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

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

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

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

'I wasn't on the front line per se, but I was part of health care': Contributions and experiences of ancillary staff in care homes in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Ancillary staff - cleaning, catering, housekeeping and laundry workers - play a crucial role in care homes, by promoting infection control, food preparation and hygiene, and contributing to the care home environment. This study sought to understand the experiences of ancillary staff working in English care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results will inform policy makers, employers, care home managers and others, both in England and overseas, as how to best support the ancillary workforce. METHODS: Between March and August 2021, video and telephone interviews were conducted with those working or living in care homes in England. Participants comprised ancillary staff (n = 38), care home managers (n = 8), care home residents' family members and friends (n = 7), human resource managers (n = 5) and care home residents (n = 5). RESULTS: Ancillary staff often had increased responsibilities and contributed to pandemic efforts by changing working practices, routines and job roles with the aim of supporting residents and other staff. Teamwork, underpinned by strong leadership, helped ancillary staff feel supported. CONCLUSIONS: Ancillary staff should be better recognised as being central to care home care. They are essential workers helping to keep residents safe and well.

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

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

Correction: Supported: Supporting, enabling, and sustaining homecare workers to deliver end-of-life care: A qualitative study protocol.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291525.].

A psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for independence in dementia (NIDUS-Family) versus goal setting and routine care: a single-masked, phase 3, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although national guidelines recommend that everyone with dementia receives personalised post-diagnostic support, few do. Unlike previous interventions that improved personalised outcomes in people with dementia, the NIDUS-Family intervention is fully manualised and deliverable by trained and supervised, non-clinical facilitators. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family in supporting the attainment of personalised goals set by people with dementia and their carers. METHODS: We did a two-arm, single-masked, multi-site, randomised, clinical trial recruiting patient-carer dyads from community settings. We randomly assigned dyads to either home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family or goal setting and routine care (control). Randomisation was blocked and stratified by site (2:1; intervention to control), with allocations assigned via a remote web-based system. NIDUS-Family is tailored to goals set by dyads by selecting modules involving behavioural interventions, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills, enablement, and environmental adaptations. The intervention involved six to eight video-call or telephone sessions (or in person when COVID-19-related restrictions allowed) over 6 months, then telephone follow-ups every 2-3 months for 6 months. The primary outcome was carer-rated goal attainment scaling (GAS) score at 12 months. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11425138. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2021, we assessed 1083 potential dyads for eligibility, 781 (72·1%) of whom were excluded. Of 302 eligible dyads, we randomly assigned 98 (32·4%) to the control group and 204 (67·5%) to the intervention group. The mean age of participants with dementia was 79·9 years (SD 8·2), 169 (56%) were women, and 133 (44%) were men. 247 (82%) dyads completed the primary outcome, which favoured the intervention (mean GAS score at 12 months 58·7 [SD 13·0; n=163] vs 49·0 [14·1; n=84]; adjusted difference in means 10·23 [95% CI 5·75-14·71]; p<0·001). 31 (15·2%) participants in the intervention group and 14 (14·3%) in the control group experienced serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, NIDUS-Family is the first readily scalable intervention for people with dementia and their family carers that improves attainment of personalised goals. We therefore recommend that it be implemented in health and care services. FUNDING: UK Alzheimer's Society.

Estimating life expectancy and years of life lost for autistic people in the UK: a matched cohort study.

Background: Previous research has shown that people who have been diagnosed autistic are more likely to die prematurely than the general population. However, statistics on premature mortality in autistic people have often been misinterpreted. In this study we aimed to estimate the life expectancy and years of life lost experienced by autistic people living in the UK. Methods: We studied people in the IQVIA Medical Research Database with an autism diagnosis between January 1, 1989 and January 16, 2019. For each participant diagnosed autistic, we included ten comparison participants without an autism diagnosis, matched by age, sex, and primary care practice. We calculated age- and sex-standardised mortality ratios comparing people diagnosed autistic to the reference group. We used Poisson regression to estimate age-specific mortality rates, and life tables to estimate life expectancy at age 18 and years of life lost. We analysed the data separately by sex, and for people with and without a record of intellectual disability. We discuss the findings in the light of the prevalence of recorded diagnosis of autism in primary care compared to community estimates. Findings: From a cohort of nearly 10 million people, we identified 17,130 participants diagnosed autistic without an intellectual disability (matched with 171,300 comparison participants), and 6450 participants diagnosed autistic with an intellectual disability (matched with 64,500 comparison participants). The apparent estimates indicated that people diagnosed with autism but not intellectual disability had 1.71 (95% CI: 1.39-2.11) times the mortality rate of people without these diagnoses. People diagnosed with autism and intellectual disability had 2.83 (95% CI: 2.33-3.43) times the mortality rate of people without these diagnoses. Likewise, the apparent reduction in life expectancy for people diagnosed with autism but not intellectual disability was 6.14 years (95% CI: 2.84-9.07) for men and 6.45 years (95% CI: 1.37-11.58 years) for women. The apparent reduction in life expectancy for people diagnosed with autism and intellectual disability was 7.28 years (95% CI: 3.78-10.27) for men and 14.59 years (95% CI: 9.45-19.02 years) for women. However, these findings are likely to be subject to exposure misclassification biases: very few autistic adults and older-adults have been diagnosed, meaning that we could only study a fraction of the total autistic population. Those who have been diagnosed may well be those with greater support needs and more co-occurring health conditions than autistic people on average. Interpretation: The findings indicate that there is a group of autistic people who experience premature mortality, which is of significant concern. There is an urgent need for investigation into the reasons behind this. However, our estimates suggest that the widely reported statistic that autistic people live 16-years less on average is likely incorrect. Nine out of 10 autistic people may have been undiagnosed across the time-period studied. Hence, the results of our study do not generalise to all autistic people. Diagnosed autistic adults, and particularly older adults, are likely those with greater-than-average support needs. Therefore, we may have over-estimated the reduction in life expectancy experienced by autistic people on average. The larger reduction in life expectancy for women diagnosed with autism and intellectual disability vs. men may in part reflect disproportionate underdiagnosis of autism and/or intellectual disability in women. Funding: Dunhill Medical Trust, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for the management of anxiety in community dwelling people living with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

People living with dementia commonly experience anxiety, which is often challenging to manage. We investigated the effectiveness of treatments for the management of anxiety in this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, and searched EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. We estimated standardised mean differences at follow-up between treatments relative to control groups and pooled these across studies using random-effects models where feasible. Thirty-one studies were identified. Meta-analysis demonstrated non-pharmacological interventions were effective in reducing anxiety in people living with dementia, compared to care as usual or active controls. Specifically, music therapy (SMD-1.92(CI:-2.58,-1.25)), muscular approaches (SMD-0.65(CI:-1.02,-0.28)) and stimulating cognitive and physical activities (SMD-0.31(CI:-0.53,-0.09)). Pharmacological interventions with evidence of potential effectiveness included Ginkgo biloba, probiotics, olanzapine, loxapine and citalopram compared to placebo, olanzapine compared to bromazepam and buspirone and risperidone compared to haloperidol. Meta-analyses were not performed for pharmacological interventions due to studies' heterogeneity. This has practice implications when promoting the use of more non-pharmacological interventions to help reduce anxiety among people living with dementia.

Supported: Supporting, enabling, and sustaining homecare workers to deliver end-of-life care: A qualitative study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Homecare workers provide essential care at home for people at end-of-life but are often poorly trained and supported. AIM: To explore the experiences and needs of homecare workers and the views of homecare clients and carers, and other community-based health and social care staff about the homecare worker role, including identification of good practice. METHODS: In this qualitative exploratory study, we will conduct 150 semi-structured interviews with homecare workers within three geographic English localities chosen for maximum socio-demographic variation. Eligible participants will be consenting adults providing care services (workers [n = 45], managers [n = 15] community practitioners [n = 30]), receiving care (clients thought to be in the last 6 months of life [n = 30], family carers [n = 15], or commissioners of homecare services supporting end-of-life care [n = 15]. Interviews may adopt a Pictor-guided or standard semi-structured approach according to their preference. Managers and commissioners can contribute to an online focus group if preferred. A range of recruitment strategies will be used, including through homecare agencies, local authorities, local NHS services, charities, voluntary sector groups and social media. Interviews and focus groups will be recorded, transcribed, anonymised, and analysed adopting a case-based approach for each geographic area within-case and then comparison across cases using reflexive thematic analysis. The design and analysis will be informed by Bronfenbrenner's Adapted Ecological Systems theory. This study is registered on the Research Registry (No.8613). CONTRIBUTION: We will provide evidence on ways to improve the experiences and address the needs of homecare workers in relation to caring for people nearing end-of-life. It will offer insight into good practice around supporting homecare workers including responding to their training and development needs. Findings will inform subsequent stages of an evaluation-phase study of a training resource for homecare workers.

Spotlight on the academic multidisciplinary team: proposals from the 3rd NIHR Newcastle BRC Academic Geriatric Medicine Workshop.

High-quality care for older people is best delivered by multidisciplinary teams involving a range of professions. Similarly, if research evidence is to effectively inform practice, it needs to be designed and executed by teams that are both multidisciplinary and multiprofessional. Here, we summarise the discussions from a 1-day workshop convened by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre in Spring 2021, which focussed on multidisciplinary academic teams. Barriers to success include small numbers of clinical academic researchers across all professions focussing on older people, and lack of career pathways, role models and support for non-medical clinical researchers. The workshop identified strengths in the tradition of multidisciplinary working in the care of older people, research questions that lend themselves naturally to multidisciplinary working, increasing interest from funders in multidisciplinary research, and untapped opportunities for greater commercial engagement. Initiatives to improve engagement of students and trainees, mentorship, career pathways, networking across research centres and possibly developing a national School of Older People's Care Research are all ways that we can ensure the growth of multidisciplinary research to best serve older people's health and social care in the future.

'You're out on a limb, on your own': Social care personal assistants' (PAs') reflections on working in the Covid-19 pandemic - implications for wider health and care services.

CONTEXT: In England, Personal Assistants (PAs) are part of an international trend towards state funded but client-hired or directly employed care workers. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated pre-existing risks and advantages of this arrangement for both PAs and people with care and support needs. OBJECTIVES: We aim to report PAs' reflections on their experiences of working since the pandemic started in 2020 and highlight the longer-term implications for health and care services. METHODS: We undertook a large-scale, qualitative study in 2016-17 involving interviews with 104 PAs about their working lives. We re-interviewed PAs from this group twice to ask how the pandemic had affected them, once at the start of the pandemic in Spring 2020 and again in December 2021 -April 2022. This article reports findings from the last set of interviews undertaken with 38 PAs. Thematic analysis was conducted of interviews in which PAs discussed changes in tasks and responsibilities, pay and conditions, training, relationships and plans. FINDINGS: This article focuses on the following themes: PAs' perceptions of their outsider status; support and training needs; job security; and whether PAs have an appetite for regulation to provide greater professional standing and connections. LIMITATIONS: Interviews in this study were carried out during the Covid-19 pandemic over the telephone or virtually rather than in person so may have missed certain body language or informal relationship building. The sample may be under-representative of non-British PAs. We were unable to triangulate participants' accounts with others'. IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights the importance of national and local government including the PA workforce in planning for national emergencies. Consideration should be given by policy makers and local health and care systems to how PAs can be better supported than currently.

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

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

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

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

The association between social care expenditure and multiple-long term conditions: A population-based area-level analysis.

Background: Multiple long-term health conditions (MLTCs) are common and increasing among older people, yet there is limited understanding of their prevalence and association with social care expenditure. Aim: To estimate the prevalence of MTLCs and association with English social care expenditure. Methods: Our study population included those aged ≥ 65 who died in England in the year 2018 with any of the following long-term conditions recorded on their death certificate: diabetes; cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) including hypertension; dementia; stroke; respiratory; and chronic kidney diseases (CKDs). Prevalence was based on the proportion of death reported for older people with MTLCs (≥ 2) in each of the 152 English Local Authorities (LAs). Ordinary least square regression (OLS) was used to assess the relationship between prevalence of MTLCs and adult social care expenditure, adjusting for LA characteristics. Results: Of the 409551 deaths reported, 19.9% (n = 81395) had ≥ 2 MTLCs, of which the combination of CVDs-diabetes was the most prevalent. Hospitals were the leading place of death for those with MTLCs. Results from the OLS regression model showed that an increased prevalence of MLTCs is associated with higher LA social care expenditure. A percentage point increase in prevalence of MLTCs is associated with an increase of about £8.13 in per capita LA social care expenditure. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the increased prevalence of MTLCs is associated with increased LA social care expenditure. It is important for future studies to further explore the mechanisms or link between LA social care expenditure and the prevalence of MTLCs.

Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study.

Background: There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services. Objectives: This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated. Design and setting: The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model. Participants: People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders. Results: The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services. Limitations: There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model. Conclusions: Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Health problems are common among single people who are homeless, but there is little evidence of the best ways to deliver primary health care to them. This study evaluated four types of services (models) that are in existence: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres); (2) Mobile Teams that provide health care in hostels and day centres; (3) Specialist GPs that have some services exclusively for patients who are homeless; and (4) Usual Care GPs providing health care to all patients, with no special services for people who are homeless. The study concentrated on single people (not homeless families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation and on the streets. Overall, 363 patients at these practices who had been homeless in the previous 12 months participated, and information was collected from them over a 12-month period. We examined the extent to which screening for different health conditions was undertaken, and to which treatment and follow-up care were provided for participants with chronic respiratory problems, depression, alcohol problems and drug problems. Information was gathered from their medical records about use of health and social care services over 12 months. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were more favourable. They had staff working specifically with patients who were homeless; provided flexible 'drop-in' services instead of requiring patients to book appointments; and worked closely with mental health, alcohol and drug services, and with hostels, day centres and street outreach teams. Participants were also more satisfied with the health care they received from the specialist models, and were more likely to say that they had confidence and trust in doctors and nurses at these sites. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.

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

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

Protocol for the feasibility and implementation study of a model of best practice in primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care: PriDem.

INTRODUCTION: Care is often inadequate and poorly integrated after a dementia diagnosis. Research and policy highlight the unaffordability and unsustainability of specialist-led support, and instead suggest a task-shared model, led by primary care. This study is part of the PriDem primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care research programme and will assess delivery of an evidence-informed, primary care based, person-centred intervention. The intervention involves Clinical Dementia Leads (CDLs) working in primary care to develop effective dementia care systems that build workforce capacity and support teams to deliver tailored support to people living with dementia and their carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a 15-month mixed-methods feasibility and implementation study, situated in four National Health Service (NHS) primary care networks in England. The primary outcome is adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices, assessed through a patient records audit. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and retention; appropriateness and acceptability of outcome measures; acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components. People living with dementia (n=80) and carers (n=66) will be recruited through participating general practices and will complete standardised measures of health and well-being. Participant service use data will be extracted from electronic medical records. A process evaluation will explore implementation barriers and facilitators through methods including semistructured interviews with people living with dementia, carers and professionals; observation of CDL engagement with practice staff; and a practice fidelity log. Process evaluation data will be analysed qualitatively using codebook thematic analysis, and quantitatively using descriptive statistics. Economic analysis will determine intervention cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received favourable ethical opinion from Wales REC4. NHS Confidentiality Advisory Group support allows researchers preconsent access to patient data. Results will inform intervention adaptations and a future large-scale evaluation. Dissemination through peer-review journals, engagement with policy-makers and conferences will inform recommendations for dementia services commissioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11677384.

Models of care and the role of clinical pharmacists in UK primary care for older adults: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There has been global investment of new ways of working to support workforce pressures, including investment in clinical pharmacists working in primary care by the NHS in the England. Clinical pharmacists are well suited to support older adults who have multiple long-term conditions and are on multiple medications. It is important to establish an evidence base for the role of clinical pharmacists in supporting older adults in primary care, to inform strategic and research priorities. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, map and describe existing research and policy/guidance on the role of clinical pharmacists in primary care supporting older adults, and the models of care they provide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review guided by the Joanne Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, using a three-step strategy. We will search Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, PSYCHInfo, and Cochrane for English language articles, from 2015 -present day. Grey literature will be searched using Grey Matters guidelines, the Index of Grey Literature and Alternative Sources and Resources, and Google keyword searching. References of all included sources will be hand searched to identify further resources. Using the Population, Concept and Context framework for inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles will be independently screened by two reviewers. The inclusion and exclusion criteria will be refined after we become familiar with the search results, following the iterative nature of a scoping review. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool using Microsoft Excel and presented using a narrative synthesis approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Review findings will be disseminated in academic conferences and used to inform subsequent qualitative research. Findings will be published and shared with relevant local and national organisations.