A qualitative study of the views of residents with dementia, their relatives and staff about work practice in long-term care settings

Background: Most people living in 24-hour care settings have dementia, and little is known about what makes long-term care a positive experience for them.Method: This carer-led qualitative study examined working practices in 24-hour long-term care-settings, including hospitals, nursing and residential homes, with the aim of finding out and making recommendations about such settings. Using semi-structured interviews, managers, nurses and care assistants were asked about work practices, such as how they coped with difficult behavior, about shifts, staffing levels, staff retention and training. Relatives of residents with dementia were asked about their role and perceptions of the care provided, and residents were asked for their opinions of their care.Results: Staff reported that residents presented with increasingly challenging behavior compared to the past, and that sometimes staffing levels and skills were inadequate. Of all the settings, hospitals had the most problems with staffing levels and retention, staff-relative relationships and staff support systems. Relatives saw their own role as positive. People with dementia of varying severity could usefully evaluate some of the services they received.Discussion: Dementia-specific training and education of staff in all long-term care-settings, including induction, should address the management of problem behavior in dementia and thereby improve staff fulfilment and relatives' satisfaction. The long-stay hospital may not be appropriate as a "home for life" for those with dementia, and we recommend that long-stay care settings should be able to cater flexibly for a range of resident needs

Implementation of START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) for dementia carers in the third sector: Widening access to evidence-based interventions

Family members remain the main care providers for the increasing numbers of people with dementia, and often become depressed or anxious. In an implementation research project, we aimed to widen access to Strategies for RelaTives (START), a clinically and cost-effective intervention for the mental health of family carers, by laying the foundations for its implementation in the third sector. We used the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to guide implementation of START, a manual-based, individually-delivered, multicomponent eight-session coping strategy intervention. We interviewed a maximum variation sample of twenty-seven stakeholders from the English Alzheimer's Society (AS), about possible difficulties in management, training, and delivery of START. We trained and supervised three AS dementia support workers in different locations, to each deliver START to three family carers. Two researchers independently coded pre-intervention interviews for themes. We assessed intervention feasibility through monitoring delivery fidelity, rating audio-recordings from 1-5 (5 being high) and interviewing facilitators, family carers and AS managers about their experiences. We assessed effectiveness on family carers' mental health using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) before and after receiving START (scores 0-42). We changed START's format by reflecting carer diversity more and increasing carer stories prominence, but core content or delivery processes were unchanged. All carers received START and attended every session. The mean fidelity score was 4.2. Mean HADS-total score reduced from baseline 18.4 (standard deviation 7.4) to follow-up 15.8 (9.7). Six (67%) carers scored as clinically depressed on baseline HADS and 2 (22%) at follow-up. Facilitators and carers rated START positively. Appropriately experienced third sector workers can be trained and supervised to deliver START and it remains effective. This has the potential for widened access at scale

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)

Associations between psychological intervention for anxiety disorders and risk of dementia: a prospective cohort study using national health-care records data in England.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses support an association between anxiety in older adulthood and dementia. The aim of this study was to use routinely collected health data to test whether treatment of anxiety disorders through psychological intervention is associated with a lower incidence of dementia. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, data from nationally provided psychological therapy services in England termed Improving Access to Psychological Therapies from 2012 to 2019 were linked to medical records, including dementia diagnoses as defined by the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases, up to 8 follow-up years later. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients who were aged 65 years and older; (2) patients with a probable anxiety disorder; and (3) those with no previous or current diagnosis of dementia. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to test whether reliable improvement in anxiety following psychological intervention was associated with future dementia incidence. The primary outcome was all-cause dementia and cases were identified using ICD-10 dementia codes from Hospital Episode Statistics, Mental Health Services Dataset, and mortality data. For main analyses, hazards ratios (HRs) are presented. FINDINGS: Data from 128 077 people aged 65 years and older attending a nationally provided psychological intervention service in England were linked to medical records. 88 019 (69·0%) of 127 064 participants with available gender data were women and 39 585 (31·0%) were men. 111 225 (95·9%) of 115 989 with available ethnicity data were of White ethnicity. The mean age of the sample was 71·55 years (SD 5·69). Fully adjusted models included data from 111 958 people after 16 119 were excluded due to missing data on key variables or covariates. 4510 (4·0%) of 111 958 participants had a dementia diagnosis. The remaining 107 448 (96·0%) were censored either at date of death or when the final follow-up period available for analyses was reached. People who showed reliable improvement in anxiety had lower rates of later dementia diagnosis (3·9%) than those who did not show reliable improvement (5·1%). Reliable improvement in anxiety following psychological intervention was associated with reduced incidence of all-cause dementia (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·78-0·88]), Alzheimer's disease (HR 0·85 [0·77-0·94]), and vascular dementia (HR 0·80 [0·71-0·90]). Effects did not differ depending on anxiety disorder diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: Results showed that reliable improvement in anxiety from psychological therapy was associated with reduced incidence of future dementia. There are multiple plausible explanations for this finding and further research is needed to distinguish between these possibilities. Missing data in the sample limit reliability of findings. FUNDING: Alzheimer's Society, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and UCLH National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre

A pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial to assess the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in people with Alzheimer’s disease and agitated behaviours: the HTA-SYMBAD trial

Background: Agitation is common and impacts negatively on people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is first-line treatment, but we need other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. Objectives: To assess clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in treating agitation in dementia. Design: Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine over 12 weeks (carbamazepine arm discontinued). Setting: Twenty-six UK secondary care centres. Participants: Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer’s disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score ≥ 45. Interventions: Mirtazapine (target 45 mg), carbamazepine (target 300 mg) and placebo. Outcome measures: Primary: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score 12 weeks post randomisation. Main economic outcome evaluation: incremental cost per six-point difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score at 12 weeks, from health and social care system perspective. Data from participants and informants at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Long-term follow-up Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory data collected by telephone from informants at 6 and 12 months. Randomisation and blinding: Participants allocated 1: 1: 1 ratio (to discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, 1: 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and residence type with random block lengths of three or six (after discontinuation of carbamazepine, two or four). Double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, trial management team and research workers who did assessments were masked to group allocation. Results: Two hundred and forty-four participants recruited and randomised (102 mirtazapine, 102 placebo, 40 carbamazepine). The carbamazepine arm was discontinued due to slow overall recruitment; carbamazepine/placebo analyses are therefore statistically underpowered and not detailed in the abstract. Mean difference placebo-mirtazapine (−1.74, 95% confidence interval −7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53). Harms: The number of controls with adverse events (65/102, 64%) was similar to the mirtazapine group (67/102, 66%). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1). Post hoc analysis suggests this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065); this difference did not persist at 6-and 12-month assessments. At 12 weeks, the costs of unpaid care by the dyadic carer were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than placebo group [difference: £1120 (95% confidence interval £56 to £2184)]. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, mean raw and adjusted outcome scores and costs of the complete cases samples showed no differences between groups. Limitations: Our study has four important potential limitations: (1) we dropped the proposed carbamazepine group; (2) the trial was not powered to investigate a mortality difference between the groups; (3) recruitment beyond February 2020, was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) generalisability is limited by recruitment of participants from old-age psychiatry services and care homes. Conclusions: The data suggest mirtazapine is not clinically or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for agitation in dementia. There is little reason to recommend mirtazapine for people with dementia with agitation. Future work: Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed where non-pharmacological approaches are unsuccessful

Study of mirtazapine for agitated behaviours in dementia (SYMBAD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Agitation is common in people with dementia and negatively affects the quality of life of both people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is the first-line treatment, but there is a need for other treatment when this care is not effective. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, an antidepressant prescribed for agitation in dementia. METHODS: This parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-the Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia trial (SYMBAD)-was done in 26 UK centres. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, and a Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score of 45 or more. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mirtazapine (titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in CMAI score at 12 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03031184, and ISRCTN17411897. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2017, and March 6, 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised. Mean CMAI scores at 12 weeks were not significantly different between participants receiving mirtazapine and participants receiving placebo (adjusted mean difference -1·74, 95% CI -7·17 to 3·69; p=0·53). The number of controls with adverse events (65 [64%] of 102 controls) was similar to that in the mirtazapine group (67 [66%] of 102 participants receiving mirtazapine). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n=7) by week 16 than in the control group (n=1), with post-hoc analysis suggesting this difference was of marginal statistical significance (p=0·065). INTERPRETATION: This trial found no benefit of mirtazapine compared with placebo, and we observed a potentially higher mortality with use of mirtazapine. The data from this study do not support using mirtazapine as a treatment for agitation in dementia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

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)

YesObjectives 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

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

YesIntroduction: 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).UK NIHR grant number RP-PG-0612-20010