Outcome of referral to social services departments for people with cognitive impairment

Risk factors for nursing home admission among older adults: Analysis of basic movements and activities of daily living

This retrospective study aimed to clarify the risk of older adults' nursing home placement in terms of basic movements and activities of daily living (ADLs) by analyzing data from a long-term care insurance certification survey in 2016‒2018 in City A. Of the 21,520 people certified as needing care, 16,865 could be followed up until 2018. Data on sex, age, household structure, and level of care required were obtained. Those who lived at home and at nursing homes were categorized as the "Unchanged group" and the "Changed group," respectively. Multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis was performed, with group type as the dependent variable and basic movement and ADL scores as the independent variables. For factor analysis according to care level, participants were classified into support need levels 1 and 2, care need levels 1 and 2, and care need levels 3, 4, and 5. For those categorized into support need levels 1 and 2, standing on one leg and transferring (basic movements) and urination and face cleaning (ADLs) were associated with nursing home placement. For those in care need levels 1 and 2, getting up and transferring (basic movements) and bathing, urination, face cleaning, and hair styling (ADL) were significantly associated with nursing home placement. For those in care need levels 3, 4, and 5, sitting and transferring (basic movements) and self-feeding and defecation (ADL) were significant. Occupational therapists must focus on older adults' declining ADLs and basic movements and relay the necessary information to patients, families, and other healthcare professionals to ensure appropriate and prompt care delivery.

Components, impacts and costs of dementia home support: a research programme including the DESCANT RCT

Background

Over half of people with dementia live at home. We know little about what home support could be clinically effective or cost-effective in enabling them to live well.

Objectives

We aimed to (1) review evidence for components of home support, identify their presence in the literature and in services in England, and develop an appropriate economic model; (2) develop and test a practical memory support package in early-stage dementia, test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine home support in later-stage dementia and design a toolkit based on this evidence; and (3) elicit the preferences of staff, carers and people with dementia for home support inputs and packages, and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches in early- and later-stage dementia.

Design

We undertook (1) an evidence synthesis, national surveys on the NHS and social care and an economic review; (2) a multicentre pragmatic randomised trial [Dementia Early Stage Cognitive Aids New Trial (DESCANT)] to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing memory aids and guidance to people with early-stage dementia (the DESCANT intervention), alongside process evaluation and qualitative analysis, an observational study of existing care packages in later-stage dementia along with qualitative analysis, and toolkit development to summarise this evidence; and (3) consultation with experts, staff and carers to explore the balance between informal and paid home support using case vignettes, discrete choice experiments to explore the preferences of people with dementia and carers between home support packages in early- and later-stage dementia, and cost–utility analysis building on trial and observational study.

Setting

The national surveys described Community Mental Health Teams, memory clinics and social care services across England. Recruitment to the trial was through memory services in nine NHS trusts in England and one health board in Wales. Recruitment to the observational study was through social services in 17 local authorities in England. Recruitment for the vignette and preference studies was through memory services, community centres and carers’ organisations.

Participants

People aged > 50 years with dementia within 1 year of first attendance at a memory clinic were eligible for the trial. People aged > 60 years with later-stage dementia within 3 months of a review of care needs were eligible for the observational study. We recruited staff, carers and people with dementia for the vignette and preference studies. All participants had to give written informed consent.

Main outcome measures

The trial and observational study used the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale as the primary outcome and also measured quality of life, capability, cognition, general psychological health and carers’ sense of competence.

Methods

Owing to the heterogeneity of interventions, methods and outcome measures, our evidence and economic reviews both used narrative synthesis. The main source of economic studies was the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. We analysed the trial and observational study by linear mixed models. We analysed the trial by ‘treatment allocated’ and used propensity scores to minimise confounding in the observational study.

Results

Our reviews and surveys identified several home support approaches of potential benefit. In early-stage dementia, the DESCANT trial had 468 randomised participants (234 intervention participants and 234 control participants), with 347 participants analysed. We found no significant effect at the primary end point of 6 months of the DESCANT intervention on any of several participant outcome measures. The primary outcome was the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale, for which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores showing greater dependence. After adjustment for differences at baseline, the mean difference was 0.38, slightly but not significantly favouring the comparator group receiving treatment as usual. The 95% confidence interval ran from –0.89 to 1.65 (p = 0.56). There was no evidence that more intensive care packages in later-stage dementia were more effective than basic care. However, formal home care appeared to help keep people at home. Staff recommended informal care that cost 88% of formal care, but for informal carers this ratio was only 62%. People with dementia preferred social and recreational activities, and carers preferred respite care and regular home care. The DESCANT intervention is probably not cost-effective in early-stage dementia, and intensive care packages are probably not cost-effective in later-stage dementia. From the perspective of the third sector, intermediate intensity packages were cheaper but less effective. Certain elements may be driving these results, notably reduced use of carers’ groups.

Limitations

Our chosen outcome measures may not reflect subtle outcomes valued by people with dementia.

Conclusions

Several approaches preferred by people with dementia and their carers have potential. However, memory aids aiming to affect daily living activities in early-stage dementia or intensive packages compared with basic care in later-stage dementia were not clinically effective or cost-effective.

Future work

Further work needs to identify what people with dementia and their carers prefer and develop more sensitive outcome measures.

Study registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12591717. The evidence synthesis is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014008890.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Effects of Home Care Provider Mix on the Care Recipient: An International, Systematic Review of Articles from 2000 to 2020

In this systematic review, we examine the literature from 2000 to 2020 to ascertain whether we can make strong conclusions about the relative benefit of adding informal care or formal care providers to the care mix among individuals receiving care in the home, specifically focusing on care recipient outcomes. We evaluate how informal care and formal care affect (or are associated with) health care use of care recipients, health care costs of care recipients, and health outcomes of care recipients. The literature to date suggests that informal care, either alone or in concert with formal care, delivers improvements in the health and well-being of older adults receiving care. The conclusions one can draw about the effects of formal care are less clear.

Interventions to Prevent or Delay Long-Term Nursing Home Placement for Adults with Impairments-a Systematic Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

With continued growth in the older adult population, US federal and state costs for long-term care services are projected to increase. Recent policy changes have shifted funding to home and community-based services (HCBS), but it remains unclear whether HCBS can prevent or delay long-term nursing home placement (NHP).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OVID), Sociological Abstracts, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase (from inception through September 2018); and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA Evidence Synthesis Program reports (from inception through November 2018) for English-language systematic reviews. We also sought expert referrals. Eligible reviews addressed HCBS for community-dwelling adults with, or at risk of developing, physical and/or cognitive impairments. Two individuals rated quality (using modified AMSTAR 2) and abstracted review characteristics, including definition of NHP and interventions. From a prioritized subset of the highest-quality and most recent reviews, we abstracted intervention effects and strength of evidence (as reported by review authors).

RESULTS

Of 47 eligible reviews, most focused on caregiver support (n = 10), respite care and adult day programs (n = 9), case management (n = 8), and preventive home visits (n = 6). Among 20 prioritized reviews, 12 exclusively included randomized controlled trials, while the rest also included observational studies. Prioritized reviews found no overall benefit or inconsistent effects for caregiver support (n = 2), respite care and adult day programs (n = 3), case management (n = 4), and preventive home visits (n = 2). For caregiver support, case management, and preventive home visits, some reviews highlighted that a few studies of higher-intensity models reduced NHP. Reviews on other interventions (n = 9) generally found a lack of evidence examining NHP.

DISCUSSION

Evidence indicated no benefit or inconsistent effects of HCBS in preventing or delaying NHP. Demonstration of substantial impacts on NHP may require longer-term studies of higher-intensity interventions that can be adapted for a variety of settings. Registration PROSPERO # CRD42018116198.

Day centres for older people: a systematically conducted scoping review of literature about their benefits, purposes and how they are perceived

With a policy shift towards personalisation of adult social care in England, much attention has focused on individualised support for older people with care needs. This article reports the findings of a scoping review of United Kingdom (UK) and non-UK literature, published in English from 2005-2017, about day centres for older people without dementia and highlights the gaps in evidence. This review, undertaken to inform new empirical research, covered the perceptions, benefits and purposes of day centres. Searches, undertaken in October/November 2014 and updated in August 2017, of electronic databases, libraries, websites, research repositories and journals, identified seventy-seven relevant papers, mostly non-UK. Day centres were found to play a variety of roles for individuals and in care systems. The largest body of evidence concerned social and preventive outcomes. Centre attendance and participation in interventions within them impacted positively on older people's mental health, social contacts, physical function and quality of life. Evidence about outcomes is mainly non-UK. Day centres for older people without dementia are under-researched generally, particularly in the UK. In addition to not being studied as whole services, there are considerable evidence gaps about how day centres are perceived, their outcomes, what they offer, to whom and their wider stakeholders, including family carers, volunteers, staff and professionals who are funding, recommending or referring older people to them.

Carer preferences for home support services in later stage dementia

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relative importance of different home support attributes from the perspective of carers of people with later-stage dementia.

METHOD

Preferences from 100 carers, recruited through carers' organisations, were assessed with a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) survey, administered online and by paper questionnaire. Attributes were informed by an evidence synthesis and lay consultations. A conditional logit model was used to estimate preference weights for the attributes within a home support 'package'.

RESULTS

The most preferred attributes were 'respite care, available regularly to fit your needs' (coefficient 1.29, p = < 0.001) and 'home care provided regularly for as long as needed' (coefficient 0.93, p = < 0.001). Cost had a significant effect with lower cost packages preferred. Findings were similar regardless of the method of administration, with respite care considered to be the most important attribute for all carers. Carers reported that completing the DCE had been a positive experience; however, feedback was mixed overall.

CONCLUSIONS

These carer preferences concur with emerging evidence on home support interventions for dementia. Respite care, home care and training on managing difficulties provided at home are important components. Carers' preferences revealed the daily challenges of caring for individuals with later stage dementia and the need for tailored and specialised home support.

The impact of attending day care designed for home-dwelling people with dementia on nursing home admission: a 24-month controlled study

BACKGROUND

Day care services offer meaningful activities, a safe environment for attendees and respite for family caregivers while being expected to delay the need for nursing home (NH) admission. However, previous research has shown inconsistent results regarding postponement of NH admission. The objective of the study was to explore the influence of a day care programme designed for home-dwelling people with dementia on NH admission.

METHOD

A quasi-experimental trial explored the proportion of patients permanently admitted to nursing homes after 24 months as the main outcome by comparing a group of day care attendees (DG) and a group of participants without day care (CG). In all, 257 participants were included (181 in DG and 76 in CG). A logistic regression model was developed with NH admission as the outcome. Participant group (DG or CG) was the main predictor, baseline patient and family caregiver characteristics and interactions were used as covariates.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 81.5 (SD 6.4), 65% were women and 53% lived alone. The mean MMSE score was 20.4 (SD 3.5). In all, 128 (50%) of the participants were admitted to a nursing home by the 24-month follow-up, 63 participants (25%) completed the follow-up assessment and 66 (26%) dropped out due to death (8%) and other reasons (18%). In the logistic unadjusted regression model for NH admission after 24 months, participant group (DG or CG) was not found to be a significant predictor of NH admission. The results from the adjusted model revealed that the participant group was associated with NH admission through the interactions with age, living conditions, affective symptoms, sleep symptoms and practical functioning, showing a higher probability for NH admission in DG compared to CG.

CONCLUSION

The study reveals no evidence to confirm that day care services designed for people with dementia postpone the need for NH admission. Admission to nursing homes seems to be based on a complex mix of personal and functional characteristics both in the person with dementia and the family caregivers. The findings should be considered in accordance with the limitation of inadequate power and the high drop-out rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered in Clinical Trials ( NCT01943071 ).

Perception of risk of adverse outcomes of older people: comparison between nursing homes, day centers and home care services

Purpose

In Portugal, the three main kinds of care services available for older people are nursing homes, day centers and home care services. The use of these care services is mostly based on complex socioeconomic and functional criteria; however it is not clear if this placement corresponds to a higher/lower risk of adverse outcomes. The purposes of this paper are: to characterize clients of each type of service; to estimate the proportion of individuals at perceived risk of each adverse outcome according to type of service; to assess the ability of the Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) to identify the risk profiles according to type of service.

Design/methodology/approach

The sample comprised individuals aged 65+ (n=224), receiving care at home, in day centers or in nursing homes. The identification of individuals at risk for three adverse outcomes (institutionalization, hospitalization and death) was performed using a short pre-screen instrument (RISC).

Findings

The RISC identified mental state issues as the unique factor that differentiated clients according the type of care services (χ2 (6, N=224)=20.96, p=0.002), with day center presenting the lowest percentage of mental health concerns and nursing home presenting the highest percentage (44.44 and 71.91 percent, respectively). Additionally, a gradient was found between perceived risk of adverse outcomes (institutionalization and hospitalization) and care of levels required.

Originality/value

The RISC can be used to discriminate people in different settings of care and can be helpful in the selection of groups at risk that will benefit more from available services.

Predictors of long-term care placement in persons with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to summarize the effects of various individual, caregiver, and system-related factors on the risk of long-term care (LTC) placement for persons with dementia.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases for longitudinal studies reporting on predictors of LTC placement for persons with dementia residing in the community or supportive care settings. We performed meta-analyses with hazard ratios (HRs) of various predictors using random effects models and stratified the HRs with several study variables. Data on predictors not included in the meta-analyses were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Full-text reviews of 360 papers were performed with data from 37 papers used to calculate pooled HRs for LTC placement of select person with dementia (age, sex, race, marital status, type of dementia, living arrangement, and relationship to caregiver) and caregiver (age, sex, and depressive symptoms) characteristics. White race [HR = 1.67, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.41-1.99], greater dementia severity (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.06), and older age (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03) increased the risk of LTC placement. Married persons with dementia (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.86) and living with their caregiver (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.92) had a lower risk. Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, the degree of functional impairment, and caregiver burden had a consistent effect on the risk of LTC placement in our descriptive review.

CONCLUSION

We quantified the predictive effect of several risk factors for LTC placement. These estimates could be used to more precisely categorize the risk of institutionalization and potentially link those at higher risk to appropriate services. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Modernising social care services for older people: scoping the United Kingdom evidence base

In common with other developed countries at the end of the 20th century, modernising public services was a priority of the United Kingdom (UK) Labour administration after its election in 1997. The modernisation reforms in health and social care exemplified their approach to public policy. The authors were commissioned to examine the evidence base for the modernisation of social care services for older people, and for this purpose conducted a systematic review of the relevant peer-reviewed UK research literature published from 1990 to 2001. Publications that reported descriptive, analytical, evaluative, quantitative and qualitative studies were identified and critically appraised under six key themes of modernisation: integration, independence, consistency, support for carers, meeting individuals' needs, and the workforce. This paper lists the principal features of each study, provides an overview of the literature, and presents substantive findings relating to three of the modernisation themes (integration, independence and individuals' needs). The account provides a systematic portrayal both of the state of social care for older people prior to the modernisation process and of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base. It suggests that, for evidence-based practice and policy to become a reality in social care for older people, there is a general need for higher quality studies in this area.

An evaluation of a specialist multiagency home support service for older people with dementia using qualitative methods

BACKGROUND

Standard home care support for people with dementia has been criticised in statutory inspection reports, and may lead to unnecessary crises, hospital or care home admissions.

OBJECTIVE

To establish whether a specialist multiagency home care service for older people with dementia delivered better quality care than standard services, and how any improvements were achieved.

DESIGN

Qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews, focus groups and small group interviews.

SETTING

Two demographically similar areas in Nottingham, one served by a specialist home care team, the other by standard services.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-seven service users, 18 family carers, 17 home care workers, 20 health/social care professionals, across both services.

RESULTS

The specialist service demonstrated greater flexibility and responsiveness to the particular needs and circumstances of service users and family carers, who were encouraged to participate in routine decision-making and activities. By sharing responsibilities, the specialist service helped reduce carer stress and prevent crises. These outcomes depended on the configuration of the service, including multidisciplinary health and social services input, careworker autonomy and independence, continuous reassessment of clients' circumstances and preferences and the capacity to develop long-term relationships, through careworker continuity. The standard service, which used a task-orientated approach, lacked these characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of the benefits of a specialist multiagency home support service over standard home care, in the opinion of service users, carers and careworkers, and defines the operational model that achieves this. Findings confirm best practice recommendations, based on models of dementia care which emphasise respect for 'personhood'.