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

Report on the discussion paper - 'the community school in Scotland'

SIGLELD:83/33903(Report) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Adult Learners Week in Scotland 15-21 May, 1995 Report of the Scottish Telephone Helpline

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:GPE/3798 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Decentralisation An analysis of Scottish local authority decentralisation schemes

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/26031 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Community education The making of an empowering profession

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:GPD/1023 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

The occupational relevance of Mode B1

LD:f84/1654 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Recruitment issues when primary care population clusters are used in randomised controlled clinical trials: Climbing mountains or pushing boulders uphill?

Cluster randomised controlled trials for health promotion, education, public health or organisational change interventions are becoming increasingly common to inform evidence-based policy. However, there is little published methodological evidence on recruitment strategies for primary care population clusters. In this paper, we discuss how choosing which population cluster to randomise can impact on the practicalities of recruitment in primary care. We describe strategies developed through our experiences of recruiting primary care organisations to participate in a national randomised controlled trial of a policy to provide community breastfeeding groups for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, the BIG (Breastfeeding in Groups) trial. We propose an iterative qualitative approach to recruitment; collecting data generated through the recruitment process, identifying themes and using the constant comparative method of analysis. This can assist in developing successful recruitment strategies and contrasts with the standardised approach commonly used when recruiting individuals to participate in randomised controlled trials. Recruiting primary care population clusters to participate in trials is currently an uphill battle in Britain. It is a complex process, which can benefit from applying qualitative methods to inform trial design and recruitment strategy. Recruitment could be facilitated if health service managers were committed to supporting peer reviewed, funded and ethics committee approved research at national level