Cancer care for people with dementia: Literature overview and recommendations for practice and research.

As many countries experience population aging, patients with cancer are becoming older and have more preexisting comorbidities, which include prevalent, age-related, chronic conditions such as dementia. People living with dementia (PLWD) are vulnerable to health disparities, and dementia has high potential to complicate and adversely affect care and outcomes across the cancer trajectory. This report offers an overview of dementia and its prevalence among patients with cancer and a summary of the research literature examining cancer care for PLWD. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD are more likely to have cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage, receive no or less extensive cancer treatment, and have poorer survival after a cancer diagnosis. These cancer disparities do not necessarily signify inappropriately later diagnosis or lower treatment of people with dementia as a group, and they are arguably less feasible and appropriate targets for care optimization. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD also have an increased risk of cancer-related emergency presentations, lower quality processes of cancer-related decision making, accessibility-related barriers to cancer investigations and treatment, higher experienced treatment burden and higher caregiver burden for families, and undertreated cancer-related pain. The authors propose that optimal cancer care for PLWD should focus on proactively minimizing these risk areas and thus must be highly person-centered, with holistic decision making, individualized reasonable adjustments to practice, and strong inclusion and support of family carers. Comprehensive recommendations are made for clinical practice and future research to help clinicians and providers deliver best and equitable cancer care for PLWD and their families.

Characteristics and general practice resource use of people with comorbid cancer and dementia in England: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and dementia are common in older people and management of the conditions as comorbidities can be challenging, yet little is known about the size or characteristics of this group. We aimed to estimate the prevalence, characteristics and general practice resource usage of people living with both conditions in England. METHODS: Anonymised electronic healthcare records from 391 National Health Service general practices across England using the TPP SystmOne general practice system were obtained from ResearchOne. Data included demographic and clinical characteristics, and general practice healthcare useage (appointments, prescriptions, referrals and secondary care contacts) for people aged 50 and over with a cancer and/or dementia diagnosis consistent with the Quality and Outcomes Framework between 2005 and 2016. Multi-level negative binomial regression was used to analyse the association between having cancer and/or dementia and the number of general practice appointments. RESULTS: Data from 162,371 people with cancer and/or dementia were analysed; 3616 (2.2%) people were identified as having comorbid cancer and dementia. Of people with cancer, 3.1% also had dementia, rising to 7.5% (1 in 13 people) in those aged 75 and over. Fewer people with both conditions were female (50.7%) compared to those with dementia alone (65.6%) and those with comorbid cancer and dementia were older than those with cancer alone [mean ages 83 (sd = 7), 69 (sd = 12) respectively]. Those with both conditions were less likely to have lung cancer than those with cancer alone (7.5% vs. 10.3%) but more likely to have prostate cancer (20.9% vs. 15.8%). Additional comorbidities were more prevalent for those with both conditions than those with cancer or dementia alone (68.4% vs. 50.2% vs. 54.0%). In the year following the first record of either condition, people with cancer and dementia had 9% more general practice appointments (IRR:1.09, 95% CI:1.01-1.17) than those with cancer alone and 37% more appointments than those with dementia alone (IRR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.28-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of people are living with comorbid cancer and dementia in England. This group have additional comorbidity and higher general practice usage than those with cancer/dementia alone. The needs of this group should be considered in future general practice care planning and research.

Balancing the needs of individuals and services in cancer treatment for people with dementia: A focused ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: Managing multiple conditions is difficult for patients and their families, increasing complexity in care. Two of the most common long-term conditions, cancer and dementia, both disproportionately affect older adults. However, little is known about the needs and experiences of those living with both conditions, which could inform practice in the area. OBJECTIVES: This focused ethnographic study sought to understand how oncology services balance the unique and complex needs of these patients with those of the service more widely. DESIGN: Focused ethnography. SETTING: Two National Health Service hospital trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen people with dementia and cancer, 22 relatives and 19 staff members participated. METHODS: Participant observation, informal conversations, semi-structured interviews, and medical notes review. RESULTS: Improved satisfaction and outcomes of care were reported when staff were delivering person-centred care. Staff tried to balance the need for personalised and flexible support for individuals with dementia with managing targets and processes of cancer care and treatment. The importance of continuity of people, places, and processes was consistently highlighted. CONCLUSION: Navigating and managing the delicate balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of services more widely was difficult for both staff and patients. Improved awareness, identification and documentation of dementia would help to ensure that staff are aware of any specific patient needs. Consistency in staffing and appointment locations should develop familiarity and routine for people with dementia.

Knowledge Exchanges and Decision-Making Within Hospital Dementia Care Triads: An Ethnographic Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Important decisions about the future care of people living with dementia are routinely made in hospitals. Very little is known about how the care needs of hospitalized people with dementia are understood, or how the perspectives of the person, families, and staff intersect to inform decision-making. This study explores how the care needs of people with dementia are understood by the person, their family, and hospital staff (the care triad), and how these perspectives shape decision-making. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ethnographic data were collected from 2 care-of-older-people general hospital wards via observations, conversations, and interviews with people with dementia, families, and staff. In total, 400 hr of observation and 46 interviews were conducted across two 7- to 9-month periods. RESULTS: The person's care needs were often understood differently between and within arms of the care triad. A lack of consistent engagement with families and people with dementia reduced opportunities to recognize and integrate this range of views, leading to delays or difficulties in decision-making. People with dementia, particularly those lacking capacity, were most likely to have their perspectives overlooked. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Early engagement with people with dementia and their families is required to ensure that all perspectives on the person's current and future care needs are understood and represented during decision-making. Particular attention should be paid to involving people living with dementia in discussions and decisions about their care, and to the assessment and involvement of people who may lack capacity.

Staff experiences of implementing Dementia Care Mapping to improve the quality of dementia care in care homes: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) is a widely used, staff-led, psychosocial intervention to support the implementation of person-centred care. Efficacy evaluations in care homes have produced mixed outcomes, with implementation problems identified. Understanding the experiences of staff trained to lead DCM implementation is crucial to understanding implementation challenges, yet this has rarely been formally explored. This study aimed to examine the experiences of care home staff trained to lead DCM implementation, within a large cluster randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Process evaluation including, semi-structured interviews with 27 trained mappers from 16 intervention allocated care homes. Data were analysed using template variant of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified 1) Preparedness to lead - While mappers overwhelmingly enjoyed DCM training, many did not have the personal attributes required to lead practice change and felt DCM training did not adequately equip them to implement it in practice. For many their expectations of the mapper role at recruitment contrasted with the reality once they began to attempt implementation; 2) Transferring knowledge into practice - Due to the complex nature of DCM, developing mastery required regular practice of DCM skills, which was difficult to achieve within available time and resources. Gaining engagement of and transferring learning to the wider staff team was challenging, with benefits of DCM largely limited to the mappers themselves, rather than realised at a care home level; and 3) Sustaining DCM - This required a perception of DCM as beneficial, allocation of adequate resources and support for the process which was often not able to be provided, for the mapper role to fit with the staff member's usual duties and for DCM to fit with the home's ethos and future plans for care. CONCLUSIONS: Many care homes may not have staff with the requisite skills to lead practice change using DCM, or the requisite staffing, resources or leadership support required for sustainable implementation. Adaptations to the DCM tool, process and training may be required to reduce its complexity and burden and increase chances of implementation success. Alternatively, models of implementation not reliant on care home staff may be required.

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.

Understanding and identifying ways to improve hospital-based cancer care and treatment for people with dementia: an ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: Providing cancer care and treatment for ageing populations with complicating comorbidities like dementia is a growing global challenge. This study aimed to examine the hospital-based cancer care and treatment challenges and support needs of people with dementia, and identify potential ways to address these. METHODS: A two-site ethnographic study in England involving semi-structured interviews, observations and accompanying conversations, and medical record review. Participants (N = 58) were people with dementia and comorbid cancer (n = 17), informal caregivers (n = 22) and hospital staff (n = 19). Ethnographically informed thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was an accumulated complexity of living with both illnesses simultaneously. People with dementia and families could feel confused and uninformed due to difficulties understanding, retaining and using cancer information, which impacted their informed treatment decision-making. Dementia increased the complexity and burden of travelling to and navigating unfamiliar hospital environments, frequent lengthy periods of waiting in hospital, and self-managing symptoms and side-effects at home. Oncology staff were often working without the full picture, due to variable documenting of dementia in medical records, dementia training was limited, and time and resource pressures impeded the highly individualised, flexible cancer care required by people with dementia. Supportive family carers were crucial in enabling people with dementia to access, navigate and undergo cancer treatment and care. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia complicates cancer care in a range of ways accumulating across the cancer pathway. Our findings suggest there are several strategies and interventions, which we list here, with potential to improve cancer care and treatment for people with dementia and their families.

Navigating cancer treatment and care when living with comorbid dementia: an ethnographic study.

OBJECTIVES: The risks of developing cancer and dementia increase as we age; however, this comorbidity remains relatively under-researched. This study reports on the challenges that people affected by comorbid cancer and dementia face when navigating engagement with cancer treatment within secondary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ethnographic study recruiting 17 people with cancer and dementia, 22 relatives and 19 oncology staff in two UK National Health Service Trusts. Observations (46 h) and informal conversations were conducted during oncology appointments involving people with dementia. Semi-structured interviews (n = 37) with people living with cancer and dementia, their relatives and staff working in various roles across oncology services were also carried out. Data were analysed using ethnographically informed thematic analysis. RESULTS: People with cancer and dementia experienced challenges across three areas of navigating cancer treatment and care: navigating through multiple services, appointments and layers of often complex information; repeatedly navigating transport to and from hospital; and navigating non-dementia-friendly hospital outpatient environments alongside the cognitive problems associated with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia impacts patients' abilities to navigate the many practical aspects of attending hospital for cancer treatment and care. This study indicates the importance of addressing ways to improve the experience of travelling to and from the hospital, alongside extending the ongoing efforts to develop 'dementia-friendly' hospital in-patient areas and practices, to outpatient departments. Such steps will serve to improve hospital-based cancer treatment and care and more broadly outpatient appointment experiences for people with dementia and their families.

Decision-making in cancer care for people living with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing numbers of people are expected to live with comorbid cancer and dementia. Cancer treatment decision-making for these individuals is complex, particularly for those lacking capacity, requiring support across the cancer care pathway. There is little research to inform practice in this area. This ethnographic study reports on the cancer decision-making experiences of people with cancer and dementia, their families, and healthcare staff. METHODS: Participant observations, informal conversations, semi-structured interviews, and medical note review, in two NHS trusts. Seventeen people with dementia and cancer, 22 relatives and 19 staff members participated. RESULTS: Decision-making raised complex ethical dilemmas and challenges and raised concerns for families and staff around whether correct decisions had been made. Whose decision it was and to what extent a person with dementia and cancer was able to make decisions was complex, requiring careful and ongoing consultation and close involvement of relatives. The potential impact dementia might have on treatment understanding and toleration required additional consideration by clinicians when evaluating treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer treatment decision-making for people with dementia is challenging, should be an ongoing process and has emotional impacts for the individual, relatives, and staff. Longer, flexible, and additional appointments may be required to support decision-making by people with cancer and dementia. Evidence-based decision-making guidance on how dementia impacts cancer prognosis, treatment adherence and efficacy is required.

Enabling people with dementia to access and receive cancer treatment and care: The crucial role of supportive networks.

OBJECTIVES: Despite cancer and dementia being conditions in which prevalence increases with age, there remains limited research on the cancer treatment and care needs of this population. Our study aimed to address this gap and this paper reports on the role of supportive networks in enabling people with dementia to access cancer treatment and care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ethnographic study involving seventeen people with cancer and dementia, 22 relatives and nineteen oncology staff. It comprised observations (46 h) of and informal conversations during oncology appointments attended by people with dementia and their relatives and semi-structured interviews (n = 37) with people living with cancer and dementia, their relatives and staff working in various roles across oncology services. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients and oncology staff relied on and expected relatives to provide practical and emotional support around cancer treatment and care. Families varied in their ability to provide required support due to extent of the family network, practical issues, knowledge of the patient and their wishes, family conflict and the patient's willingness to accept help. Where no family network was available, support provision was complex and this could compromise access to cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: People with comorbid cancer and dementia rely heavily on a supportive family network to access treatment and care. Oncology services need to assess the supportive networks available to individual patients in developing cancer treatment plans. Urgent consideration needs to be given to how those with no family networks can be appropriately supported.

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 self-report and proxy-report quality-of-life measures for people living with dementia in care homes.

PURPOSE: There are many validated quality-of-life (QoL) measures designed for people living with dementia. However, the majority of these are completed via proxy-report, despite indications from community-based studies that consistency between proxy-reporting and self-reporting is limited. The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between self- and proxy-reporting of one generic and three disease-specific quality-of-life measures in people living with dementia in care home settings. METHODS: As part of a randomised controlled trial, four quality-of-life measures (DEMQOL, EQ-5D-5L, QOL-AD and QUALID) were completed by people living with dementia, their friends or relatives or care staff proxies. Data were collected from 726 people living with dementia living in 50 care homes within England. Analyses were conducted to establish the internal consistency of each measure, and inter-rater reliability and correlation between the measures. RESULTS: Residents rated their quality of life higher than both relatives and staff on the EQ-5D-5L. The magnitude of correlations varied greatly, with the strongest correlations between EQ-5D-5L relative proxy and staff proxy. Internal consistency varied greatly between measures, although they seemed to be stable across types of participants. There was poor-to-fair inter-rater reliability on all measures between the different raters. DISCUSSION: There are large differences in how QoL is rated by people living with dementia, their relatives and care staff. These inconsistencies need to be considered when selecting measures and reporters within dementia research.

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 impacts of family involvement on general hospital care experiences for people living with dementia: An ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: A quarter of people in general hospitals have dementia. Limited existing studies suggest that hospital care experiences of people living with dementia, and the involvement of their families in care, may be suboptimal. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to explore how family involvement impacts upon experiences of hospital care for people living with dementia. DESIGN: A qualitative ethnographic study. METHODS: Ethnographic data were collected from two care of older people general hospital wards. Data were collected via observations, conversations and interviews with people living with dementia, families and staff. In total, 400 hours of observation and 46 interviews were conducted across two 7-9 month periods. RESULTS: People living with dementia could experience a lack of connection on multiple levels - from pre-hospital life as well as life on the wards - where they could spend long periods of time without interacting with anyone. There was great variation in the degree to which staff used opportunities to involve families in improving connections and care. When used, the knowledge and expertise of families played a crucial role in facilitating more meaningful interactions, demonstrating how person-centred connections and care are possible in busy hospital settings. Despite such benefits, the involvement of families and their knowledge was not routine. Care was required to ensure that family involvement did not override the needs and wishes of people living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the benefits of involving families and their knowledge in care, advocating for family involvement, alongside the involvement of people living with dementia, to become a more routine component of hospital care.

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.

Implementing Dementia Care Mapping as a practice development tool in dementia care services: a systematic review.

Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) is an observational tool set within a practice development process. Following training in the method, DCM is implemented via a cyclic process of briefing staff, conducting mapping observations, data analysis and report preparation, feedback to staff and action planning. Recent controlled studies of DCM's efficacy have found heterogeneous results, and variability in DCM implementation has been indicated as a potential contributing factor. This review aimed to examine the primary research evidence on the processes and the barriers and facilitators to implementing DCM as a practice development method within formal dementia care settings. PUBMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library-Cochrane reviews, HMIC (Ovid), Web of Science and Social Care Online were searched using the term "Dementia Care Mapping". Inclusion criterion was primary research studies in any formal dementia care settings where DCM was used as a practice development tool and which included discussion/critique of the implementation processes. Assessment of study quality was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Twelve papers were included in the review, representing nine research studies. The papers included discussion of various components of the DCM process, including mapper selection and preparation; mapping observations; data analysis, report writing and feedback; and action planning. However, robust evidence on requirements for successful implementation of these components was limited. Barriers and facilitators to mapping were also discussed. The review found some consensus that DCM is more likely to be successfully implemented if the right people are selected to be trained as mappers, with appropriate mapper preparation and ongoing support and with effective leadership for DCM within the implementing organization/unit and in organizations that already have a person-centered culture or ethos. Future development of the DCM tool should consider ways to save on time taken to conduct DCM cycles. More research to understand the ingredients for effective DCM implementation is needed.

Predictive properties of risk assessment instruments following self-harm.

This month's BJPsych publishes two important studies concerned with the use of risk assessment scales after self-harm, one a systematic review and the other a multicentre cohort study. We agree with the authors: that each study adds weight to the existing evidence that points towards avoiding the use of such scales in clinical practice.

Combination of self-harm methods and fatal and non-fatal repetition: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment and aftercare for people who self-harm needs to be related to an understanding of risks of adverse outcomes. We aimed to determine whether self-harm by a combination of methods and its early repetition are associated with adverse outcomes - especially non-fatal repetition and suicide. METHOD: 10,829 consecutive general hospital attendances due to self-harm in one large English city were monitored, through scrutiny of Emergency Department attendances, over three years and followed up to determine the incidence of non-fatal repetition. Subsequent deaths, by any cause and by suicide, were determined from national statistical records. RESULTS: 6155 patients accounted for the 10,829 episodes: 72% by self-poisoning, 21% self-injury, and 746 episodes (7%) due to a combination of methods. After a combined-methods index episode, non-fatal repetition (P=0.001) and suicide (P=0.002) occurred sooner and more frequently than it did among those who had self-poisoned. Further hospital attendance due to self-harm within a month was associated with a 3.7-fold (95% CI 2.1-6.4) risk of subsequent suicide. LIMITATIONS: The data exclude self-harm episodes that do not result in a hospital attendance. Index episodes in the study are not generally life-time first episodes so follow-up data are based on an arbitrary start-point. Both of these limitations are common to all studies of this kind. CONCLUSIONS: At psychosocial assessment and the making of aftercare arrangements, combined methods of self-harm or another recent episode should be considered 'red-flag' indicators for attention to care.