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.

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.

Developing and feasibility testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation of a supported selfmanagement programme for adults with a learning disability and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of conducting research with hard to reach vulnerable groups are particularly pertinent for people with learning disabilities. Data collection methods for previous cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of health and social care interventions targeting people with learning disabilities have relied on health care/health insurance records or data collection forms completed by the service provider rather than by people with learning disabilities themselves. This paper reports on the development and testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for a supported self-management programme for people with mild/moderate learning disabilities and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A case finding study was conducted to identify types of health and social care use and data collection methods employed in previous studies with this population. Based on this evidence, resource use questionnaires for completion by GP staff and interviewer-administered participant questionnaires (covering a wider cost perspective and health-related quality of life) were tested within a feasibility RCT. Interviewer-administered questionnaires included the EQ-5D-3L (the NICE recommended measure for use in economic evaluation). Participants were adults > 18 years with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, with mental capacity to give consent to research participation. RESULTS: Data collection for questionnaires completed by GP staff requesting data for the last 12 months proved time intensive and difficult. Whilst 82.3% (121/147) of questionnaires were returned, up to 17% of service use items were recorded as unknown. Subsequently, a shorter recall period (4 months) led to a higher return rate but with a higher rate of missing data. Missing data for interviewer-administered participant questionnaires was > 8% but the interviewers reported difficulty with participant recall. Almost 60% (48/80) of participants had difficulty completing the EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation as to how service use can be recorded is recommended. Concerns about the reliability of identifying service use data directly from participants with a learning disability due to challenges in completion, specifically around recall, remain. The degree of difficulty to complete EQ-5D-3L indicates concerns regarding the appropriateness of using this measure in its current form in research with this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21 January 2013).

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after second or subsequent episodes of self-harm: the Self-Harm Intervention - Family Therapy (SHIFT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition rates high. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial of FT compared with TAU. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were blind to allocation. SETTING: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across three English regions. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice presenting to CAMHS following self-harm. INTERVENTIONS: Eight hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to manualised FT delivered by trained and supervised family therapists (n = 415) or to usual care offered by local CAMHS following self-harm (n = 417). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Out of 832 young people, 212 (26.6%) experienced a primary outcome event: 118 out of 415 (28.4%) randomised to FT and 103 out of 417 (24.7%) randomised to TAU. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in repetition rates between groups (the hazard ratio for FT compared with TAU was 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.49; p = 0.3349). FT was not found to be cost-effective when compared with TAU in the base case and most sensitivity analyses. FT was dominated (less effective and more expensive) in the complete case. However, when young people's and caregivers' quality-adjusted life-year gains were combined, FT incurred higher costs and resulted in better health outcomes than TAU within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness range. Significant interactions with treatment, indicating moderation, were detected for the unemotional subscale on the young person-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (p = 0.0104) and the affective involvement subscale on the caregiver-reported McMaster Family Assessment Device (p = 0.0338). Caregivers and young people in the FT arm reported a range of significantly better outcomes on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Self-reported suicidal ideation was significantly lower in the FT arm at 12 months but the same in both groups at 18 months. No significant unexpected adverse events or side effects were reported, with similar rates of expected adverse events across trial arms. CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, who have self-harmed at least once before, FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing self-harm repetition rates. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of FT in reducing self-harm when caregivers reported poor family functioning. When the young person themselves reported difficulty expressing emotion, FT did not seem as effective as TAU. There was no evidence that FT is cost-effective when only the health benefits to participants were considered but there was a suggestion that FT may be cost-effective if health benefits to caregivers are taken into account. FT had a significant, positive impact on general emotional and behavioural problems at 12 and 18 months. LIMITATIONS: There was significant loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and health economic analyses; the primary outcome misses those who do not attend hospital following self-harm; and the numbers receiving formal FT in the TAU arm were higher than expected. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of interventions targeted at subgroups of those who self-harm, longer-term follow-up and methods for evaluating health benefits for family groups rather than for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59793150. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of systemic family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people after self-harm: a pragmatic, phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition occurs in a high proportion of these cases. Scarce evidence exists for effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. METHODS: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual was done at 40 UK Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) centres. We recruited young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to CAMHS after self-harm. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive manualised family therapy delivered by trained and supervised family therapists or treatment as usual by local CAMHS. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were masked. The primary outcome was hospital attendance for repetition of self-harm in the 18 months after group assignment. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN59793150. FINDINGS: Between Nov 23, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013, 3554 young people were screened and 832 eligible young people consented to participation and were randomly assigned to receive family therapy (n=415) or treatment as usual (n=417). Primary outcome data were available for 795 (96%) participants. Numbers of hospital attendances for repeat self-harm events were not significantly different between the groups (118 [28%] in the family therapy group vs 103 [25%] in the treatment as usual group; hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·87-1·49] p=0·33). Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in both groups (787 in the family therapy group vs 847 in the treatment as usual group). INTERPRETATION: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, our family therapy intervention conferred no benefits over treatment as usual in reducing subsequent hospital attendance for self-harm. Clinicians are therefore still unable to recommend a clear, evidence-based intervention to reduce repeated self-harm in adolescents. FUNDING: 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.

Supported self-management for adults with type 2 diabetes and a learning disability (OK-Diabetes): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a learning disability (LD) are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but LD is not straightforward to define or identify, especially at the milder end of the spectrum, which makes case finding difficult. While supported self-management of health problems is now established, current material is largely educational and didactic with little that facilitates behavioural change. The interaction between the person with diabetes and others supporting their care is also largely unknown. For these reasons, there is considerable work needed to prepare for a definitive trial. The aim of this paper is to publish the abridged protocol of this preparatory work. METHODS/DESIGN: Phase I is a prospective case-finding study (target n = 120 to 350) to identify and characterise potential participants, while developing a standardised supported self-management intervention. Phase II is a randomised feasibility trial (target n = 80) with blinded outcome assessment. Patients identified in Phase I will be interviewed and consented prior to being randomised to (1) standard treatment, or (2) supported self-management. Both arms will also be provided with an 'easy read' accessible information resource on managing type 2 diabetes. The intervention will be standardised but delivered flexibly depending on patient need, including components for the participant, a supporter, and shared activities. Outcomes will be (i) robust estimates of eligibility, consent and recruitment rates with refined recruitment procedures; (ii) characterisation of the eligible population; (iii) a standardised intervention with associated written materials, (iv) adherence and negative outcomes measures; (v) preliminary estimates of adherence, acceptability, follow-up and missing data rates, along with refined procedures; and (vi) description of standard treatment. DISCUSSION: Our study will provide important information on the nature of type 2 diabetes in adults with LD living in the community, on the challenges of identifying those with milder LD, and on the possibilities of evaluating a standardised intervention to improve self-management in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21 January 2013).