The Journeying through Dementia psychosocial intervention versus usual care study: a single-blind, parallel group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent clinical need for evidence-based psychosocial interventions for people with mild dementia. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of Journeying through Dementia (JtD), an intervention designed to promote wellbeing and independence in people with mild dementia. METHODS: We did a single-blind, parallel group, individually randomised, phase 3 trial at 13 National Health Service sites across England. People with mild dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination score of ≥18) who lived in the community were eligible for inclusion. Patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the JtD intervention plus standard care (JtD group) or standard care only (standard care group). Randomisation was stratified by study site. The JtD intervention included 12 group and four one-to-one sessions, delivered in the community at each site. The primary endpoint was Dementia Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL) 8 months after randomisation, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Only outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. A cost-effectiveness analysis reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from a UK NHS and social care perspective. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17993825. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 1183 patients were screened for inclusion, of whom 480 (41%) participants were randomly assigned: 241 (50%) to the JtD group and 239 (50%) to the standard care group. Intervention adherence was very good: 165 (68%) of 241 participants in the JtD group attended at least ten of the 16 sessions. Mean DEMQOL scores at 8 months were 93·3 (SD 13·0) for the JtD group and 91·9 (SD 14·6) for the control group. Difference in means was 0·9 (95% CI -1·2 to 3·0; p=0·38) after adjustment for covariates, lower than that identified as clinically meaningful. Incremental cost per QALY ranged from £88 000 to -£205 000, suggesting that JtD was not cost-effective. Unrelated serious adverse events were reported by 40 (17%) patients in the JtD group and 35 (15%) patients in the standard care group. INTERPRETATION: In common with other studies, the JtD intervention was not proven effective. However, this complex trial successfully recruited and retained people with dementia without necessarily involving carers. Additionally, people with dementia were actively involved as participants and study advisers throughout. More research into methods of measuring small, meaningful changes in this population is needed. Questions remain regarding how services can match the complex, diverse, and individual needs of people with mild dementia, and how interventions to meet such needs can be delivered at scale. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Determinants for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the general population: a systematic review of reviews.

Aim: Although multiple COVID-19 vaccines are approved for global use, vaccine hesitancy poses a substantial risk for global health. Therefore, the aim of this umbrella review is to identify those factors that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population. This is necessary to improve the effectiveness of future vaccination programmes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) were searched on December 21, 2021. This review included reviews which investigated factors of intention, willingness, or hesitancy with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination in adult populations, with no restrictions on setting. Content-based structure was used to synthesise the extracted data. The findings were presented based on the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) Working Group Model for vaccine hesitancy. Results: A total of 3,392 studies were identified, of which 31 met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently documented factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy included contextual factors, such as sex, age, and social inequalities; individual and group factors, such as trust in the healthcare system, public health authorities, and governments, and history of vaccination; vaccine-specific factors, such as concern for vaccine safety, perceived vaccine barriers, perceived effectiveness of vaccines, and concern about the rapid development of the vaccine; and disease-specific factors, such as fear of being infected with COVID-19, perceived severity of COVID-19, and knowledge of COVID-19. Conclusion: There are multiple factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Our findings lay the foundation to further understand COVID-19 vaccination uptake and provide possible targets for intervention programmes. However, there are gaps in research concerning certain populations, including vaccination in people with mental disorders. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-022-01753-9.

An intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia: the Journeying through Dementia RCT.

BACKGROUND: There are few effective interventions for dementia. AIM: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the Journeying through Dementia intervention compared with usual care, conduct an internal pilot testing feasibility, assess intervention delivery fidelity and undertake a qualitative exploration of participants' experiences. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised trial analysed by intention to treat. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 480 people diagnosed with mild dementia, with capacity to make informed decisions, living in the community and not participating in other studies, and 350 supporters whom they identified, from 13 locations in England, took part. INTERVENTION: Those randomised to the Journeying through Dementia intervention (n = 241) were invited to take part in 12 weekly facilitated groups and four one-to-one sessions delivered in the community by secondary care staff, in addition to their usual care. The control group (n = 239) received usual care. Usual care included drug treatment, needs assessment and referral to appropriate services. Usual care at each site was recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months post randomisation, with higher scores representing higher quality of life. Secondary outcomes included resource use, psychological well-being, self-management, instrumental activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Staff conducting outcome assessments were blinded. DATA SOURCES: Outcome measures were administered in participants' homes at baseline and at 8 and 12 months post randomisation. Interviews were conducted with participants, participating carers and interventionalists. RESULTS: The mean Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months was 93.3 (standard deviation 13.0) in the intervention arm (n = 191) and 91.9 (standard deviation 14.6) in the control arm (n = 197), with a difference in means of 0.9 (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.380) after adjustment for covariates. This effect size (0.9) was less than the 4 points defined as clinically meaningful. For other outcomes, a difference was found only for Diener's Flourishing Scale (adjusted mean difference 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.3), in favour of the intervention (i.e. in a positive direction). The Journeying through Dementia intervention cost £608 more than usual care (95% confidence interval £105 to £1179) and had negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.044 to 0.038). Therefore, the Journeying through Dementia intervention had a mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of -£202,857 (95% confidence interval -£534,733 to £483,739); however, there is considerable uncertainty around this. Assessed fidelity was good. Interviewed participants described receiving some benefit and a minority benefited greatly. However, negative aspects were also raised by a minority. Seventeen per cent of participants in the intervention arm and 15% of participants in the control arm experienced at least one serious adverse event. None of the serious adverse events were classified as related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include recruitment of an active population, delivery challenges and limitations of existing outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The Journeying through Dementia programme is not clinically effective, is unlikely to be cost-effective and cannot be recommended in its existing format. FUTURE WORK: Research should focus on the creation of new outcome measures to assess well-being in dementia and on using elements of the intervention, such as enabling enactment in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17993825. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

There are few services proven effective for people with mild dementia. We therefore explored the potential benefit of a programme called Journeying through Dementia. The content, devised in partnership with people living with dementia, aims to help affected individuals to live well and participate in life. The programme involves meeting in groups of about eight every week for 12 weeks. Each person also has four face-to-face meetings with a staff member. Carers are invited to 3 of the 12 group meetings to all individual meetings if the participant wanted this involvement. A total of 480 people with dementia and 350 carers from 13 locations in England took part. Just over half of the participants were randomly allocated to the new programme, whereas the others were not. This allowed us to compare the groups. We were interested in whether or not attending the Journeying through Dementia programme improved participants' quality of life. The results showed that it did not. We also measured participants' mood, self-management skills, positive attitudes and ability with daily living skills. Only one measure of positive psychology suggested even a small benefit. There was no difference between groups in the remaining measures. Although some individual participants described being more confident, enjoying social contact, trying new activities, feeling valued and having increased independence, overall, the programme is unlikely to be worth implementing. Certain aspects of the programme are worth implementing.

Achieving Quality and Effectiveness in Dementia Using Crisis Teams (AQUEDUCT): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a Resource Kit.

BACKGROUND: Improving care at home for people with dementia is a core policy goal in the dementia strategies of many European countries. A challenge to effective home support is the occurrence of crises in the care of people with dementia which arise from changes in their health and social circumstances. Improving the management of these crises may prevent hospital admissions and facilitate better and longer care at home. This trial is part of a National Institute for Health Research funded programme, AQUEDUCT, which aims to improve the quality and effectiveness of teams working to manage crises in dementia. METHODS/DESIGN: It is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of an online Resource Kit to enhance practice in teams managing crises in dementia care. Thirty teams managing mental health crises in dementia in community settings will be randomised between the Resource Kit intervention and treatment as usual. The primary outcome measure is psychiatric admissions to hospital for people with dementia in the teams' catchment area recorded 6 months after randomisation. Other outcomes include quality of life measures for people with dementia and their carers, practitioner impact measures, acute hospital admissions and costs. To enhance understanding of the Resource Kit intervention, qualitative work will explore staff, patient and carers' experience. DISCUSSION: The Resource Kit intervention reflects current policy to enable home-based care for people with dementia by addressing the management of crises which threaten the viability of care at home. It is based upon a model of best practice for managing crises in dementia designed to enhance the quality of care, developed in partnership with people with dementia, carers and practitioners. If the Resource Kit is shown to be clinically and cost-effective in this study, this will enhance the probability of its incorporation into mainstream practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 42855694 ; Registered on 04/03/2021; Protocol number: 127686/2020v9; Research Ethics Committee, 09/03/2021, Ref 21/WM/0004; IRAS ID: 289982.

Setting Priorities to Inform Assessment of Care Homes' Readiness to Participate in Healthcare Innovation: A Systematic Mapping Review and Consensus Process.

Organisational context is known to impact on the successful implementation of healthcare initiatives in care homes. We undertook a systematic mapping review to examine whether researchers have considered organisational context when planning, conducting, and reporting the implementation of healthcare innovations in care homes. Review data were mapped against the Alberta Context Tool, which was designed to assess organizational context in care homes. The review included 56 papers. No studies involved a systematic assessment of organisational context prior to implementation, but many provided post hoc explanations of how organisational context affected the success or otherwise of the innovation. Factors identified to explain a lack of success included poor senior staff engagement, non-alignment with care home culture, limited staff capacity to engage, and low levels of participation from health professionals such as general practitioners (GPs). Thirty-five stakeholders participated in workshops to discuss findings and develop questions for assessing care home readiness to participate in innovations. Ten questions were developed to initiate conversations between innovators and care home staff to support research and implementation. This framework can help researchers initiate discussions about health-related innovation. This will begin to address the gap between implementation theory and practice.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention compared to usual care.

INTRODUCTION: Services are being encouraged to provide postdiagnostic treatment to those with dementia but the availability of evidence-based interventions following diagnosis has not kept pace with increase in demand. To address this need, the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention was created. A randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel group trial designed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of JtD compared with usual care. Recruitment will be through NHS services, third sector organisations and Join Dementia Research. The sample size is 486 randomised (243 to usual care and 243 to the intervention usual care). Participants can choose to ask a friend or relative (supporter) to become involved in the study. The primary outcome measure for participants is Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL), collected at baseline and at 8 months' postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be collected from participants and supporters at those visits. Participants will also be followed up at 12 months' postrandomisation with a reduced set of measures. A process evaluation will be conducted through qualitative and fidelity substudies. Analyses will compare the two arms of the trial on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analyses will compare the mean DEMQOL scores of the participants at 8 months between the two study arms. A cost-effectiveness analysis will consider the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years of the intervention compared with usual care. Qualitative and fidelity substudies will be analysed through framework analysis and fidelity assessment tools respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: REC and HRA approval were obtained. A Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee has been constituted. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media. Intervention materials will be made open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17993825.

Is loneliness associated with increased health and social care utilisation in the oldest old? Findings from a population-based longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to examine the impact of loneliness on health and social care service use in the oldest old over a 7-year follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: UK population-based cohort. PARTICIPANTS: 713 people aged 80 years or older were interviewed at wave 3 of the Cambridge City over-75s Cohort Study. Of these, 665 provided data on loneliness. During 7 years' follow-up, 480 participants left the study, of which 389 due to death. 162 still in the study answered the loneliness question. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Use of health and social care services, assessed at each wave from wave 3 to wave 5. RESULTS: At wave 3, of 665 participants who had data on loneliness, about 60% did not feel lonely, 16% felt slightly lonely and 25% felt lonely. Being slightly lonely at wave 3 was associated with a shorter time since last seeing a general practitioner (ß=-0.5, 95% CI: -0.8 to -0.2); when examining the association between time-varying loneliness and health and social care usage, being lonely was associated with three times greater likelihood of having contact with community nurses and using meals on wheels services (community nurse contact: incidence rate ratio (IRR)=3.4, 95% CI: 1.4 to 8.7; meals on wheels service use: IRR=2.5, 95% CI: 1.1 to 5.6). No associations between loneliness and other health and social care services use were found. CONCLUSION: Loneliness was a significant risk factor for certain types of health and social care utilisations, independently of participants' health conditions, in the oldest old. Study findings have several implications, including the need for awareness-raising and prevention of loneliness to be priorities for public health policy and practice.

Role of comprehensive geriatric assessment in healthcare of older people in UK care homes: realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) may be a way to deliver optimal care for care home residents. We used realist review to develop a theory-driven account of how CGA works in care homes. DESIGN: Realist review. SETTING: Care homes. METHODS: The review had three stages: first, interviews with expert stakeholders and scoping of the literature to develop programme theories for CGA; second, iterative searches with structured retrieval and extraction of the literature; third, synthesis to refine the programme theory of how CGA works in care homes.We used the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychInfo, PubMed, Google Scholar, Greylit, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: 130 articles informed a programme theory which suggested CGA had three main components: structured comprehensive assessment, developing a care plan and working towards patient-centred goals. Each of these required engagement of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Most evidence was available around assessment, with tension between structured assessment led by a single professional and less structured assessment involving multiple members of an MDT. Care planning needed to accommodate visiting clinicians and there was evidence that a core MDT often used care planning as a mechanism to seek external specialist support. Goal-setting processes were not always sufficiently patient-centred and did not always accommodate the views of care home staff. Studies reported improved outcomes from CGA affecting resident satisfaction, prescribing, healthcare resource use and objective measures of quality of care. CONCLUSION: The programme theory described here provides a framework for understanding how CGA could be effective in care homes. It will be of use to teams developing, implementing or auditing CGA in care homes. All three components are required to make CGA work-this may explain why attempts to implement CGA by interventions focused solely on assessment or care planning have failed in some long-term care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017062601.

Assistive Technologies to Address Capabilities of People with Dementia: From Research to Practice.

Assistive technologies became pervasive and virtually present in all our life domains. They can be either an enabler or an obstacle leading to social exclusion. The Fondation Médéric Alzheimer gathered international experts of dementia care, with backgrounds in biomedical, human and social sciences, to analyze how assistive technologies can address the capabilities of people with dementia, on the basis of their needs. Discussion covered the unmet needs of people with dementia, the domains of daily life activities where assistive technologies can provide help to people with dementia, the enabling and empowering impact of technology to improve their safety and wellbeing, barriers and limits of use, technology assessment, ethical and legal issues. The capability approach (possible freedom) appears particularly relevant in person-centered dementia care and technology development. The focus is not on the solution, rather on what the person can do with it: seeing dementia as disability, with technology as an enabler to promote capabilities of the person, provides a useful framework for both research and practice. This article summarizes how these concepts took momentum in professional practice and public policies in the past 15 years (2000-2015), discusses current issues in the design, development and economic model of assistive technologies for people with dementia, and covers how these technologies are being used and assessed.

Amisulpride for very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis: the ATLAS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Very late-onset (aged ≥ 60 years) schizophrenia-like psychosis (VLOSLP) occurs frequently but no placebo-controlled, randomised trials have assessed the efficacy or risks of antipsychotic treatment. Most patients are not prescribed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The study investigated whether or not low-dose amisulpride is superior to placebo in reducing psychosis symptoms over 12 weeks and if any benefit is maintained by continuing treatment thereafter. Treatment safety and cost-effectiveness were also investigated. DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Participants who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. SETTING: Secondary care specialist old age psychiatry services in 25 NHS mental health trusts in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients meeting diagnostic criteria for VLOSLP and scoring > 30 points on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to three arms in a two-stage trial: (1) 100 mg of amisulpride in both stages, (2) amisulpride then placebo and (3) placebo then amisulpride. Treatment duration was 12 weeks in stage 1 and 24 weeks (later reduced to 12) in stage 2. Participants, investigators and outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were psychosis symptoms assessed by the BPRS and trial treatment discontinuation for non-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were extrapyramidal symptoms measured with the Simpson-Angus Scale, quality of life measured with the World Health Organization's quality-of-life scale, and cost-effectiveness measured with NHS, social care and carer work loss costs and EuroQol-5 Dimensions. RESULTS: A total of 101 participants were randomised. Ninety-two (91%) participants took the trial medication, 59 (64%) completed stage 1 and 33 (56%) completed stage 2 treatment. Despite suboptimal compliance, improvements in BPRS scores at 12 weeks were 7.7 points (95% CI 3.8 to 11.5 points) greater with amisulpride than with placebo (11.9 vs. 4.2 points; p = 0.0002). In stage 2, BPRS scores improved by 1.1 point in those who continued with amisulpride but deteriorated by 5.2 points in those who switched from amisulpride to placebo, a difference of 6.3 points (95% CI 0.9 to 11.7 points; p = 0.024). Fewer participants allocated to the amisulpride group stopped treatment because of non-efficacy in stages 1 (p = 0.01) and 2 (p = 0.031). The number of patients stopping because of extrapyramidal symptoms and other side effects did not differ significantly between groups. Amisulpride treatment in the base-case analyses was associated with non-significant reductions in combined NHS, social care and unpaid carer costs and non-significant reductions in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in both stages. Including patients who were intensive users of inpatient services in sensitivity analyses did not change the QALY result but resulted in placebo dominance in stage 1 and significant reductions in NHS/social care (95% CI -£8923 to -£122) and societal costs (95% CI -£8985 to -£153) for those continuing with amisulpride. LIMITATIONS: The original recruitment target of 300 participants was not achieved and compliance with trial medication was highly variable. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose amisulpride is effective and well tolerated as a treatment for VLOSLP, with benefits maintained by prolonging treatment. Potential adverse events include clinically significant extrapyramidal symptoms and falls. FUTURE WORK: Trials should examine the longer-term effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic treatment in this patient group, and assess interventions to improve their appreciation of potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment and compliance with prescribed medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45593573 and EudraCT2010-022184-35. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ageing patients in forensic psychiatric settings: A review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of ageing patients in forensic psychiatric settings is increasing. However, limited research has reported around this population. The aim of this scoping review is to synthesise the current evidence around ageing forensic psychiatric patients. METHODS: The literature was searched through four databases and Google searches. The identified outputs were screened for suitability and assessed for quality. Quantitative data were extracted and analysed on SPSS; qualitative data were extracted and analysed onto NVivo. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the review. Quantitative results reported around demographics, service contact, offending patterns, mental, and physical health of ageing patients. Qualitative findings focused on age-friendliness of services, staff-patient rapport, activities, security issues, and discharge planning. CONCLUSIONS: Ageing forensic psychiatric patients present with complex and unique needs in relation to treatment, activities, mental, physical, and support. Further research looking at individual patients' needs is paramount to inform policy development and good practice in this area.

Scaling the Peaks Research Protocol: understanding the barriers and drivers to providing and using dementia-friendly community services in rural areas-a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Scaling the Peaks is a cross-disciplinary research study that draws on medical ethnography, human geography and Geospatial Information Science (GIS) to address the issues surrounding the design and delivery of dementia-friendly services in rural communities. The research question seeks to understand the barriers and drivers to the development of relevant, robust, reliable and accessible services that make a difference among older rural families affected by dementia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed methods study recruits both families affected by dementia who reside within the Peak District National Park, Derbyshire, and their service providers. The study explores the expectations and experiences of rural dementia by adopting a three-part approach 1 : longitudinal ethnographic enquiry with up to 32 families affected by dementia (aged 70 years plus) who identify themselves as rural residents 2 ; ethnographic semistructured interviews and systematic observations of a range of statutory, third sector, private and local community initiatives that seek to support older people living with dementia 3 ; and geospatial visual mapping of the qualitative and quantitative data. The ethnographic data will be used to explore the ideas of belonging in a community, perceptions of place and identity to determine the factors that influence everyday decisions about living well with dementia and, for the providers, working in a rural community. The geospatial component of the study seeks to incorporate quantitative and qualitative data, such as types, locations and allocation of services to produce an interactive web-based map for local communities to determine the future design and delivery of services when considering dementia-friendly services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Leeds and Humberside Health Research Authority 16/YH/0163. The study is also approved by other participating organisations as required by their own governance procedures. The study includes people with dementia and as such adheres to the ethical considerations when including people with dementia. A publicly available interactive visual map of the findings will be produced in relation to current services related to location and, by default, identify gaps in provision. Formal reports and dissemination activities will be undertaken in collaboration with the study advisory group members. STUDY PROGRESS: The recruitment began in September 2016. The data analysis commenced June 2017, using 59 provider interviews and 27 family participants. Data collection will be completed June 2018. NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY: Please note that the term 'families affected by dementia' is the preferred term of usage by the family members of the Scaling the Peaks Study Advisory Group. The group wish to emphasise that they consider this term to be more representative of their lives than the term living with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NIHR IRAS 188103; Pre-results.

Feasibility of a staff training and support programme to improve pain assessment and management in people with dementia living in care homes.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish the feasibility and initial effectiveness of training and support intervention for care staff to improve pain management in people with dementia living in care homes (PAIN-Dem). METHODS: PAIN-Dem training was delivered to care staff from three care homes in South London, followed by intervention support and resources to encourage improved pain management by staff over 4 weeks. Feasibility was assessed through fidelity to intervention materials and qualitative approaches. Focus group discussions with staff explored the use of the PAIN-Dem intervention, and interviews were held with six residents and family carers. Pain was assessed in all residents at baseline, 3 and 4 weeks, and goal attainment scaling was assessed at 4 weeks. RESULTS: Delivery of training was a key driver for success and feasibility of the PAIN-Dem intervention. Improvements in pain management behaviour and staff confidence were seen in homes where training was delivered in a care home setting across the care team with good manager buy-in. Family involvement in pain management was highlighted as an area for improvement. Goal attainment in residents was significantly improved across the cohort, although no significant change in pain was seen. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows good initial feasibility of the PAIN-Dem intervention and provides valuable insight into training and support paradigms that deliver successful learning and behaviour change. There is a need for a larger trial of PAIN-Dem to establish its impact on resident pain and quantifiable staff behaviour measures. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The individual experience of ageing prisoners: systematic review and meta-synthesis through a Good Lives Model framework.

OBJECTIVE: The existing literature on ageing prisoners tends to focus on such aspects as diagnosis and physical ill-health. In contrast, the experience of imprisonment from the perspective of ageing prisoners has received less attention. Grounded in a Good Lives Model theoretical framework, we reviewed and meta-synthesised literature around their experience of life in prison, its impact on their wellbeing and how prison services are currently addressing their complex needs. We further identify potential areas of improvement. METHODS: 1. Systematic search on Assia, PsycInfo, MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Google and Gov.uk. 2. Extraction and categorisation of data on NVivo. 3. Development of themes through thematic analysis and meta-synthesis. 4. Identification of potential areas of improvement. RESULTS: We selected 25 studies for our review, of which 13 were from the USA, seven from the UK, two from Australia and one each from Ireland, Switzerland and Israel. We identified three themes: The hardship of imprisonment, addressing health and social care needs, and the route out of prison. CONCLUSIONS: Ageing prisoners have unique and complex health and social care needs which, to varying degree across different countries, are mostly unmet. Promising initiatives to address their needs are emerging, but, at present time, the overall experience of incarceration for the ageing prisoner is quite poor, given the inconsistent physical, emotional and social care support offered from prison intake to release and beyond. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Using comprehensive geriatric assessment for quality improvements in healthcare of older people in UK care homes: protocol for realist review within Proactive Healthcare of Older People in Care Homes (PEACH) study.

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are relatively high users of healthcare resources and may have complex needs. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) may benefit care home residents and improve efficiency of care delivery. This is an approach to care in which there is a thorough multidisciplinary assessment (physical and mental health, functioning and physical and social environments) and a care plan based on this assessment, usually delivered by a multidisciplinary team. The CGA process is known to improve outcomes for community-dwelling older people and those in receipt of hospital care, but less is known about its efficacy in care home residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Realist review was selected as the most appropriate method to explore the complex nature of the care home setting and multidisciplinary delivery of care. The aim of the realist review is to identify and characterise a programme theory that underpins the CGA intervention. The realist review will extract data from research articles which describe the causal mechanisms through which the practice of CGA generates outcomes. The focus of the intervention is care homes, and the outcomes of interest are health-related quality of life and satisfaction with services; for both residents and staff. Further outcomes may include appropriate use of National Health Service services and resources of older care home residents. The review will proceed through three stages: (1) identifying the candidate programme theories that underpin CGA through interviews with key stakeholders, systematic search of the peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed evidence, (2) identifying the evidence relevant to CGA in UK care homes and refining the programme theories through refining and iterating the systematic search, lateral searches and seeking further information from study authors and (3) analysis and synthesis of evidence, involving the testing of the programme theories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The PEACH project was identified as service development following submission to the UK Health Research Authority and subsequent review by the University of Nottingham Research Ethics Committee. The study protocols have been reviewed as part of good governance by the Nottinghamshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. We aim to publish this realist review in a peer-reviewed journal with international readership. We will disseminate findings to public and stakeholders using knowledge mobilisation techniques. Stakeholders will include the Quality Improvement Collaboratives within PEACH study. National networks, such as British Society of Gerontology and National Care Association will be approached for wider dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The realist review has been registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017062601).

Technologies to Support Community-Dwelling Persons With Dementia: A Position Paper on Issues Regarding Development, Usability, Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness, Deployment, and Ethics.

BACKGROUND: With the expected increase in the numbers of persons with dementia, providing timely, adequate, and affordable care and support is challenging. Assistive and health technologies may be a valuable contribution in dementia care, but new challenges may emerge. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to review the state of the art of technologies for persons with dementia regarding issues on development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics in 3 fields of application of technologies: (1) support with managing everyday life, (2) support with participating in pleasurable and meaningful activities, and (3) support with dementia health and social care provision. The study also aimed to identify gaps in the evidence and challenges for future research. METHODS: Reviews of literature and expert opinions were used in our study. Literature searches were conducted on usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and ethics using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases with no time limit. Selection criteria in our selected technology fields were reviews in English for community-dwelling persons with dementia. Regarding deployment issues, searches were done in Health Technology Assessment databases. RESULTS: According to our results, persons with dementia want to be included in the development of technologies; there is little research on the usability of assistive technologies; various benefits are reported but are mainly based on low-quality studies; barriers to deployment of technologies in dementia care were identified, and ethical issues were raised by researchers but often not studied. Many challenges remain such as including the target group more often in development, performing more high-quality studies on usability and effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, creating and having access to high-quality datasets on existing technologies to enable adequate deployment of technologies in dementia care, and ensuring that ethical issues are considered an important topic for researchers to include in their evaluation of assistive technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, various actions are recommended for development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics of assistive and health technologies across Europe. These include avoiding replication of technology development that is unhelpful or ineffective and focusing on how technologies succeed in addressing individual needs of persons with dementia. Furthermore, it is suggested to include these recommendations in national and international calls for funding and assistive technology research programs. Finally, practitioners, policy makers, care insurers, and care providers should work together with technology enterprises and researchers to prepare strategies for the implementation of assistive technologies in different care settings. This may help future generations of persons with dementia to utilize available and affordable technologies and, ultimately, to benefit from them.

Cost-effectiveness of donepezil and memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (the DOMINO-AD trial).

OBJECTIVE: Most investigations of pharmacotherapy for treating Alzheimer's disease focus on patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms, with little evidence to guide clinical decisions when symptoms become severe. We examined whether continuing donepezil, or commencing memantine, is cost-effective for community-dwelling, moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease patients. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial. A total of 295 community-dwelling patients with moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, already treated with donepezil, were randomised to: (i) continue donepezil; (ii) discontinue donepezil; (iii) discontinue donepezil and start memantine; or (iv) continue donepezil and start memantine. RESULTS: Continuing donepezil for 52 weeks was more cost-effective than discontinuation, considering cognition, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. Starting memantine was more cost-effective than donepezil discontinuation. Donepezil-memantine combined is not more cost-effective than donepezil alone. CONCLUSIONS: Robust evidence is now available to inform clinical decisions and commissioning strategies so as to improve patients' lives whilst making efficient use of available resources. Clinical guidelines for treating moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, such as those issued by NICE in England and Wales, should be revisited. © 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Who Lives Where and Does It Matter? Changes in the Health Profiles of Older People Living in Long Term Care and the Community over Two Decades in a High Income Country.

BACKGROUND: There have been fundamental shifts in the attitude towards, access to and nature of long term care in high income countries. The proportion and profile of the older population living in such settings varies according to social, cultural, and economic characteristics as well as governmental policies. Changes in the profiles of people in different settings are important for policy makers and care providers. Although details will differ, how change occurs across time is important to all, including lower and middle income countries developing policies themselves. Here change is examined across two decades in England. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using the two Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I: 77% response, CFAS II: 56% response), two population based studies of older people carried out in the same areas conducted two decades apart, the study diagnosis of dementia using the Automated Geriatric Examination for Computer Assisted Taxonomy, health and wellbeing were examined, focusing on long term care. The proportion of individuals with three or more health conditions increased for everyone living in long term care between CFAS I (47.6%, 95% CI: 42.3-53.1) and CFAS II (62.7%, 95% CI: 54.8-70.0) and was consistently higher in those without dementia compared to those with dementia in both studies. Functional impairment measured by activities of daily living increased in assisted living facilities from 48% (95% CI: 44%-52%) to 67% (95% CI: 62%-71%). CONCLUSIONS: Health profiles of residents in long term care have changed dramatically over time. Dementia prevalence and reporting multiple health conditions have increased. Receiving care in the community puts pressure on unpaid carers and formal services; these results have implications for policies about supporting people at home as well as for service provision within long term care including quality of care, health management, cost, and the development of a skilled, caring, and informed workforce.

Provision of NHS generalist and specialist services to care homes in England: review of surveys.

BACKGROUND: The number of beds in care homes (with and without nurses) in the United Kingdom is three times greater than the number of beds in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Care homes are predominantly owned by a range of commercial, not-for-profit or charitable providers and their residents have high levels of disability, frailty and co-morbidity. NHS support for care home residents is very variable, and it is unclear what models of clinical support work and are cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate how the NHS works with care homes. METHODS: A review of surveys of NHS services provided to care homes that had been completed since 2008. It included published national surveys, local surveys commissioned by Primary Care organisations, studies from charities and academic centres, grey literature identified across the nine government regions, and information from care home, primary care and other research networks. Data extraction captured forms of NHS service provision for care homes in England in terms of frequency, location, focus and purpose. RESULTS: Five surveys focused primarily on general practitioner services, and 10 on specialist services to care home. Working relationships between the NHS and care homes lack structure and purpose and have generally evolved locally. There are wide variations in provision of both generalist and specialist healthcare services to care homes. Larger care home chains may take a systematic approach to both organising access to NHS generalist and specialist services, and to supplementing gaps with in-house provision. Access to dental care for care home residents appears to be particularly deficient. CONCLUSIONS: Historical differences in innovation and provision of NHS services, the complexities of collaborating across different sectors (private and public, health and social care, general and mental health), and variable levels of organisation of care homes, all lead to persistent and embedded inequity in the distribution of NHS resources to this population. Clinical commissioners seeking to improve the quality of care of care home residents need to consider how best to provide fair access to health care for older people living in a care home, and to establish a specification for service delivery to this vulnerable population.

Dementia: definitions and types.

This article is the first in a series of articles on dementia and is intended as an introduction to the condition, discussing how it is defined and the different types of disease. Subsequent articles will discuss how dementia affects the brain, the clinical features of dementia, its assessment and diagnosis, and the medical management and treatment of dementia. The series will then look in depth at how nursing care can maximise the quality of life of those affected by dementia and their families.