Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to enable person-centred care for people with dementia and their carers (DCM-EPIC) in care homes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Up to 90 % of people living with dementia in care homes experience one or more behaviours that staff may describe as challenging to support (BSC). Of these agitation is the most common and difficult to manage. The presence of agitation is associated with fewer visits from relatives, poorer quality of life and social isolation. It is recommended that agitation is treated through psychosocial interventions. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM™) is an established, widely used observational tool and practice development cycle, for ensuring a systematic approach to providing person-centred care. There is a body of practice-based literature and experience to suggests that DCM™ is potentially effective but limited robust evidence for its effectiveness, and no examination of its cost-effectiveness, as a UK health care intervention. Therefore, a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of DCM™ in the UK is urgently needed. Methods/design A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) plus Usual Care (UC) versus UC alone, where UC is the normal care delivered within the care home following a minimum level of dementia awareness training. The trial will take place in residential, nursing and dementia-specialist care homes across West Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and London, with residents with dementia. A random sample of 50 care homes will be selected within which a minimum of 750 residents will be registered. Care homes will be randomised in an allocation ratio of 3:2 to receive either intervention or control. Outcome measures will be obtained at 6 and 16 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is agitation as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, at 16 months post randomisation. Key secondary outcomes are other BSC and quality of life. There will be an integral cost-effectiveness analysis and a process evaluation. Discussion The protocol was refined following a pilot of trial procedures. Changes include replacement of a questionnaire, whose wording caused some residents distress, to an adapted version specifically designed for use in care homes, a change to the randomisation stratification factors, adaption in how the staff measures are collected to encourage greater compliance, and additional reminders to intervention homes of when mapping cycles are due, via text message. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Registered on 16 January 2014. Full protocol version and date: v7.1: 18 December 2015

Challenge Demcare: management of challenging behaviour in dementia at home and in care homes:Development, evaluation and implementation of an online individualised intervention for care homes; and a cohort study of specialist community mental health care for families

Background: Dementia with challenging behaviour (CB) causes significant distress for caregivers and the person with dementia. It is associated with breakdown of care at home and disruption in care homes. Challenge Demcare aimed to assist care home staff and mental health practitioners who support families at home to respond effectively to CB. Objectives: To study the management of CB in care homes (ResCare) and in family care (FamCare). Following a conceptual overview, two systematic reviews and scrutiny of clinical guidelines, we (1) developed and tested a computerised intervention; (2) conducted a cluster randomised trial (CRT) of the intervention for dementia with CB in care homes; (3) conducted a process evaluation of implementation of the intervention; and (4) conducted a longitudinal observational cohort study of the management of people with dementia with CB living at home, and their carers. Review methods: Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials; systematic meta-ethnographic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Design: ResCare – survey, CRT, process evaluation and stakeholder consultations. FamCare – survey, longitudinal cohort study, participatory development design process and stakeholder consultations. Comparative examination of baseline levels of CB in the ResCare trial and the FamCare study participants. Settings: ResCare – 63 care homes in Yorkshire. FamCare – 33 community mental health teams for older people (CMHTsOP) in seven NHS organisations across England. Participants: ResCare – 2386 residents and 861 staff screened for eligibility; 555 residents with dementia and CB; 277 ‘other’ residents; 632 care staff; and 92 staff champions. FamCare – every new referral (n = 5360) reviewed for eligibility; 157 patients with dementia and CB, with their carer; and 26 mental health practitioners. Stakeholder consultations – initial workshops with 83 practitioners and managers from participating organisations; and 70 additional stakeholders using eight group discussions and nine individual interviews. Intervention: An online application for case-specific action plans to reduce CB in dementia, consisting of e-learning and bespoke decision support care home and family care e-tools. Main outcome measures: ResCare – survey with the Challenging Behaviour Scale; measurement of CB with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and medications taken from prescriptions; implementation with thematic views from participants and stakeholders. FamCare – case identification from all referrals to CMHTsOP; measurement of CB with the Revised Memory and Behaviour Problems Checklist and NPI; medications taken from prescriptions; and thematic views from stakeholders. Costs of care calculated for both settings. Comparison of the ResCare trial and FamCare study participants used the NPI, Clinical Dementia Rating and prescribed medications. Results: ResCare – training with group discussion and decision support for individualised interventions did not change practice enough to have an impact on CB in dementia. Worksite e-learning opportunities were not readily taken up by care home staff. Smaller homes with a less hierarchical management appear more ready than others to engage in innovation. FamCare – home-dwelling people with dementia and CB are referred to specialist NHS services, but treatment over 6 months, averaging nine contacts per family, had no overall impact on CB. Over 60% of people with CB had mild dementia. Families bear the majority of the care costs of dementia with CB. A care gap in the delivery of post-diagnostic help for families supporting relatives with dementia and significant CB at home has emerged. Higher levels of CB were recorded in family settings; and prescribing practices were suboptimal in both care home and family settings. Limitations: Functionality of the software was unreliable, resulting in delays. This compromised the feasibility studies and undermined delivery of the intervention in care homes. A planned FamCare CRT could not proceed because of insufficient referrals. Conclusions: A Cochrane review of individualised functional analysis-based interventions suggests that these show promise, although delivery requires a trained dementia care workforce. Like many staff training interventions, our interactive e-learning course was well received by staff when delivered in groups with facilitated discussion. Our e-learning and decision support e-tool intervention in care homes, in its current form, without ongoing review of implementation of recommended action plans, is not effective at reducing CB when compared with usual care. This may also be true for staff training in general. A shift in priorities from early diagnosis to early recognition of dementia with clinically significant CB could bridge the emerging gap and inequities of care to families. Formalised service improvements in the NHS, to co-ordinate such interventions, may stimulate better opportunities for practice models and pathways. Separate services for care homes and family care may enhance the efficiency of delivery and the quality of research on implementation into routine care. Future work: There is scope for extending functional analysis-based interventions with communication and interaction training for carers. Our clinical workbooks, video material of real-life episodes of CB and process evaluation tool resources require further testing. There is an urgent need for evaluation of interventions for home-dwelling people with dementia with clinically significant CB, delivered by trained dementia practitioners. Realist evaluation designs may illuminate how the intervention might work, and for whom, within varying service contexts

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a human rights based approach to dementia care in inpatient ward and care home settings

BackgroundAlthough it is widely recognised that adopting a person-centred approach is beneficial in the care of people living with dementia, a gap remains between the rhetoric and the reality of quality care. Some widely adopted care practices can result in the personhood of this group being threatened and their human rights being undermined.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of applying a human rights based approach in dementia inpatient wards and care homes on the quality of care delivered and the well-being of the person living with dementia.DesignA cluster randomised design was employed to compare the impact of implementing a human rights based approach intervention (i.e. training, applying the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool and receiving booster sessions) at 10 intervention sites with 10 control sites.SettingEight NHS dementia inpatient wards and 12 care homes in the north-west of England.ParticipantsPeople living with dementia who were residing on dementia inpatient wards or in care homes, and staff working at these sites. The aim was to recruit 280 people living with dementia.InterventionsA sample of staff (an average of 8.9 per site) at each of the sites was trained in a human rights based approach to care, including the application of the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool. The tool was then introduced at the site and monthly booster sessions were delivered.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure used in the research was the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease scale to assess the subjective well-being of the person with dementia. Secondary outcome measures included measures of the quality of care provided (dementia care mapping) and direct measures of the effectiveness of the training in increasing knowledge of and attitudes towards human rights. The study also included an economic evaluation utilising the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit measure.ResultsThe study recruited 439 people living with dementia: 213 to the intervention arm and 226 to the control arm. Primary outcome data were analysed using a linear mixed model. There were no significant differences found in the reported quality of life of residents between the control and intervention groups after the intervention [F(1,16.51) = 3.63;p = 0.074]. The mean difference between the groups was 1.48 (95% confidence interval –7.86 to 10.82).ConclusionsDespite the fact that the training increased staff knowledge of and positive attitudes towards human rights, and although there were some changes in staff decision-making strategies in clinical situations, there was no change in the quality of care provided or in the reported well-being of people living with dementia in these settings. This led to questions about the efficacy of training in bringing about cultural change and improving care practices.LimitationsThere was limited uptake of the training and booster sessions that were integral to the intervention.Future workFuture work could usefully focus on understanding the difficulty in translating change in attitude and knowledge into behaviour.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN94553028.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</jats:sec