Tibial nerve stimulation compared with sham to reduce incontinence in care home residents: ELECTRIC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents' dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes. PARTICIPANTS: Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance. INTERVENTIONS: Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes - number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use. RESULTS: A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 197; sham stimulation, n = 209); two exclusions occurred post randomisation. Primary outcome data were available for 345 (85%) residents (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 167; sham stimulation, n = 178). Adherence to the intervention protocol was as follows: 78% of the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and 71% of the sham group received the correct stimulation. Primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis indicated a mean change of -5 ml (standard deviation 362 ml) urine leakage from baseline in the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and -66 ml (standard deviation 394 ml) urine leakage in the sham group, which was a statistically significant, but not clinically important, between-group difference of 68-ml urine leakage (95% confidence interval 0 to 136 ml; p = 0.05) in favour of the sham group. Sensitivity analysis supported the primary analysis. No meaningful differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events related to transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation were reported. Economic evaluation assessed the resources used. The training and support costs for the staff to deliver the intervention were estimated at £121.03 per staff member. Estimated costs for delivery of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation during the trial were £81.20 per participant. No significant difference was found between participants' scores over time, or between transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and sham groups at any time point, for resident or proxy quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost-consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context. LIMITATIONS: Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data. FUTURE WORK: Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362. 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. 25, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bladder leakage (urinary incontinence) is common among people living in care homes. Most people wear absorbent pads to contain urine leakage, but this does not treat the cause of incontinence. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a treatment for the type of incontinence associated with a sudden need to use the toilet (urgency incontinence). Two sticky patches applied to the ankle are connected to a small electrical stimulator. The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial looked at whether or not transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can help reduce incontinence for people in care homes. A total of 406 residents from 37 care homes were given transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment or a dummy treatment for 30 minutes, twice per week for 6 weeks. The amount of urine leaked by each resident was measured over 24 hours by collecting all pads used in a sealable plastic bag and weighing the bag. This happened after the final transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or dummy treatment, and again after 3 and 5 months. Residents, family members and care home staff were asked if they thought that the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had any effect and for their views of the treatment. We found no important difference in leakage between residents who had the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and those who had the dummy treatment. There were also no differences in daily pad use, feelings about bladder condition or quality of life. It cost around £120 to train staff to deliver transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and around £80 per person to have transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had no serious side-effects. Care home residents, even those with severe dementia, found the application of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation acceptable. Staff found learning about incontinence helpful, but continence care routines did not change. In summary, the ELECTRIC trial found that for very dependent older people in care homes, transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation did not reduce urinary incontinence. The findings do not support transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation use to reduce urinary incontinence in care home environments.

Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population. METHOD: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome. RESULTS: DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle. CONCLUSION: No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.

A biopsychosocial interpretation of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory - Nursing Home assessment: reconceptualising psychiatric symptom attributions.

BACKGROUND: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) is predicated on the assumption that psychiatric symptoms are manifestations of disease. Biopsychosocial theories suggest behavioural changes viewed as psychiatric may also arise as a result of external behavioural triggers. Knowing the causes of psychiatric symptoms is important since the treatment and management of symptoms relies on this understanding. AIMS: This study sought to understand the causes of psychiatric symptoms recorded in care home settings by investigating qualitatively described symptoms in Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home (NPI-NH) interviews. METHOD: The current study examined the NPI-NH interviews of 725 participants across 50 care homes. The qualitatively described symptoms from each of the 12 subscales of the NPI were extracted: 347 interviews included at least one qualitatively described symptom (n = 651 descriptions). A biopsychosocial algorithm developed following a process of independent researcher coding (n = 3) was applied to the symptom descriptions. This determined whether the description had predominantly psychiatric features, or features that were cognitive or attributable to other causes (i.e. issues with orientation and memory; expressions of need; poor care and communication; or understandable reactions). RESULTS: Our findings suggest that the majority (over 80%) of descriptions described symptoms with features that could be attributable to cognitive changes and external triggers (such as poor care and communication). CONCLUSIONS: The finding suggest that in its current form the NPI-NH may over attribute the incidence of psychiatric symptoms in care homes by overlooking triggers for behavioural changes. Measures of psychiatric symptoms should determine the causes of behavioural changes in order to guide treatments more effectively.

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: the EPIC cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors. SETTING: Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty care homes were randomised (intervention, n = 31; control, n = 19), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 recruited after 16 months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM in the previous 18 months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia or a score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging Test of Alzheimer's Disease, were proficient in English and were not terminally ill or permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on the delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation. INTERVENTION: Two staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. RESULTS: There were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, n = 388; control, n = 287). There was no evidence of a difference in agitation levels between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score was -2.11 points, being lower in the intervention group than in the control (95% confidence interval -4.66 to 0.44; p = 0.104; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient: control = 0, intervention = 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated that DCM was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM cycle. Impacts, barriers to and facilitators of DCM implementation were identified. LIMITATIONS: The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: There was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes. FUTURE WORK: Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. 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. 24, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Agitation is common in care home residents and may result from care that does not meet individual needs. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) is a tool used within care homes to improve the delivery of person-centred care, which may help reduce agitation. This randomised controlled trial aimed to understand whether or not DCM is better than usual care at reducing resident agitation, behaviours that staff may find difficult to support and the use of antipsychotic medicines, as well as at improving residents' quality of life and staff communication. It also assessed its value for money. We recruited 726 residents with dementia from 50 care homes. After initial data collection, care homes were randomly assigned to DCM (31/50) or told to continue with usual care (19/50) and data were collected again after 6 and 16 months. A further 261 residents were recruited after 16 months. We also interviewed staff, relatives and residents about the use of DCM after the final data collection had taken place. Two staff members in each DCM home were trained to use DCM and were helped by an expert to use it for the first time. They were asked to use it again a further two times without support. Results showed that DCM was no better than usual care in relation to any of the outcomes. It was also not shown to be value for money. Only one-quarter of care homes used DCM more than once. The care staff who were interviewed said that the benefits of using DCM included reduced resident boredom and increased staff confidence. There were also many challenges, including the time needed to complete DCM, a lack of managerial support and problems with staffing levels. Putting DCM into practice in care homes was difficult, even with expert support, and most care homes did not complete three DCM cycles. Future research should explore models of implementing DCM that do not rely on care home staff to lead them.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping in Care-Home Settings: Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Behaviours such as agitation impact on the quality of life of care-home residents with dementia and increase healthcare use. Interventions to prevent these behaviours have little evidence supporting their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a trial assessing Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) versus usual care for reducing agitation, and highlight methodological challenges of conducting evaluations in this population and setting. METHODS: RCT data over 16 months from English care-home residents with dementia (intervention n = 418; control n = 308) were analysed. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from the healthcare provider perspective. We gathered resource use and utility (EQ-5D-5L and DEMQoL-Proxy-U) from people living with dementia and proxy informants (staff and relatives). Data were analysed using seemingly unrelated regression, accounting for care-home clustering and bootstrapping used to capture sampling uncertainty. RESULTS: Costs were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (incremental = £1479) due in part to high cost outliers. There were small QALY gains (incremental = 0.024) in favour of DCM. The base-case ICER (£64,380 per QALY) suggests DCM is not cost-effective versus usual care. With the exception of analyses excluding high cost outliers, which suggested a potential for DCM to be cost-effective, sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case findings. Bootstrapped estimates suggested DCM had a low probability (< 0.20 where λ = £20,000) of being cost-effective versus control. CONCLUSION: DCM does not appear to be a cost-effective intervention versus usual care in this group and setting. The evaluation highlighted several methodological challenges relating to validity of utility assessments, loss to follow-up and compliance. Further research is needed on handling high-cost individuals and capturing utility in this group. ISRCTN reference 82288852.

How Should We Capture Health State Utility in Dementia? Comparisons of DEMQOL-Proxy-U and of Self- and Proxy-Completed EQ-5D-5L.

BACKGROUND: Dementia-specific and proxy-completed preference-based measures have been proposed for use in intervention studies involving people living in residential care, in instances where generic, self-reported preference-based measures have been deemed inappropriate. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness of DEMQOL-Proxy-U and of self- and proxy-completed EQ-5D-5L. METHODS: The analysis used a 3-wave, individual-level data set of 1004 people living with dementia in residential care that included self-completed EQ-5D-5L and formal-carer and informal-carer proxy-completed EQ-5D-5L and DEMQOL-Proxy-U utility values, in addition to other nonutility cognitive measures (Functional Assessment Staging [FAST], Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR], Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures (nursing home version of the Quality of Life with Alzheimer's disease scale [QOL-AD-NH], Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia [QUALID] scale). Construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness were assessed using correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and panel data regression models. RESULTS: Self-completed EQ-5D-5L failed to reflect clinically important differences and changes in FAST, CDR, and CMAI but did capture the resident's own view of HRQOL (QOL-AD-NH). As dementia severity increased, collection of EQ-5D-5L-proxy and DEMQOL-Proxy-U data was more feasible than collection of self-completed EQ-5D-5L. These formal-carer and informal-carer proxy measures also better reflected changes in FAST, CDR, and CMAI but did not capture the resident's own view of HRQOL (QOL-AD-NH), despite adequately capturing the proxy's own view of the resident's HRQOL (QUALID). This indicates discrepancies between a proxy's view and resident's view of the impact that tangible declines in health, cognition, or functional abilities have on HRQOL. The EQ-5D-5L-proxy and DEMQOL-Proxy-U were generally poor substitutes. Regardless of which proxy completed it, the EQ-5D-5L-proxy was typically more responsive than the DEMQOL-Proxy-U to changes in CDR, FAST, and CMAI, indicating that use of the DEMQOL-Proxy-U is not always justified. CONCLUSION: Disparities in the measurement properties of different utility measures mean that choices about how to measure utility in trials could affect economic evaluation outcomes and hence how resources are allocated for dementia care.

Best care options for older prisoners with dementia: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The prisoner population is ageing, and consideration is needed for how to best support those with age-related health conditions in the system. Existing work practices and organizational structures often fail to meet the needs of prisoners with dementia, and prison staff experience high levels of burden because of the increased needs of these prisoners. Little is known about the best method of responding to the needs of this growing subpopulation of prisoners. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted to answer the question: what are the perceived best care options for prisoners with dementia? To be included, publications had to be publicly available, reported on research findings, or viewed opinions and commentaries on care practices relevant to older prisoners with dementia. Searches were conducted in 11 databases to identify relevant publications. Data from the included publications were extracted and summarized into themes. RESULTS: Eight themes were identified that could support better care practices for prisoners with dementia: (1) early and ongoing screening for older prisoners; (2) specialized services; (3) specialized units; (4) programs or activities; (5) adaptations to current contexts; (6) early release or parole for older prisoners with dementia deemed at low risk of reoffending; and (7) training younger prisoners (8) as well as staff to assist older prisoners with dementia. Besides practical strategies improving care practice, costs, prison-specific resources, and staff skills were highlighted as care barriers across all themes. A lack of empirical evidence supported these findings. CONCLUSION: One of the implications of the international ageing prison population is the higher number of people living with dementia being incarcerated. Suggestions for best care approaches for prisoners with dementia now need to move from opinion to empirical approaches to guide practice.

Development of a core outcome set for disease modification trials in mild to moderate dementia: a systematic review, patient and public consultation and consensus recommendations.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no disease-modifying treatment available to halt or delay the progression of the disease pathology in dementia. An agreed core set of the best-available and most appropriate outcomes for disease modification would facilitate the design of trials and ensure consistency across disease modification trials, as well as making results comparable and meta-analysable in future trials. OBJECTIVES: To agree a set of core outcomes for disease modification trials for mild to moderate dementia with the UK dementia research community and patient and public involvement (PPI). DATA SOURCES: We included disease modification trials with quantitative outcomes of efficacy from (1) references from related systematic reviews in workstream 1; (2) searches of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group study register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and PsycINFO on 11 December 2015, and clinical trial registries [International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) and clinicaltrials.gov] on 22 and 29 January 2016; and (3) hand-searches of reference lists of relevant systematic reviews from database searches. REVIEW METHODS: The project consisted of four workstreams. (1) We obtained related core outcome sets and work from co-applicants. (2) We systematically reviewed published and ongoing disease modification trials to identify the outcomes used in different domains. We extracted outcomes used in each trial, recording how many used each outcome and with how many participants. We divided outcomes into the domains measured and searched for validation data. (3) We consulted with PPI participants about recommended outcomes. (4) We presented all the synthesised information at a conference attended by the wider body of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) dementia researchers to reach consensus on a core set of outcomes. RESULTS: We included 149 papers from the 22,918 papers screened, referring to 125 individual trials. Eighty-one outcomes were used across trials, including 72 scales [31 cognitive, 12 activities of daily living (ADLs), 10 global, 16 neuropsychiatric and three quality of life] and nine biological techniques. We consulted with 18 people for PPI. The conference decided that only cognition and biological markers are core measures of disease modification. Cognition should be measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) or the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), and brain changes through structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a subset of participants. All other domains are important but not core. We recommend using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for neuropsychiatric symptoms: the Disability Assessment for Dementia for ADLs, the Dementia Quality of Life Measure for quality of life and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale to measure dementia globally. LIMITATIONS: Most of the trials included participants with Alzheimer's disease, so recommendations may not apply to other types of dementia. We did not conduct economic analyses. The PPI consultation was limited to members of the Alzheimer's Society Research Network. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive outcomes and biological markers form the core outcome set for future disease modification trials, measured by the MMSE or ADAS-Cog, and structural MRI in a subset of participants. FUTURE WORK: We envisage that the core set may be superseded in the future, particularly for other types of dementia. There is a need to develop an algorithm to compare scores on the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. STUDY REGISTRATION: The project was registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials [ www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/819?result=true (accessed 7 April 2016)]. The systematic review protocol is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027346. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to enable person-centred care for people with dementia and their carers (DCM-EPIC) in care homes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 90 % of people living with dementia in care homes experience one or more behaviours that staff may describe as challenging to support (BSC). Of these agitation is the most common and difficult to manage. The presence of agitation is associated with fewer visits from relatives, poorer quality of life and social isolation. It is recommended that agitation is treated through psychosocial interventions. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM™) is an established, widely used observational tool and practice development cycle, for ensuring a systematic approach to providing person-centred care. There is a body of practice-based literature and experience to suggests that DCM™ is potentially effective but limited robust evidence for its effectiveness, and no examination of its cost-effectiveness, as a UK health care intervention. Therefore, a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of DCM™ in the UK is urgently needed. METHODS/DESIGN: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) plus Usual Care (UC) versus UC alone, where UC is the normal care delivered within the care home following a minimum level of dementia awareness training. The trial will take place in residential, nursing and dementia-specialist care homes across West Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and London, with residents with dementia. A random sample of 50 care homes will be selected within which a minimum of 750 residents will be registered. Care homes will be randomised in an allocation ratio of 3:2 to receive either intervention or control. Outcome measures will be obtained at 6 and 16 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is agitation as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, at 16 months post randomisation. Key secondary outcomes are other BSC and quality of life. There will be an integral cost-effectiveness analysis and a process evaluation. DISCUSSION: The protocol was refined following a pilot of trial procedures. Changes include replacement of a questionnaire, whose wording caused some residents distress, to an adapted version specifically designed for use in care homes, a change to the randomisation stratification factors, adaption in how the staff measures are collected to encourage greater compliance, and additional reminders to intervention homes of when mapping cycles are due, via text message. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852 . Registered on 16 January 2014. Full protocol version and date: v7.1: 18 December 2015.