How do care home staff use non-pharmacological strategies to manage sleep disturbances in residents with dementia: The SIESTA qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances affect 38% of care home residents living with dementia. They are often treated with medication, but non-pharmacological interventions may be safer and effective yet more difficult to implement. In the SIESTA study (Sleep problems In dEmentia: interviews with care home STAff) we explored care home staffs' experience of managing sleep disturbances in their residents living with dementia. METHODS: We conducted one-to-one semi-structured interviews in four UK care homes, and purposively recruited a maximum variation sample of 18 nurses and care assistants, who were each interviewed once. We used a topic guide and audio-recorded the interviews. Two researchers independently analysed themes from transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Staff used a range of techniques that often worked in improving or preventing residents' sleep disturbance. During the daytime, staff encouraged residents to eat well, and be physically active and stimulated to limit daytime sleep. In the evening, staff settled residents into dark, quiet, comfortable bedrooms often after a snack. When residents woke at night, they gave them caffeinated tea or food, considered possible pain and discomfort, and reassured residents they were safe. If residents remained unsettled, staff would engage them in activities. They used telecare to monitor night-time risk. Staff found minimising daytime napping difficult, described insufficient staffing at night to attend to reorient and guide awake residents and said residents frequently did not know it was night-time. CONCLUSIONS: Some common techniques, such as caffeinated drinks, may be counterproductive. Future non-pharmacological interventions should consider practical difficulties staff face in managing sleep disturbances, including struggling to limit daytime napping, identifying residents' night-time needs, day-night disorientation, and insufficient night-time staffing.

The impact of sleep disturbances on care home residents with dementia: the SIESTA qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Nearly 40% of care home residents who are living with dementia also have symptoms of disturbed sleep. However, the impact of these disturbances is relatively unknown and is needed to indicate whether interventions are warranted; therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact. DESIGN: One-to-one semi-structured interviews. SETTINGS: Four UK care homes. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 18 nurses and care assistants about residents with sleep disturbances. MEASUREMENTS: We used a topic guide to explore staff experience of sleep disturbance in residents with dementia. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed and then analyzed thematically by two researchers independently. RESULTS: Staff described that sleep disturbances in most, but not all, residents impacted negatively on the resident, other residents, staff, and relatives. Residents became more irritable or agitated if they had slept badly. They slept in the daytime after a bad night, which then increased their chances of being awake the following night. For some, being sleepy in the day led to falls, missing medication, drinks, and meals. Staff perceived hypnotics as having low efficacy, but increasing the risk of falls and drowsiness. Other residents were disturbed by noise, and staff described stress when several residents had sleep disturbance. Some of the strategies reported by staff to deal with sleep disturbances such as feeding or providing caffeinated tea at night might be counterproductive. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep disturbances in care home residents living with dementia negatively affect their physical and psychological well-being. These disturbances also disturb other residents and increase stress in staff.

GP and parent dissonance about the assessment and treatment of childhood eczema in primary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare parents' and clinicians' perspectives on the assessment and treatment of children with eczema in primary care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with purposive and snowball sampling and thematic analysis. SETTING: 14 general practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 11 parents of children with eczema and 15 general practitioners (GPs) took part in semistructured individual interviews. RESULTS: We identified several areas of dissonance between parents and GPs. First, parents sought a 'cause' of eczema, such as an underlying allergy, whereas GPs looked to manage the symptoms of an incurable condition. Second, parents often judged eczema severity in terms of psychosocial impact, while GPs tended to focus on the appearance of the child's skin. Third, parents sought 'more natural' over-the-counter treatments or complementary medicine, which GPs felt unable to endorse because of their unknown effectiveness and potential harm. Fourth, GPs linked poor outcomes to unrealistic expectations of treatment and low adherence to topical therapy, whereas parents reported persisting with treatment and despondency with its ineffectiveness. Consultations were commonly described by parents as being dominated by the GP, with a lack of involvement in treatment decisions. GPs' management of divergent views varied, but avoidance strategies were often employed. CONCLUSIONS: Divergent views between parents and clinicians regarding the cause and treatment of childhood eczema can probably only be bridged by clinicians actively seeking out opinions and sharing rationale for their approach to treatment. Together with assessing the psychosocial as well as the physical impact of eczema, asking about current or intended use of complementary therapy and involving parents in treatment decisions, the management of eczema and patient outcomes could be improved.

GPs' experiences of diagnosing and managing childhood eczema: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is common among children, and in the UK the majority are managed by GPs. The most common cause of poor disease control is incorrect use of topical treatments. There is a lack of research into the challenges faced by GPs in diagnosing and managing this condition. AIM: To explore the experiences of GPs in assessing and managing children with eczema. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in primary care in England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with 15 GPs were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using the framework method. RESULTS: GPs described a paucity of dermatology training. Although most GPs were confident diagnosing uncomplicated eczema, they reported using a trial-and-error approach to prescribing emollients, and were uncertain about quantities of topical treatments to issue. Mild and moderate potency topical corticosteroids (TCS) were commonly used, but most GPs lacked confidence in recommending potent TCS, and viewed parents or carers to be fearful of using all strengths of TCS. GPs perceived adherence to treatments to be low, but provision of information to support self-care was variable. Routine review of medication use or disease control was uncommon, which GPs attributed to service constraints. Participants' views on the causes and management of eczema were perceived to be at odds with parents and carers, who were said to be overly focused on an underlying cause, such as allergy. CONCLUSION: GP uncertainty in managing eczema, lack of routine information and review, and perceived dissonance with parents around causation and management may be contributing to low concordance with treatments.

Developing a written action plan for children with eczema: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is common in children but adherence to treatments is poor. Written action plans (WAPs) have been shown to help in asthma but the potential value, format, and content of an eczema WAP is unknown. AIM: To explore the potential role of an eczema WAP, and to design an eczema-specific WAP. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of parents of children with eczema, primary and secondary care health professionals, and other stakeholders. METHOD: A total of 41 semi-structured one-to-one interviews and two focus groups were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Reported challenges of managing eczema included: parental confusion about treatment application; lack of verbal and written advice from GPs; differing beliefs about the cause and management of eczema; re-prescribing of failed treatments; and parents feeling unsupported by their GP. An eczema WAP was viewed as an educational tool that could help address these problems. Participants expressed a preference for a WAP that gives clear, individualised guidance on treatment use, presented in a step-up/step-down approach. Participants also wanted more general information about eczema, its potential triggers, and how to manage problem symptoms. CONCLUSION: An eczema WAP may help overcome some of the difficulties of managing eczema, and support families and clinicians in the management of the condition. Further evaluation is needed to determine if the eczema WAP the authors have developed is both acceptable and improves the outcomes for affected children and their families.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): feasibility study of a randomised controlled parallel group trial in children recruited from primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of 'leave on' emollients for children with eczema. DESIGN: Single-centre, pragmatic, 4-arm, observer-blinded, parallel, randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: General practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children with eczema aged 1 month to <5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-proportion of parents who reported use of the allocated study emollient every day for the duration of follow-up (12 weeks). Other feasibility outcomes-participant recruitment and retention, data collection and completeness and blinding of observers to allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Aveeno lotion, Diprobase cream, Doublebase gel, Hydromol ointment. RESULTS: 197 children were recruited-107 by self-referral (mainly via practice mail-outs) and 90 by inconsultation (clinician consenting and randomising) pathways. Participants recruited inconsultation were younger, had more severe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores and were more likely to withdraw than self-referrals. Parents of 20 (10%) of all the randomised participants reported using the allocated emollient daily for 84 days. The use of other non-study emollients was common. Completeness of data collected by parent-held daily diaries and at monthly study visits was good. Daily diaries were liked (81%) but mainly completed on paper rather than via electronic ('app') form. Major costs drivers were general practitioner consultations and eczema-related prescriptions. Observer unblinding was infrequent, and occurred at the baseline or first follow-up visit through accidental disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible in a primary care setting to recruit and randomise young children with eczema to emollients, follow them up and collect relevant trial data, while keeping observers blinded to their allocation. However, reported use of emollients (study and others) has design implications for future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21828118/EudraCT2013-003001-26.

Exceeding the recruitment target in a primary care paediatric trial: an evaluation of the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET) feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting to target in randomised controlled trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in primary care and paediatric populations is notoriously difficult. More evidence is needed for effective recruitment strategies in these settings. We report on the impact of different recruitment strategies used in the Choice of Moisturiser in Eczema Treatment (COMET) study - a feasibility trial comparing the effectiveness of four emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema - recruiting via general practitioner (GP) surgeries. METHODS: Initially, 16 GP practices invited potentially eligible children to take part in the trial by sending an invitation letter (self-referral pathway) or by consenting and randomising them into the study during a visit to the practice (in-consultation referral). Measures implemented during the study to maximise accrual included signing up six additional GP practices, increasing the upper age limit eligibility criterion from 3 to 5 years, and permitting healthcare professionals other than doctors to confirm participant eligibility. We used descriptive statistics and univariate linear regression models to explore associations with practice recruitment rates. RESULTS: A total of 197 participants were recruited, exceeding the target of 160. Of these, 107 children entered via self-referral and 90 by in-consultation pathways. Of the recruited population, 12.6 % were aged between 3 and 5 years (the raised upper age limit). The six additional practices contributed 37.4 % (40 of 107) of participants recruited by self-referral. Only almost one-third (18 of 56 [32.1 %]) of potential recruiting clinicians recruited one or more participants in-consultation, which was a more problematic pathway because of data verification issues. Three research nurses and a pharmacist from four practices recruited 48.9 % (44 of 90) of participants via this pathway. Univariate linear regression models showed no evidence of association between the number of children recruited via the self-referral pathway by practice and practice list size (p = 0.092) or practice deprivation decile (p = 0.270), but practice deprivation was associated with a higher number of children recruited in-consultation (p = 0.020) by practice. CONCLUSIONS: Self-referral and in-consultation recruitment yielded similar numbers, but the in-consultation pathway was more problematic. Future trials of this type should consider the condition, normal care pathway and number of potentially eligible children and be prepared to use multiple recruitment strategies to achieve recruitment targets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21828118 . Registered on 1 May 2014. EudraCT2013-003001-26. Registered on 23 Dec 2013.