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

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

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

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

Non-clinically trained facilitators' experiences of remote psychosocial interventions for older adults with memory loss and their family carers.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is the seventh leading cause of global mortality, with cases increasing. Psychosocial interventions might help prevent dementia and improve quality of life. Although it is cost-effective for non-clinically trained staff to deliver these, concerns are raised and little is known about the resulting impact on staff, especially for remote interventions. AIMS: To explore how non-clinically trained facilitators experienced delivering remote, one-to-one and group-based psychosocial interventions with older adults with memory loss and their family carers, under training and supervision. METHOD: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of interviews with non-clinically trained facilitators, employed by universities, the National Health Service and third-sector organisations, who facilitated either of two manualised interventions: the APPLE-Tree group dementia prevention for people with mild memory loss or the NIDUS-Family one-to-one dyadic intervention for people living with dementia and their family carers. RESULTS: The overarching theme of building confidence in developing therapeutic relationships was explained with subthemes that described the roles of positioning expertise (subtheme 1), developing clinical skills (subtheme 2), peer support (subtheme 3) in enabling this process and remote delivery as a potential barrier to it (subtheme 4). CONCLUSIONS: Non-clinically trained facilitators can have positive experiences delivering remote psychosocial interventions with older adults. Differences in life experience could compound initial fears of being 'in at the deep end' and 'exposed' as lacking expertise. Fears were allayed by experiencing positive therapeutic relationships and outcomes, and by growing confidence. For this to happen, appropriate training and supervision is needed, alongside accounting for the challenges of remote delivery.

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

INTRODUCTION: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes, and are supported to do so by family carers and homecare workers. There are concerns that homecare is often unable to meet the needs of this client group, with limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve it for people living with dementia. We have developed a training and support programme for homecare workers (NIDUS-Professional) to be delivered alongside support sessions for people living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). We aim to assess (1) its acceptability among homecare workers and employing agencies, and (2) the feasibility of homecare workers, people living with dementia and their family carers completing the outcomes of intervention in a future randomised controlled trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, multisite feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 60-90 homecare workers, 30-60 clients living with dementia and their family carers through 6-9 English homecare agencies. In the intervention arm, homecare staff will be offered six group sessions on video call over three months, followed by monthly group sessions over the subsequent three-month period. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and at six months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval on 7 January 2020 from the Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee. Study reference: 19/LO/1667. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentation and blog to research and clinical audiences; we will attend forums to present findings to participating homecare agencies and their clients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15757555.

A qualitative evaluation of weekly reflective practice sessions for the intensive care unit pharmacy team during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite well-being initially being high on the agenda for UK health organisations, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted significant gaps around provision for well-being of pharmacists in the UK. The COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) environment exposed pharmacists to mental, physical and emotional challenges, including high levels of patient mortality. OBJECTIVES: To provide an account of the experience of pharmacists working within an ICU at a large National Health Service hospital who attended reflective practice sessions throughout the first wave of the pandemic. METHOD: A retrospective, cross-sectional design was used to gather information from eight participants who had attended nine, 30-minute weekly reflective practice sessions. Participants were invited to complete a 10-item online self-report questionnaire. The responses from the questionnaire were analysed using theoretical thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seven participants completed the self-report questionnaire. Thematic analysis of responses identified four themes: (1) permission: both professional and personal 'permission' was necessary for participants to be present for the reflective practice sessions and to attend to their own well-being; (2) containing safe space: reflective practice sessions offered a consistently secure environment from which to explore topics which created challenge, personally and/or professionally; (3) connectedness: the impact of these sessions on participants' relationships with other attendees, as individuals and the group as a whole; and (4) emotional experience: increased awareness of developments around their expression, processing and management of emotion as a result of attending the sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new and important insights into the use of reflective practice for pharmacists working in an ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings demonstrate heterogeneity in the experience of distress, the need to support the pharmacy profession, and the need to provide opportunities for staff to connect safely with colleagues during such crises. The impact of organisation-led support for the pharmacy profession is discussed as a future direction of research.

Time to reflect is a rare and valued opportunity; a pilot of the NIDUS-professional dementia training intervention for homecare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Most people living with dementia want to continue living in their own home for as long as possible and many rely on support from homecare services to do so. There are concerns that homecare often fails to meet the needs of clients with dementia, but there is limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve its delivery for this client group. We aimed to assess whether a co-designed, 6-session dementia training intervention for homecare workers (NIDUS-professional) was acceptable and feasible. Facilitated training sessions were delivered over 3 months, followed by 3, monthly implementation meetings to embed changes in practice. Two trained and supervised facilitators without clinical qualifications delivered the intervention via group video-calls during Oct 2020-March 2021 to a group of seven homecare workers from one agency in England. Participants provided qualitative feedback 3- and 6-months post intervention. Qualitative interview data and facilitator notes were integrated in a thematic analysis. Adherence to the intervention and fidelity of delivery were high, indicating that it was acceptable and feasible to deliver in practice. Thirty of a possible 42 (71.4%) group sessions were attended. In our thematic analysis we report one over-arching theme: 'Having time and space to reflect is a rare opportunity'. Within this we identified four subthemes (Having time to reflect is a rare opportunity; Reflecting with peers enhances learning; Reflection and perspective taking can improve care; Recognising skills and building confidence) through which we explored how participants valued the intervention to discuss their work and learn new skills. Attendance was lower for the implementation sessions, perhaps reflecting participants' lack of clarity about their purpose. We used our findings to consider how we can maintain positive impacts of the manualised sessions, so that these are translated into tangible, scalable benefits for people living with dementia and the homecare workforce. A randomised feasibility trial is underway.

Ameliorating pain in nursing homes: a collaborative quality-improvement project.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a multifaceted intervention to improve pain-management processes of care and outcomes in nursing homes. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, pretest/posttest. SETTING: Nursing homes in Rhode Island. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one facilities. INTERVENTION: This project used a multifaceted collaborative intervention involving audit and feedback of pain management, education, training, coaching using rapid-cycle quality-improvement techniques, and inter-nursing home collaboration. MEASUREMENTS: Pain-management processes of care and outcomes, measured using chart review and the Minimum Data Set. RESULTS: Of 21 facilities, 17 completed the project. Postintervention, nursing homes increased the use of appropriate pain assessments (3.9% vs 43.8%, P<.001), pain intensity scales (15.6% vs 73.9%, P<.001), and nonpharmacological treatments (40.5% vs 81.9%, P<.001). Prescriptions of World Health Organization Step II or Step III pain medications for residents with daily moderate or severe pain showed trends towards improvement (40.8% vs 50.6%, P=.057), but prescription of any pain medication (93.3% vs 94.6%, P=.710), change in pain medication (29.0% vs 30.1%, P=.386), and prescription of pain medications on a regularly scheduled basis (67.9% vs 69.5%, P=.370) did not. There was a 41.1% reduction in prevalence of pain (12.2% vs 7.2%, P=.032) between the pre- and postintervention time periods in the nursing homes that completed the project, whereas all the other facilities in Rhode Island (n=72) had only a 12.1% reduction (12.7% vs 11.2%, P=.286) during the same period. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted intervention improved pain-management process and outcome measures in nursing homes.

Methodological issues in public reporting of patient perspectives on hospital quality.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is being focused on public reporting of patient satisfaction and experience with hospital care, both nationally and at the state level. Comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction use a standard survey, but little is known about underlying methodological approaches for reporting these quality measures. METHODS: Literature, Web sites, and key informants were used to identify nine public reports. In-depth reviews were conducted to determine approaches to collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting comparative data. Data were grouped into four analytic categories: survey, sampling, computation of scores, and reporting of scores. RESULTS: The reports were similar in response rates and sampling procedures but differed in the number of hospitals included, the survey instrument, and survey procedure. The reports varied considerably in the techniques for computing hospital scores and decisions about reporting scores. CONCLUSIONS: Reports from nine locales illustrate the decision making necessary to produce comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction. Differences stem from decisions about the survey instrument and statistical decisions about how to interpret and report data. These issues should be clearly delineated as part of any public reporting process.