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.

Exploring challenges and innovation in memory assessment services in England and Wales - a national survey and case study approach.

BACKGROUND: To explore the design, delivery models and identify good and innovative practices in Memory Assessment Services (MAS) in England and Wales. METHODS: A two-stage service evaluation comprising (1) on-line survey of MAS providers to identify features of the commissioning models, service design, delivery, and challenges alongside examples of good/innovative practice; (2) qualitative case studies using video/telephone interviews with key staff and people who had used the service. RESULTS: The 49 respondents to the survey reported a shift in delivery of MAS post COVID and identified key areas for improvement, including a need for specialist staff, support for MCI and rarer dementias, and capacity for post diagnostic support. The 15 case studies illustrated good practice and innovation focusing on post diagnostic support, equity of access, working with external services/service location, MCI and rarer dementia and involving specialist staff. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation speaks to the importance of (re)evaluation of services to identify local need and the importance of commissioning based on local need and innovative approaches that my sit outside of 'typical' MAS pathways.

"I didn't know it was going to be like this.": unprepared for end-of-Life care, the experiences of care aides care in long-term care.

BACKGROUND: Care aides provide up to 70-90% of the direct care for residents in long-term care (LTC) and thus hold great potential in improving residents' quality of life and end-of-life (EoL) care experiences. Although the scope and necessity of the care aide role is predicted to increase in the future, there is a lack of understanding around their perceptions and experiences of delivering EoL care in LTC settings. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the perspectives, experiences, and working conditions of care aides delivering end-of-life care in LTC in a rural setting, within a high-income country. METHODS: Data were collected over ten months of fieldwork at one long-term care home in western Canada; semi-structured interviews (70 h) with 31 care aides; and observation (170 h). Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Two themes were identified: (i) the emotional toll that delivering this care takes on the care aids and; (ii) the need for healing and support among this workforce. Findings show that the vast majority of care aides reported feeling unprepared for the delivery of the complex care work required for good EoL care. Findings indicate that there are no adequate resources available for care aides' to support the mental and emotional aspects of their role in the delivery of EoL care in LTC. Participants shared unique stories of their own self-care traditions to support their grief, processing and emotional healing. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate the health and well-being of this essential workforce internationally, care aides need to have appropriate training and preparation for the complex care work required for good EoL care. It is essential that mechanisms in LTC become mandatory to support care aides' mental health and emotional well-being in this role. Implications for practice highlight the need for greater care and attention played on the part of the educational settings during their selection and acceptance process to train care aides to ensure they have previous experience and societal awareness of what care in LTC settings entails, especially regarding EoL experiences.

The use of constant observation with people with dementia in hospitals: a mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Constant observation is used in hospitals with people with dementia to manage their safety. However, opportunities for proactive care are not consistently recognised or utilised. A systematic review of constant observation was conducted to understand measures of effectiveness and facilitators for person-centred approaches. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched between 2010 and 2022. Four reviewers completed screening, quality assessments and data extraction with 20% checked for consistency. Findings were presented through narrative synthesis (PROSPERO registration CRD42020221078). FINDINGS: Twenty-four studies were included. Non-registered staff without specific training were the main providers of constant observation. Assessments and processes clarifying the level of observation encouraged reviews that linked initiation and discontinuation to a patient's changing needs. Examples of person-centred care, derived from studies of volunteers or staff employed to provide activities, demonstrated meaningful engagement could reassure a person and improve their mood. Proactive approaches that anticipated distress were thought to reduce behaviours that carried a risk of harm but supporting evidence was lacking. CONCLUSION: Non-registered staff are limited by organisational efforts to reduce risk, leading to a focus on containment. Trained staff who are supported during constant observation can connect with patients, provide comfort and potentially reduce behaviours that carry a risk of harm.

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.

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.

Drawn from life: Cocreating narrative and graphic vignettes of lived experience with people affected by dementia.

BACKGROUND: The growing literature on Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) and dementia identifies specific problems related to the influence that involvement has on research outcomes, over-reliance on family members as proxies and lack of representation of seldom-heard groups. Adaptations to the PPIE process are therefore needed to make possible the involvement of a broader spectrum of people living with dementia. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to adapt the PPIE process to make participation in cocreation by people living with dementia accessible and meaningful across a spectrum of cognitive abilities. DESIGN: Narrative elicitation, informal conversation and observation were used to cocreate three vignettes based on PPIE group members' personal experiences of dementia services. Each vignette was produced in both narrative and graphic formats. PARTICIPANTS: Nine people living with dementia and five family members participated in this study. RESULTS: Using enhanced methods and outreach, it was possible to adapt the PPIE process so that not only family members and people with milder cognitive difficulties could participate, but also those with more pronounced cognitive problems whose voices are less often heard. CONCLUSIONS: Making creative adaptations is vital in PPIE involving people living with dementia if we wish to develop inclusive forms of PPIE practice. This may, however, raise new ethical issues, which are briefly discussed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with dementia and their families were involved in the design and conduct of the study, in the interpretation of data and in the preparation of the manuscript.

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.

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.

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.

Validation of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory Observational (CMAI-O) tool.

OBJECTIVES: Behaviours associated with agitation are common in people living with dementia. The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) is a 29-item scale widely used to assess agitation completed by a proxy (family carer or staff member). However, proxy informants introduce possible reporting bias when blinding to the treatment arm is not possible, and potential accuracy issues due to irregular contact between the proxy and the person with dementia over the reporting period. An observational measure completed by a blinded researcher may address these issues, but no agitation measures with comparable items exist. DESIGN: Development and validation of an observational version of the CMAI (CMAI-O), to assess its validity as an alternative or complementary measure of agitation. SETTING: Fifty care homes in England. PARTICIPANTS: Residents (N = 726) with dementia. MEASUREMENTS: Two observational measures (CMAI-O and PAS) were completed by an independent researcher. Measures of agitation, functional status, and neuropsychiatric symptoms were completed with staff proxies. RESULTS: The CMAI-O showed adequate internal consistency (α = .61), criterion validity with the PAS (r = .79, p = < .001), incremental validity in predicting quality of life beyond the Functional Assessment Staging of Alzheimer's disease (ß = 1.83, p < .001 at baseline) and discriminant validity from the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Apathy subscale (r = .004, p = .902). CONCLUSIONS: The CMAI-O is a promising research tool for independently measuring agitation in people with dementia in care homes. Its use alongside the CMAI could provide a more robust understanding of agitation amongst residents with dementia.

Validation of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory Observational (CMAI-O) tool - ERRATUM.

The above article (Griffiths et al., 2019) published with an incorrect abstract.The correct abstract is as follows. OBJECTIVES: Behaviours associated with agitation are common in people living with dementia. The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) is a 29-item scale widely used to assess agitation completed by a proxy (family carer or staff member). However, proxy informants introduce possible reporting bias when blinding to the treatment arm is not possible, and potential accuracy issues due to irregular contact between the proxy and the person with dementia over the reporting period. An observational measure completed by a blinded researcher may address these issues, but no agitation measures with comparable items exist. DESIGN: Development and validation of an observational version of the CMAI (CMAI-O), to assess its validity as an alternative or complementary measure of agitation. SETTING: Fifty care homes in England. PARTICIPANTS: Residents (N = 726) with dementia. MEASUREMENTS: Two observational measures (CMAI-O and PAS) were completed by an independent researcher. Measures of agitation, functional status, and neuropsychiatric symptoms were completed with staff proxies. RESULTS: The CMAI-O showed adequate internal consistency (α = .61), criterion validity with the PAS (r = .79, p = < .001), incremental validity in predicting quality of life beyond the Functional Assessment Staging of Alzheimer's disease (ß = 1.83, p < .001 at baseline) and discriminant validity from the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Apathy subscale (r = .004, p = .902). CONCLUSIONS: The CMAI-O is a promising research tool for independently measuring agitation in people with dementia in care homes. Its use alongside the CMAI could provide a more robust understanding of agitation amongst residents with dementia.

The barriers and facilitators to implementing dementia education and training in health and social care services: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The health and social care workforce requires access to appropriate education and training to provide quality care for people with dementia. Success of a training programme depends on staff ability to put their learning into practice through behaviour change. This study aimed to investigate the barriers and facilitators to implementation of dementia education and training in health and social care services using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and COM-B model of behaviour change. METHODS: A mixed-methods design. Participants were dementia training leads, training facilitators, managers and staff who had attended training who worked in UK care homes, acute hospitals, mental health services and primary care settings. Methods were an online audit of care and training providers, online survey of trained staff and individual/group interviews with organisational training leads, training facilitators, staff who had attended dementia training and managers. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic template analysis. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were analysed according the COM-B domains. "Capability" factors were not perceived as a significant barrier to training implementation. Factors which supported staff capability included the use of interactive face-to-face training, and training that was relevant to their role. Factors that increased staff "motivation" included skilled facilitation of training, trainees' desire to learn and the provision of incentives (e.g. attendance during paid working hours, badges/certifications). "Opportunity" factors were most prevalent with lack of resources (time, financial, staffing and environmental) being the biggest perceived barrier to training implementation. The presence or not of external support from families and internal factors such as the organisational culture and its supportiveness of good dementia care and training implementation were also influential. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of factors may present as barriers to or facilitators of dementia training implementation and behaviour change for staff. These should be considered by health and social care providers in the context of dementia training design and delivery in order to maximise potential for implementation.

Components of impactful dementia training for general hospital staff: a collective case study.

Background and objectives: People with dementia occupy around one quarter of general hospital beds, with concerns consistently raised about care quality. Improving workforce knowledge, skills and attitudes is a mechanism for addressing this. However little is known about effective ways of training healthcare staff about dementia. This study aimed to understand models of dementia training most likely to lead to improved practice and better care experiences for people with dementia, and to understand barriers and facilitators to implementation.Method: A collective case study was conducted in three National Health Service Acute Hospital Trusts in England. Multiple data sources were used including interviews with training leads/facilitators, ward managers and staff who had attended training; satisfaction surveys with patients with dementia and/or carers; and observations of care using Dementia Care Mapping.Results: Interactive face-to-face training designed for general hospital staff was valued. Simulation and experiential learning methods were felt to be beneficial by some staff and stressful and distressing by others. Skilled delivery by an experienced and enthusiastic facilitator was identified as important. Staff identified learning and practice changes made following their training. However, observations revealed not all staff had the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to deliver good care. Patient and carer satisfaction with care was mixed. A major barrier to training implementation was lack of resources. Supportive managers, organisational culture and strong leadership were key facilitators.Conclusion: Dementia training can lead to improved care practices. There are a range of key barriers and facilitators to implementation that must be considered.

How Should We Capture Health State Utility in Dementia? Comparisons of DEMQOL-Proxy-U and of Self- and Proxy-Completed EQ-5D-5L.

BACKGROUND: Dementia-specific and proxy-completed preference-based measures have been proposed for use in intervention studies involving people living in residential care, in instances where generic, self-reported preference-based measures have been deemed inappropriate. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness of DEMQOL-Proxy-U and of self- and proxy-completed EQ-5D-5L. METHODS: The analysis used a 3-wave, individual-level data set of 1004 people living with dementia in residential care that included self-completed EQ-5D-5L and formal-carer and informal-carer proxy-completed EQ-5D-5L and DEMQOL-Proxy-U utility values, in addition to other nonutility cognitive measures (Functional Assessment Staging [FAST], Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR], Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures (nursing home version of the Quality of Life with Alzheimer's disease scale [QOL-AD-NH], Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia [QUALID] scale). Construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness were assessed using correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and panel data regression models. RESULTS: Self-completed EQ-5D-5L failed to reflect clinically important differences and changes in FAST, CDR, and CMAI but did capture the resident's own view of HRQOL (QOL-AD-NH). As dementia severity increased, collection of EQ-5D-5L-proxy and DEMQOL-Proxy-U data was more feasible than collection of self-completed EQ-5D-5L. These formal-carer and informal-carer proxy measures also better reflected changes in FAST, CDR, and CMAI but did not capture the resident's own view of HRQOL (QOL-AD-NH), despite adequately capturing the proxy's own view of the resident's HRQOL (QUALID). This indicates discrepancies between a proxy's view and resident's view of the impact that tangible declines in health, cognition, or functional abilities have on HRQOL. The EQ-5D-5L-proxy and DEMQOL-Proxy-U were generally poor substitutes. Regardless of which proxy completed it, the EQ-5D-5L-proxy was typically more responsive than the DEMQOL-Proxy-U to changes in CDR, FAST, and CMAI, indicating that use of the DEMQOL-Proxy-U is not always justified. CONCLUSION: Disparities in the measurement properties of different utility measures mean that choices about how to measure utility in trials could affect economic evaluation outcomes and hence how resources are allocated for dementia care.

Best care options for older prisoners with dementia: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The prisoner population is ageing, and consideration is needed for how to best support those with age-related health conditions in the system. Existing work practices and organizational structures often fail to meet the needs of prisoners with dementia, and prison staff experience high levels of burden because of the increased needs of these prisoners. Little is known about the best method of responding to the needs of this growing subpopulation of prisoners. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted to answer the question: what are the perceived best care options for prisoners with dementia? To be included, publications had to be publicly available, reported on research findings, or viewed opinions and commentaries on care practices relevant to older prisoners with dementia. Searches were conducted in 11 databases to identify relevant publications. Data from the included publications were extracted and summarized into themes. RESULTS: Eight themes were identified that could support better care practices for prisoners with dementia: (1) early and ongoing screening for older prisoners; (2) specialized services; (3) specialized units; (4) programs or activities; (5) adaptations to current contexts; (6) early release or parole for older prisoners with dementia deemed at low risk of reoffending; and (7) training younger prisoners (8) as well as staff to assist older prisoners with dementia. Besides practical strategies improving care practice, costs, prison-specific resources, and staff skills were highlighted as care barriers across all themes. A lack of empirical evidence supported these findings. CONCLUSION: One of the implications of the international ageing prison population is the higher number of people living with dementia being incarcerated. Suggestions for best care approaches for prisoners with dementia now need to move from opinion to empirical approaches to guide practice.

A collective case study of the features of impactful dementia training for care home staff.

BACKGROUND: Up to 80% of care home residents have dementia. Ensuring this workforce is appropriately trained is of international concern. Research indicates variable impact of training on a range of resident and staff outcomes. Little is still known about the most effective approaches to the design, delivery and implementation of dementia training. This study aimed to investigate the features and contextual factors associated with an effective approach to care home staff training on dementia. METHODS: An embedded, collective case study was undertaken in three care home provider organisations who had responded to a national training audit. Data collected included individual or small group interviews with training leads, facilitators, staff attending training, managers, residents and their relatives. Observations of care practice were undertaken using Dementia Care Mapping. Training delivery was observed and training materials audited. A within case analysis of each site, followed by cross case analysis using convergence coding was undertaken. RESULTS: All sites provided bespoke, tailored training, delivered largely using face-to-face, interactive methods, which staff and managers indicated were valuable and effective. Self-study booklets and on-line learning where were used, were poorly completed and disliked by staff. Training was said to improve empathy, knowledge about the lived experience of dementia and the importance of considering and meeting individual needs. Opportunities to continually reflect on learning and support to implement training in practice were valued and felt to be an essential component of good training. Practice developments as a result of training included improved communication, increased activity, less task-focussed care and increased resident well-being. However, observations indicated positive well-being and engagement was not a consistent experience across all residents in all sites. Barriers to training attendance and implementation were staff time, lack of dedicated training space and challenges in gaining feedback on training and its impact. Facilitators included a supportive organisational ethos and skilled training facilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Effective training is tailored to learners', delivered face-to-face by an experienced facilitator, is interactive and is embedded within a supportive organisational culture/ethos. Further research is needed on the practical aspects of sustainable and impactful dementia training delivery and implementation in care home settings.

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.

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.