Impact of the iWHELD digital person-centered care program on quality of life, agitation and psychotropic medications in people with dementia living in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: iWHELD is a digital person-centered care program for people with dementia in nursing homes adapted for remote delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A 16-week two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial in 149 UK nursing homes compared iWHELD with treatment as usual (TAU). Primary outcome was the overall quality of life with secondary outcomes of agitation and psychotropic use. RESULTS: iWHELD conferred benefit to quality of life on the primary (F = 4.3, p = 0.04) and secondary measures of quality of life (F = 6.45, p = 0.01) and reduced psychotropic medication use (χ2  = 4.08, p = 0.04) with no worsening of agitation. Benefit was seen in participants who contracted COVID-19, those with agitation at baseline, and those taking psychotropic medications. DISCUSSION: iWHELD confers benefits to quality of life and key measures of well-being, can be delivered during the challenging conditions of a pandemic, and should be considered for use alongside any emerging pharmacological treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms. HIGHLIGHTS: iWHELD is the only remote, digital delivery nursing home training programme for dementia care iWHELD improved quality of life in people with dementia and reduced antipsychotic use without worsening of agitation Residents who contracted Covid-19 during the study also experienced benefits from iWHELD iWHELD offers a valuable, pandemic-safe tool for improving dementia care.

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on neuropsychiatric symptoms and antipsychotic prescribing for people with dementia in nursing home settings.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on neuropsychiatric symptoms and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes. METHODS: This was a comparative analysis of baseline data from two large nursing home studies, one conducted during (COVID-iWHELD study) and one prior (WHELD study) to the pandemic. It involves data from 69 and 149 nursing homes, and 1006 and 666 participants respectively. Participants were people with established dementia (score >1 on Clinical Dementia Rating Scale). Resident data included demographics, antipsychotic prescriptions and neuropsychiatric symptoms using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Nursing Home version. Nursing home data collected were nursing home size and staffing information. RESULTS: Overall prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms was unchanged from pre-pandemic prevalence. Mean antipsychotic use across the sample was 32.0%, increased from 18% pre-pandemic (Fisher's exact test p < 0.0001). At a nursing home level, the medians for the low, medium and high tertiles for antipsychotic use were 7%, 20% and 59% respectively, showing a disproportionate rise in tertile three. Residents in these homes also showed a small but significant increase in agitation. CONCLUSION: There has been a significant increase in antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes since the COVID-19 pandemic, with a disproportionate rise in one third of homes, where median prescription rates for antipsychotics were almost 60%. Strategies are urgently needed to identify these nursing homes and introduce pro-active support to bring antipsychotic prescription rates back to pre-pandemic levels.

Impact of Psychotic Symptoms and Concurrent Neuropsychiatric Symptoms on the Quality of Life of People With Dementia Living in Nursing Homes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to determine whether psychotic symptoms in people with dementia (PwD) living in nursing homes were associated with reduced quality of life and to understand the additional impact of other concurrent neuropsychiatric symptoms on QoL. DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study (using data from WHELD cohort). SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: 971 PwD living in nursing homes participating in the WHELD study. METHODS: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home (NPI-NH) version was completed by informant interview. We compared mean differences in proxy-rated QoL scores (DEMQOL-Proxy) for PwD experiencing or not experiencing delusions and for PwD experiencing or not experiencing hallucinations. Backward multiple regression was used to determine the added contributions of agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), anxiety (NPI-NH-Anxiety), depression (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), dementia severity (Clinical Dementia Rating-sum of boxes score), pain (Abbey Pain Scale), and antipsychotic prescription. Mediation analysis was conducted for agitation, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: Presence of both delusions (P < .001, B = -8.39) and hallucinations (P < .001, B = -7.78) was associated with poorer QoL. Both associations remained significant after controlling for other factors. Agitation, anxiety, and depression partially mediated the relationship between each psychotic symptom and QoL. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Delusions and hallucinations in PwD are associated with poorer QoL among PwD living in nursing homes. The effects remain significant after adjusting for confounding variables. Direct effects of each symptom maintained significance despite significant mediation by concurrent neuropsychiatric symptoms.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Digital Adaptation of the WHELD Person-Centered Nursing Home Training Program.

OBJECTIVE: Digital approaches to delivering person-centered care training to nursing home staff have the potential to enable widespread affordable implementation, but there is very limited evidence and no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating digital training in the nursing home setting. The objective was to evaluate a digital person-centered care training intervention in a robust RCT. DESIGN: We conducted a 2-month cluster RCT in 16 nursing homes in the United Kingdom, randomized equally to receive a digitally adapted version of the WHELD person-centered care home training program with virtual coaching compared to the digital training program alone. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in UK nursing homes. There were 175 participants (45 nursing home staff and 130 residents with dementia). METHODS: The key outcomes were the well-being and quality of life (QoL) of residents with dementia and the attitudes and knowledge of nursing home staff. RESULTS: There were significant benefits in well-being (t = 2.76, P = .007) and engagement in positive activities (t = 2.34, P = .02) for residents with dementia and in attitudes (t = 3.49, P = .001), including hope (t = 2.62, P = .013) and personhood (t = 2.26, P = .029), for staff in the group receiving digital eWHELD with virtual coaching compared to the group receiving digital learning alone. There was no improvement in staff knowledge about dementia. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The study provides encouraging initial clinical trial evidence that a digital version of the WHELD program supported by virtual coaching confers significant benefits for care staff and residents with dementia. Evidence-based digital interventions with remote coaching may also have particular utility in supporting institutional recovery of nursing homes from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Collecting self-report research data with people with dementia within care home clinical trials: Benefits, challenges and best practice.

One-third of people with dementia live in care home settings and in order to deliver better evidence-based care, robust research including clinical trials is required. Concerns have been raised by researchers about the capacity of care home residents with dementia to participate in clinical trials. This includes self-report measures, completion of which researchers have suggested may be unreliable or impossible and may cause distress for residents. Many trials, therefore, utilise only proxy completed outcome measures. This is despite evidence that individuals with mild through to advanced dementia can reliably report on outcomes, if appropriate measures and approaches to data collection are used. However, little has been written about best practice in data collection with this group. This study aimed to explore the experiences of researchers working on dementia trials in care homes and identify best practices to assist design of future trials. Thirty-three researchers completed an online, qualitative questionnaire outlining their experiences and the perceived benefits and challenges of data collection with people with dementia. We identified five main benefits: (1) improving the delivery of person-centred care, (2) hearing the voice of people with dementia, (3) residents spending time with researchers, (4) improving researcher understanding, and (5) having an evidence base from multiple sources. We also identified five main challenges: (1) effective communication, (2) fluctuating capacity, (3) causing distress to residents, (4) time pressures, and (5) staff availability. Researchers also made suggestions about how these can be overcome. We recommend that the challenges identified could be overcome using appropriate methods for collecting data. Thorough training for researchers on data collection with people with dementia was identified as important for ensuring successful data collection.

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.

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.

Exploring the role of external experts in supporting staff to implement psychosocial interventions in care home settings: results from the process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial interventions offer opportunities to improve care for people with dementia in care homes. However, implementation is often led by staff who are not well prepared for the role. Some interventions use external experts to support staff. However little is known about external expert, care home staff and manager perceptions of such support. This paper addresses this gap. METHODS: Multi-methods study within a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM). Interviews were conducted with six external experts who also completed questionnaires, 17 care home managers and 25 care home staff responsible for DCM implementation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and template analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: the need for expert support, practicalities of support and broader impacts of providing support. Expert support was vital for successful DCM implementation, although the five-days provided was felt to be insufficient. Some homes felt the support was inflexible and did not consider their individual needs. Practical challenges of experts being located at a geographical distance from the care homes, limited when and how support was available. Experts gained knowledge they were able to then apply in delivering DCM training. Experts were not able to accurately predict which homes would be able to implement DCM independently in future cycles. CONCLUSIONS: An external expert may form a key component of successful implementation of psychosocial interventions in care home settings. Future research should explore optimal use of the expert role.

The Implementation of Dementia Care Mapping in a Randomized Controlled Trial in Long-Term Care: Results of a Process Evaluation.

This study explored intervention implementation within a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) in UK care homes. DCM is a practice development tool comprised of a 5 component cycle (staff briefing, mapping observations, data analysis and reporting, staff feedback, and action planning) that supports delivery of person-centered care. Two staff from the 31 intervention care homes were trained in DCM and asked to deliver 3 cycles over a 15-month period, supported by a DCM expert during cycle 1. Implementation data were collected after each mapping cycle. There was considerable variability in DCM implementation fidelity, dose, and reach. Not all homes trained 2 mappers on schedule, and some found it difficult to retain mappers. Only 26% of homes completed more than 1 cycle. Future DCM trials in care home settings should consider additional methods to support intervention completion including intervention delivery being conducted with ongoing external support.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing dementia care mapping in care homes: results from the DCM™ EPIC trial process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial person-centred interventions are considered best practice for addressing complex behaviours and care needs such as agitation and anxiety, and for improving the quality of life of people with dementia in care homes. Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) is an established practice development tool and process aimed to help care home staff deliver more person-centred care. To date, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of DCM™ and have found mixed results. These results are suggested to be the outcome of intervention implementation, which may be impacted by a range of factors. This study reports the barriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation in care homes found during the process evaluation conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Eighteen of the 31 DCM™ intervention care homes were recruited to participate in the embedded process evaluation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 83 participants, comprising care home managers, trained DCM™ users (mappers), expert external mappers, staff members, relatives, and residents. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation were found at the mapper level (e.g. motivation and confidence), the DCM™ intervention level (e.g. understanding of DCM™) and the care home level (e.g. staffing issues, manager support). Further barriers caused by the burden of trial participation were also identified (e.g. additional paperwork). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing DCM™ is complex and a greater consideration of potential barriers and facilitators in planning future studies and in practice could help improve implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852 , registered 16/01/2014.