Levels of physical activity and sleep patterns among older people with dementia living in long-term care facilities: A 24-hour snapshot

Objectives To objectively measure over a 24-hour period the daytime and nighttime levels of physical activity and sleep patterns of older people with dementia living in long-term care facilities. Study design Nested within a larger research program, this cross-sectional study involved 415 residents, aged ≥60 years, with a documented diagnosis of dementia, from 28 long-term care facilities in south-east Queensland, Australia. Main outcome measures Residents wore SenseWear® activity armbands continuously for 24 hours, with data recorded for: step count; total energy expenditure; metabolic equivalent of task (MET); and the amount of time spent physically active, lying down, awake and asleep. Residents’ levels of cognitive impairment (assessed using the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale) and agitation (assessed using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Short Form), and demographic data were also collected. Results From a total of 415 residents monitored with the SenseWear® activity armbands, 192 met the valid wear-time of 21 hours or more, and had activity and sleep data recorded. These residents were largely inactive during the daytime (engaged in an average of 1.8 hours of light physical activity), but achieved recommended amounts of sleep at night (average of 6.8 hours). There was considerable variation within the sample, and activity and sleep differed by sex (p<.001), age (p=.010), mobility (p<.001), and antipsychotic usage (p=.030). Conclusions These data can be used by long-term care clinicians to assist in planning interventions and care approaches which promote physical activity and good sleep practices, and are individualized to physical and cognitive capabilities. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673).NHMR

Effect of a robotic seal on the motor activity and sleep patterns of older people with dementia, as measured by wearable technology: A cluster-randomised controlled trial

Abstract ObjectivesThe robotic seal, PARO, has been used as an alternative to animal-assisted therapies with residents with dementia in long-term care, yet understanding of its efficacy is limited by a paucity of research. We explored the effects of PARO on motor activity and sleep patterns, as measured by a wearable triaxial accelerometer. Study designCluster-randomised controlled trial, involving 28 facilities in Queensland, Australia. Nine facilities were randomised to the PARO group (individual, non-facilitated, 15-min sessions three afternoons per week for 10 weeks), 10 to a plush toy (PARO with robotic features disabled) and nine to usual care. Main outcome measuresChanges in day- and nighttime motor activity and sleep after the 10-week intervention, as measured by SenseWear® armbands, worn by participants continuously for 24 h at baseline, during two single intervention days in weeks 5 and 10 respectively, and post-intervention (week 15). Analyses followed intention-to-treat, using repeated-measures mixed-effects models. ResultsAfter 10 weeks, the PARO group showed a greater reduction in daytime step count than usual care (p = 0.023), and in nighttime step count (p = 0.028) and daytime physical activity (p = 0.026) compared with the plush toy group. At post-intervention, the PARO group showed a greater reduction in daytime step count than the plush toy group (p = 0.028), and at nighttime compared with both the plush toy group (p = 0.019) and the usual-care group (p = 0.046). The PARO group also had a greater reduction in nighttime physical activity than the usual-care group (p = 0.015). ConclusionsPARO may have some effect on motor activity of older people with dementia in long-term care, but not on sleep patterns.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673)

Use of a Robotic Seal as a Therapeutic Tool to Improve Dementia Symptoms: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

To test the effects of individual, nonfacilitated sessions with PARO (version 9), when compared against a look-alike plush toy and usual care, on the emotional and behavioral symptoms of dementia for people living in long-term care facilities. Parallel, 3-group, cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted between June 14, 2014, and May 16, 2015. Twenty-eight long-term care facilities operated by 20 care organizations located in South-East Queensland, Australia. Four hundred fifteen participants aged ≥60 years, with a documented diagnosis of dementia. Stratified by private/not-for-profit status and randomized using a computer-generated sequence, 9 facilities were randomized to the PARO group (individual, nonfacilitated, 15-minute sessions 3 times per week for 10 weeks); 10 to plush toy (same, but given PARO with robotic features disabled); and 9 to usual care. Treatment allocation was masked to assessors. Primary outcomes were changes in levels of engagement, mood states, and agitation after a 10-week intervention, assessed by coded video observations (baseline, weeks 1, 5, 10, and 15) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Short Form (baseline, weeks 10 and 15). Analyses followed intention-to-treat, using repeated measures mixed effects models. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673). Video data showed that participants in the PARO group were more verbally [3.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.40-0.81, P = .011] and visually engaged (13.06, 95% CI: 17.05-9.06, P < .0001) than participants in plush toy. Both PARO (-3.09, 95% CI: -0.45 to -5.72, P = .022) and plush toy (-3.58, 95% CI: -1.26 to -5.91, P = .002) had significantly greater reduced neutral affect compared with usual care, whilst PARO was more effective than usual care in improving pleasure (1.12, 95% CI: 1.94-0.29, P = .008). Videos showed that PARO was more effective than usual care in improving agitation (3.33, 95% CI: 5.79-0.86, P = .008). When measured using the CMAI-SF, there was no difference between groups. Although more effective than usual care in improving mood states and agitation, PARO was only more effective than a plush toy in encouraging engagement.Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1065320

Peripherally InSerted CEntral catheter dressing and securement in patients with cancer:The PISCES trial. Protocol for a 2x2 factorial, superiority randomised controlled trial

Introduction Around 30% of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) fail from vascular, infectious or mechanical complications. Patients with cancer are at highest risk, and this increases morbidity, mortality and costs. Effective PICC dressing and securement may prevent PICC failure; however, no large randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared alternative approaches. We designed this RCT to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of dressing and securements to prevent PICC failure. Methods and analysis Pragmatic, multicentre, 2×2 factorial, superiority RCT of (1) dressings (chlorhexidine gluconate disc (CHG) vs no disc) and (2) securements (integrated securement dressing (ISD) vs securement device (SED)). A qualitative evaluation using a knowledge translation framework is included. Recruitment of 1240 patients will occur over 3 years with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised service. For the dressing hypothesis, we hypothesise CHG discs will reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CABSI) compared with no CHG disc. For the securement hypothesis, we hypothesise that ISD will reduce composite PICC failure (infection (CABSI/local infection), occlusion, dislodgement or thrombosis), compared with SED. Secondary outcomes: types of PICC failure; safety; costs; dressing/securement failure; dwell time; microbial colonisation; reversible PICC complications and consumer acceptability. Relative incidence rates of CABSI and PICC failure/100 devices and/1000 PICC days (with 95% CIs) will summarise treatment impact. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (and log rank Mantel-Haenszel test) will compare outcomes over time. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric/non-parametric techniques; p values <0.05 will be considered to be statistically significant