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.

Pilot cluster randomised trial of an evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in nursing home residents (Better Health in Residents of Care Homes with Nursing-BHiRCH-NH Study).

OBJECTIVES: To pilot a complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment for common health conditions experienced by nursing home (NH) residents. DESIGN: Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 14 NHs (7 intervention, 7 control) in London and West Yorkshire. PARTICIPANTS: NH residents, their family carers and staff. INTERVENTION: Complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment of urinary tract and respiratory infections, chronic heart failure and dehydration, comprising: (1) 'Stop and Watch (S&W)' early warning tool for changes in physical health, (2) condition-specific care pathway and (3) Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation tool to enhance communication with primary care. Implementation was supported by Practice Development Champions, a Practice Development Support Group and regular telephone coaching with external facilitators. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on NH (quality ratings, size, ownership), residents, family carers and staff demographics during the month prior to intervention and subsequently, numbers of admissions, accident and emergency visits, and unscheduled general practitioner visits monthly for 6 months during intervention. We collected data on how the intervention was used, healthcare resource use and quality of life data for economic evaluation. We assessed recruitment and retention, and whether a full trial was warranted. RESULTS: We recruited 14 NHs, 148 staff, 95 family carers and 245 residents. We retained the majority of participants recruited (95%). 15% of residents had an unplanned hospital admission for one of the four study conditions. We were able to collect sufficient questionnaire data (all over 96% complete). No NH implemented intervention tools as planned. Only 16 S&W forms and 8 care pathways were completed. There was no evidence of harm. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment, retention and data collection processes were effective but the intervention not implemented. A full trial is not warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN74109734 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74109734). ORIGINAL PROTOCOL: BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026510. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026510.

Evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in care home residents (the Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) study): protocol for a pilot cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Acute hospital admission is distressing for care home residents. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions, such as respiratory and urinary tract infections, are conditions that can cause unplanned hospital admission but may have been avoidable with timely detection and intervention in the community. The Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) programme has feasibility tested and will pilot a multicomponent intervention to reduce these avoidable hospital admissions. The BHiRCH intervention comprises an early warning tool for noting changes in resident health, a care pathway (clinical guidance and decision support system) and a structured method for communicating with primary care, adapted for use in the care home. We use practice development champions to support implementation and embed changes in care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cluster randomised pilot trial to test study procedures and indicate whether a further definitive trial is warranted. Fourteen care homes with nursing (nursing homes) will be randomly allocated to intervention (delivered at nursing home level) or control groups. Two nurses from each home become Practice Development Champions trained to implement the intervention, supported by a practice development support group. Data will be collected for 3 months preintervention, monthly during the 12-month intervention and 1 month after. Individual-level data includes resident, care partner and staff demographics, resident functional status, service use and quality of life (for health economic analysis) and the extent to which staff perceive the organisation supports person centred care. System-level data includes primary and secondary health services contacts (ie, general practitioner and hospital admissions). Process evaluation assesses intervention acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, ease of implementation in practice and study procedures (ie, consent and recruitment rates). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by Research Ethics Committee and the UK Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated via academic and policy conferences, peer-reviewed publications and social media (eg, Twitter). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN74109734; Pre-results.

Impact of person-centred care training and person-centred activities on quality of life, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes: A cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is a common, challenging symptom affecting large numbers of people with dementia and impacting on quality of life (QoL). There is an urgent need for evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial interventions to improve these outcomes, particularly in the absence of safe, effective pharmacological therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a person-centred care and psychosocial intervention incorporating an antipsychotic review, WHELD, on QoL, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes, and to determine its cost. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a randomised controlled cluster trial conducted between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015 that compared the WHELD intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in people with dementia living in 69 UK nursing homes, using an intention to treat analysis. All nursing homes allocated to the intervention received staff training in person-centred care and social interaction and education regarding antipsychotic medications (antipsychotic review), followed by ongoing delivery through a care staff champion model. The primary outcome measure was QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy). Secondary outcomes were agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version [NPI-NH]), antipsychotic use, global deterioration (Clinical Dementia Rating), mood (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly), mortality, quality of interactions (Quality of Interactions Scale [QUIS]), pain (Abbey Pain Scale), and cost. Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. In all, 847 people were randomised to WHELD or TAU, of whom 553 completed the 9-month randomised controlled trial. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy Z score 2.82, p = 0.0042; mean difference 2.54, SEM 0.88; 95% CI 0.81, 4.28; Cohen's D effect size 0.24). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (CMAI Z score 2.68, p = 0.0076; mean difference 4.27, SEM 1.59; 95% CI -7.39, -1.15; Cohen's D 0.23) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI-NH Z score 3.52, p < 0.001; mean difference 4.55, SEM 1.28; 95% CI -7.07,-2.02; Cohen's D 0.30). Benefits were greatest in people with moderately severe dementia. There was a statistically significant benefit in positive care interactions as measured by QUIS (19.7% increase, SEM 8.94; 95% CI 2.12, 37.16, p = 0.03; Cohen's D 0.55). There were no statistically significant differences between WHELD and TAU for the other outcomes. A sensitivity analysis using a pre-specified imputation model confirmed statistically significant benefits in DEMQOL-Proxy, CMAI, and NPI-NH outcomes with the WHELD intervention. Antipsychotic drug use was at a low stable level in both treatment groups, and the intervention did not reduce use. The WHELD intervention reduced cost compared to TAU, and the benefits achieved were therefore associated with a cost saving. The main limitation was that antipsychotic review was based on augmenting processes within care homes to trigger medical review and did not in this study involve proactive primary care education. An additional limitation was the inherent challenge of assessing QoL in this patient group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the WHELD intervention confers benefits in terms of QoL, agitation, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, albeit with relatively small effect sizes, as well as cost saving in a model that can readily be implemented in nursing homes. Future work should consider how to facilitate sustainability of the intervention in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62237498.

Family involvement in timely detection of changes in health of nursing homes residents: A qualitative exploratory study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore family perspectives on their involvement in the timely detection of changes in their relatives' health in UK nursing homes. BACKGROUND: Increasingly, policy attention is being paid to the need to reduce hospitalisations for conditions that, if detected and treated in time, could be managed in the community. We know that family continue to be involved in the care of their family members once they have moved into a nursing home. Little is known, however, about family involvement in the timely detection of changes in health in nursing home residents. DESIGN: Qualitative exploratory study with thematic analysis. METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was applied. Fourteen semi-structured one-to-one interviews with family members of people living in 13 different UK nursing homes. Data were collected from November 2015-March 2016. RESULTS: Families were involved in the timely detection of changes in health in three key ways: noticing signs of changes in health, informing care staff about what they noticed and educating care staff about their family members' changes in health. Families suggested they could be supported to detect timely changes in health by developing effective working practices with care staff. CONCLUSION: Families can provide a special contribution to the process of timely detection in nursing homes. Their involvement needs to be negotiated, better supported, as well as given more legitimacy and structure within the nursing home. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Families could provide much needed support to nursing home nurses, care assistants and managers in timely detection of changes in health. This may be achieved through communication about their preferred involvement on a case-by-case basis as well as providing appropriate support or services.

Epidemiology of Pain in People With Dementia Living in Care Homes: Longitudinal Course, Prevalence, and Treatment Implications.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge regarding the longitudinal course, impact, or treatment implications of pain in people with dementia living in care homes is very limited. METHODS: We investigated the people with dementia living in 67 care homes in London and Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom. Pain, dementia severity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, agitation, and quality-of-life were measured using appropriate instruments at baseline (N = 967) and after 9 months (n = 629). RESULTS: Baseline prevalence of pain was 35.3% (95% CI 32.3-38.3). Pain severity was significantly correlated with dementia severity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, agitation, and quality of life at both time points. Regular treatment with analgesics significantly reduced pain severity. Pain was significantly associated with more antipsychotic prescriptions. Pain was significantly associated (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.18-1.85) with all-cause mortality during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is an important determinant of neuropsychiatric symptoms, mortality, quality-of-life, and antipsychotic prescriptions. Improved identification, monitoring, and treatment of pain are urgent priorities to improve the health and quality-of-life for people with dementia.

Impact of antipsychotic review and non-pharmacological intervention on health-related quality of life in people with dementia living in care homes: WHELD-a factorial cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Very few interventional studies have directly examined the impact of treatment approaches on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in people with dementia. This is of particular importance in therapies to address behavioural symptoms, where HRQL is often severely affected. METHODS: Analysis within the WHELD cluster randomised factorial study in 16 UK care homes examining the impact of person-centred care in combination with antipsychotic review, social interaction and exercise interventions. This study analysed impact on HRQL through the DEMQOL-Proxy. RESULTS: Data on HRQL were available for 187 participants. People receiving antipsychotic review showed a significant worsening in two DEMQOL-Proxy domains (negative emotion: p = 0.02; appearance: p = 0.04). A best-case scenario analysis showed significant worsening for total DEMQOL-Proxy score. Social interaction intervention resulted in a significant benefit to HRQL (p = 0.04). There was no deterioration in HRQL in groups receiving both antipsychotic review and social interaction (p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: This demonstrates an important detrimental impact of discontinuation of antipsychotics in dementia on HRQL, highlighting the need for careful review of best practice guidelines regarding antipsychotic use and emphasising the importance of providing evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions in conjunction with antipsychotic review. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Impact of Antipsychotic Review and Nonpharmacological Intervention on Antipsychotic Use, Neuropsychiatric Symptoms, and Mortality in People With Dementia Living in Nursing Homes: A Factorial Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial by the Well-Being and Health for People With Dementia (WHELD) Program.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the impact of antipsychotic review, social interaction, and exercise, in conjunction with person-centered care, on antipsychotic use, agitation, and depression in people with dementia living in nursing homes. METHOD: A cluster-randomized factorial controlled trial with two replications was conducted in people with dementia in 16 U.K. nursing homes. All homes received training in person-centered care. Eight homes were randomly assigned to antipsychotic review, to a social interaction intervention, and to an exercise intervention for 9 months, with most homes assigned to more than one intervention. The primary outcome measures were antipsychotic use, agitation, and depression. Secondary outcome measures were overall neuropsychiatric symptoms and mortality. RESULTS: Antipsychotic review significantly reduced antipsychotic use by 50% (odds ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.60). Antipsychotic review plus the social interaction intervention significantly reduced mortality (odds ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.51) compared with the group receiving neither. The group receiving antipsychotic review but not the social intervention showed significantly worse outcome in neuropsychiatric symptoms compared with the group receiving neither (score difference +7.37, 95% CI 1.53 to 13.22). This detrimental impact was mitigated by concurrent delivery of the social intervention (-0.44, CI -4.39 to 3.52). The exercise intervention significantly improved neuropsychiatric symptoms (-3.59, 95% CI -7.08 to -0.09) but not depression (-1.21, CI -4.35 to 1.93). None of the interventions had a significant impact specifically on agitation. CONCLUSIONS: While reductions in antipsychotic use can be achieved by using a "real world" intervention, this may not be of benefit to people with dementia in the current climate of more judicious prescribing unless nonpharmacological interventions such as social interaction or exercise are provided in parallel.