Can person-centred care for people living with dementia be delivered in the acute care setting?

'A lot of people think it's just a Mickey Mouse role': Role ambiguity among dementia support workers within secondary care and community hospital settings

Purpose: Dementia support workers (DSWs) are employed to improve the hospital care for patients living with dementia. An evaluation sought to understand the perspectives and experiences of DSWs and related healthcare practitioners within one health board, to identify any role ambiguity and inform future role development.Design/methodology/approach: Framework analysis was used to synthesise data from semi-structured interviews and focus groups with dementia support workers, and a wider group of related healthcare practitioners.Findings: Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with DSWs. Two focus groups were held with DSWs (n = 2 and 4) and two with associated healthcare practitioners (n = 3 and 5). Participants described inconsistencies in the understanding and delivery of the DSW role. Role ambiguity was identified as a key theme.Originality/value: This paper offers insight into challenges experienced by DSWs and addresses factors that could help improve and support the DSW role, and potentially the experience of other staff, and patients/people living with dementia. Overall, this evaluation highlights both the value of the DSW role in supporting the needs of patients/people living with dementia and the potential for person-centred activities to be used as therapeutic interventions.

Nursing Care Management of Responsive Behaviors for Persons Living With Dementia in Acute Care Settings: An Integrative Review

The current integrative review was performed to understand how acute care nurses manage responsive behaviors among persons living with dementia (PLWD) in acute care settings. Eight studies were included, and three themes were developed: Person-Centered Approach, Non-Person-Centered Approach, and Facilitators and Barriers to Care Approaches. Nurses expressed difficulties in caring for hospitalized PLWD due to lack of knowledge of dementia care, pressure to work more efficiently, and prioritization of acute medical concerns. Nurses frequently used nonpharmacological approaches that required less time spent with patients. Results suggest that nurses in acute care settings require further education regarding dementia and person-centered care approaches for PLWD. Nursing management can support nurses' learning needs through education and policies to improve patient outcomes. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(2), 19-25.].

New horizons for caring for people with dementia in hospital: the DEMENTIA CARE pointers for service change

Approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions are older adults and almost half of these are likely to have some form of dementia. People with dementia are not only at an increased risk of adverse outcomes once admitted, but the unfamiliar environment and routinised practices of the wards and acute care can be particularly challenging for them, heightening their confusion, agitation and distress further impacting the ability to optimise their care. It is well established that a person-centred care approach helps alleviate some of the unfamiliar stress but how to embed this in the acute-care setting remains a challenge. In this article, we highlight the challenges that have been recognised in this area and put forward a set of evidence-based 'pointers for service change' to help organisations in the delivery of person-centred care. The DEMENTIA CARE pointers cover areas of: dementia awareness and understanding, education and training, modelling of person-centred care by clinical leaders, adapting the environment, teamwork (not being alone), taking the time to 'get to know', information sharing, access to necessary resources, communication, involving family (ask family), raising the profile of dementia care, and engaging volunteers. The pointers extend previous guidance, by recognising the importance of ward cultures that prioritise dementia care and institutional support that actively seeks to raise the profile of dementia care. The pointers provide a range of simple to more complex actions or areas for hospitals to help implement person-centred care approaches; however, embedding them within the organisational cultures of hospitals is the next challenge.

Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints of older people in general hospital settings

BACKGROUND

Physical restraints, such as bedrails, belts in chairs or beds, and fixed tables, are commonly used for older people in general hospital settings. Reasons given for using physical restraints are to prevent falls and fall-related injuries, to control challenging behavior (such as agitation or wandering), and to ensure the delivery of medical treatments. Clear evidence of their effectiveness is lacking, and potential harms are recognised, including injuries associated with the use of physical restraints and a negative impact on people's well-being. There are widespread recommendations that their use should be reduced or eliminated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the best evidence for the effects and safety of interventions aimed at preventing and reducing the use of physical restraint of older people in general hospital settings. To describe the content, components and processes of these interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 20 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that investigated the effects of interventions that aimed to prevent or reduce the use of physical restraints in general hospital settings. Eligible settings were acute care and rehabilitation wards. We excluded emergency departments, intensive care and psychiatric units, as well as the use of restrictive measures for penal reasons (e.g. prisoners in general medical wards). We included studies with a mean age of study participants of at least 65 years. Control groups received usual care or active control interventions that were ineligible for inclusion as experimental interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. Data were unsuitable for meta-analysis, and we reported results narratively. We used GRADE methods to describe our certainty in the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies: two randomised controlled trials (one individually-randomised, parallel-group trial and one clustered, stepped-wedge trial) and two controlled clinical trials (both with a clustered design). One study was conducted in general medical wards in Canada and three studies were conducted in rehabilitation hospitals in Hong Kong. A total of 1709 participants were included in three studies; in the fourth study the number of participants was not reported. The mean age ranged from 67 years to 84 years. The duration of follow-up covered the period of patients' hospitalisation in one study (21 days average length of stay) and ranged from 4 to 11 months in the other studies. The definition of physical restraints differed slightly, and one study did not include bedrails. Three studies investigated organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy to reduce physical restraints. The theoretical approach of the interventions and the content of the educational components was comparable across studies. The fourth study investigated the use of pressure sensors for participants with an increased falls risk, which gave an alarm if the participant left the bed or chair. Control groups in all studies received usual care. Three studies were at high risk of selection bias and risk of detection bias was unclear in all studies. Because of very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy on our primary efficacy outcome: the use of physical restraints in general hospital settings. One study found an increase in the number of participants with at least one physical restraint in the intervention and control groups, one study found a small reduction in both groups, and in the third study (the stepped-wedge study), the number of participants with at least one physical restraint decreased in all clusters after implementation of the intervention but no detailed information was reported. For the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms for people with an increased fall risk, we found moderate-certainty evidence of little to no effect of the intervention on the number of participants with at least one physical restraint compared with usual care. None of the studies systematically assessed adverse events related to use of physical restraint use, e.g. direct injuries, or reported such events. We are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy on the number of participants with at least one fall (very low-certainty evidence), and there was no evidence that organisational interventions or the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms for people with an increased fall risk reduce the number of falls (low-certainty evidence from one study each). None of the studies reported fall-related injuries. We found low-certainty evidence that organisational interventions may result in little to no difference in functioning (including mobility), and moderate-certainty evidence that the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms has little to no effect on mobility. We are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions on the use of psychotropic medication; one study found no difference in the prescription of psychotropic medication. We are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions on nurses' attitudes and knowledge about the use of physical restraints (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy can reduce physical restraints in general hospital settings. The use of pressure sensor alarms in beds or chairs for people with an increased fall risk has probably little to no effect on the use of physical restraints. Because of the small number of studies and the study limitations, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further research on effective strategies to implement a least-restraint policy and to overcome barriers to physical restraint reduction in general hospital settings is needed.