. Staff, in contrast were concerned about problems with service organization and coordination leading to crises. Physical problems were less commonly identified as causes of crises but when they did occur they had a major impact. Practical interventions such as home adaptations, assistive technology, education and training for family carers, and flexible home care services were highly valued by service users and their families during times of crisis and may help prevent hospital admissions. Specialist home care was highly valued by all groups.

A survey of geriatric psychiatry training across Europe.

BACKGROUND: Training, practice, and continuing professional development in old age psychiatry varies across Europe. The aims of this study were to survey current practice and develop recommendations to begin a debate on harmonization. METHODS: A survey was sent out to 38 European countries via email. The survey was sent to members of the European Association of Geriatric Psychiatry (EAGP) Board, members of the World Psychiatric Association, and key old age psychiatrists or other psychiatrists with a special interest in the area for countries where old age psychiatry was not formally a specialty. RESULTS: Through a process of networking, we identified a key individual from each country in Europe to participate in this study, and 30 out of 38 (79%) representatives responded. Training programs and duration varied between countries. Eleven countries reported that they had geriatric psychiatry training programs and most of these required geriatric psychiatry trainees to complete mandatory training for two years within old age psychiatry. Representatives from ten countries reported having specific Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for old age psychiatrists at consultant level. CONCLUSION: There is a clear indication that the recognition of geriatric psychiatry as a specialist discipline in Europe is on the rise. The training procedures and processes in place vary considerably between and sometimes within countries. There are several options for harmonizing old age psychiatry training across Europe with advantages to each. However, support is required from national old age psychiatry bodies across Europe and an agreement needs to be reached on a training strategy that encompasses supervision, development, and appraisal of the knowledge and skills sets of old age psychiatrists.

The effectiveness of crisis resolution/home treatment teams for older people with mental health problems: a systematic review and scoping exercise.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of crisis resolution/home treatment services for older people with mental health problems. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted to report on the effectiveness of crisis resolution/home treatment teams (CRHTTs) for older people with mental health problems. As part of the review, we also carried out a scoping exercise to assess the typologies of older people's CRHTTs in practice, and to review these in the context of policy and research findings. RESULTS: The literature contains Grade C evidence, according to the Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) guidelines, that CRHTTs are effective in reducing numbers of admissions to hospitals. Outcomes such as length of hospital stay and maintenance of community residence were reviewed but evidence was inadequate for drawing conclusions. The scoping exercise defined three types of home treatment service model: generic home treatment teams; specialist older adults home treatment teams; and intermediate care services. These home treatment teams seemed to be effectively managing crises and reducing admissions. CONCLUSION: This review has shown a lack of evidence for the efficacy of crisis resolution/home treatment teams in supporting older people with mental health problems to remain at home. There is clearly a need for a randomised controlled trial to establish the efficacy of crisis resolution/home treatment services for older people with mental health problems, as well as a more focussed assessment of the different home treatment service models which have developed in the UK.

Causes of hospital admission for people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature of the factors leading to hospital admission for people with dementia in comparison with (1) people without dementia acutely admitted and (2) people with dementia in the community. RESULTS: Inpatients with dementia are at an increased risk of crisis owing to physical health-related factors, including orthopedic, respiratory, and urologic, than inpatients who do not have dementia. We also reviewed data that compared people with dementia admitted with those who were not and found that behavioral problems, such as agitation and wandering, placed people with dementia at an increased risk of being admitted. Interestingly, we also found that changes in routine and environment and increased dependency problems in several activities of daily living were associated with a higher risk of hospitalization for people with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Many older people's crisis teams tend to focus on prevention and reducing psychiatric admissions. This review highlights the need for recognition of the physical health risks in these patients and a low threshold for early treatment in the community. This review highlights the importance of integrated working between services for older people's mental health, primary care, social welfare, intermediate care, and hospital liaison.