Improving Well-being and Health for People with Dementia (WHELD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities

BACKGROUND

The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications are regularly prescribed in care home residents for the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) despite questionable efficacy, important adverse effects, and available non-pharmacological interventions. Prescription rates are related to organisational factors, staff training and job satisfaction, patient characteristics, and specific interventions. Psychosocial intervention programmes aimed at reducing the prescription of antipsychotic drugs are available. These programmes may target care home residents (e.g. improving communication and interpersonal relationships) or target staff (e.g. by providing skills for caring for people with BPSD). Therefore, this review aimed to assess the effectiveness of these interventions, updating our earlier review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of psychosocial interventions to reduce antipsychotic medication use in care home residents compared to regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 14 July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing a psychosocial intervention aimed primarily at reducing the use of antipsychotic medication with regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention. Psychosocial interventions were defined as non-pharmacological intervention with psychosocial components. We excluded medication withdrawal or substitution interventions, interventions without direct interpersonal contact and communication, and interventions solely addressing policy changes or structural interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Critical appraisal of studies addressed risks of selection, performance, attrition and detection bias, as well as criteria related to cluster randomisation. We retrieved data on the complex interventions on the basis of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist. Our primary outcomes were 1. use of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication and 2.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Our secondary outcomes were 3. mortality; 4. BPSD; 5. quality of life; 6. prescribing of regularly psychotropic medication; 7. regimen of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication; 8. antipsychotic medication administered 'as needed'; 9. physical restraints; 10. cognitive status; 11. depression; 12. activities of daily living; and 13.

COSTS

We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five cluster-randomised controlled studies (120 clusters, 8342 participants). We found pronounced clinical heterogeneity and therefore decided to present study results narratively. All studies investigated complex interventions comprising, among other components, educational approaches. Because of the heterogeneity of the results, including the direction of effects, we are uncertain about the effects of psychosocial interventions on the prescription of antipsychotic medication. One study investigating an educational intervention for care home staff assessed the use of antipsychotic medication in days of use per 100 resident-days, and found this to be lower in the intervention group (mean difference 6.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.05 to 6.66; 1152 participants). The other four studies reported the proportion of participants with a regular antipsychotic prescription. Of two studies implementing an intervention to promote person-centred care, one found a difference in favour of the intervention group (between-group difference 19.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 37.7%; 338 participants), while the other found a difference in favour of the control group (between-group difference 11.4%, 95% CI 0.9% to 21.9%; 862 participants). One study investigating an educational programme described as "academic detailing" found no difference between groups (odds ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.20; 5363 participants). The fifth study used a factorial design to compare different combinations of interventions to supplement person-centred care. Results showed a positive effect of medication review, and no clear effect of social interaction or exercise. We considered that, overall, the evidence about this outcome was of low certainty. We found high-certainty evidence that psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use resulted in little to no difference in the number of falls, non-elective hospitalisations, or unplanned emergency department visits. Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use also resulted in little to no difference in quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), and BPSD, regular prescribing of psychotropic medication, use of physical restraints, depression, or activities of daily living (all low-certainty evidence). We also found low-certainty evidence that, in the context of these interventions, social interaction and medication review may reduce mortality, but exercise does not.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All included interventions were complex and the components of the interventions differed considerably between studies. Interventions and intervention components were mostly not described in sufficient detail. Two studies found evidence that the complex psychosocial interventions may reduce antipsychotic medication use. In addition, one study showed that medication review might have some impact on antipsychotic prescribing rates. There were no important adverse events. Overall, the available evidence does not allow for clear generalisable recommendations.

What is intended by the term “participation” and what does it mean to people living with dementia? A conceptual overview and directions for future research

Policy continues to emphasise the importance of wellbeing in dementia. However, there is a vital need for psychosocial interventions that can promote positive outcomes to enhance “living well with dementia”. Our developing understanding of what people living with dementia report as being important to them, has resulted in new interpretations of what constitutes wellbeing including constructs such as “growth”, “purpose” and “participation”. These exciting and important constructs are not currently captured by outcome measures within dementia research. This limits our understanding of the value of psychosocial interventions. This paper explores the concept of participation and how continued participation in social life can make a difference to the rights of people living with dementia as citizens. We will firstly consider why participation is important for how we might measure outcomes in dementia research and care. Secondly, we will explore how we might measure participation. Finally, we will consider the value of participation as a psychosocial outcome in future research.

Psychosocial interventions for dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic review of effectiveness and implementation readiness

INTRODUCTION

Despite wide uptake in high-income countries (HICs), less is known about the effectiveness and implementation of psychological, social and cognitive interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite this, such interventions are increasingly used. The aim of this review was to appraise the effectiveness and implementation readiness of psychosocial interventions for people with dementia in LMICs.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases from 1998-2019. Studies were rated on two scales assessing quality and implementation readiness.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles describing 11 interventions in six countries were evaluated. Interventions included Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST), a Multidisciplinary Cognitive Rehabilitation Programme (MCRP), singing interventions, occupational therapy and reminiscence therapy. The quality of included studies was variable, and many had low sample sizes. Evidence for improving both cognition and quality of life was found in two interventions: Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) and a Multidisciplinary Cognitive Rehabilitation Programme (MCRP). Implementation issues were more likely to be explored in studies of Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) than in any other intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the included studies here, CST appears to be the most implementation ready, improving both cognition and quality of life with implementation readiness effectively explored in two LMIC countries: India and Tanzania.

Non-benzodiazepine hypnotic use for sleep disturbance in people aged over 55 years living with dementia: a series of cohort studies

BACKGROUND

Sleep disturbance affects around 60% of people living with dementia and can negatively affect their quality of life and that of their carers. Hypnotic Z-drugs (zolpidem, zopiclone and zaleplon) are commonly used to treat insomnia, but their safety and efficacy have not been evaluated for people living with dementia.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the benefits and harms of Z-drugs in people living with dementia with sleep disturbance.

DESIGN

A series of observational cohort studies using existing data from (1) primary care linked to hospital admission data and (2) clinical cohort studies of people living with dementia.

DATA SOURCES

Primary care study - Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Clinical cohort studies - the Resource Use and Disease Course in Dementia - Nursing Homes (REDIC) study, National Alzheimer's Coordinating Centre (NACC) clinical data set and the Improving Well-being and Health for People with Dementia (WHELD) in nursing homes randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care study - 371 primary care practices in England. Clinical cohort studies - 47 nursing homes in Norway, 34 Alzheimer's disease centres in the USA and 69 care homes in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care study - NHS England primary care patients diagnosed with dementia and aged > 55 years, with sleep disturbance or prescribed Z-drugs or low-dose tricyclic antidepressants, followed over 2 years. Clinical cohort studies - people living with dementia consenting to participate, followed over 3 years, 12 years and 9 months, for REDIC, NACC and WHELD, respectively.

INTERVENTIONS

The primary exposure was prescription or use of Z-drugs. Secondary exposures included prescription or use of benzodiazepines, low-dose tricyclic antidepressants and antipsychotics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Falls, fractures, infection, stroke, venous thromboembolism, mortality, cognitive function and quality of life. There were insufficient data to investigate sleep disturbance.

RESULTS

The primary care study and combined clinical cohort studies included 6809 and 18,659 people living with dementia, with 3089 and 914 taking Z-drugs, respectively. New Z-drug use was associated with a greater risk of fractures (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.94), with risk increasing with greater cumulative dose (p = 0.002). The hazard ratio for Z-drug use and hip fracture was 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.53) and for mortality was 1.34 (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.64). No excess risks of falls, infections, stroke or venous thromboembolism were detected. Z-drug use also did not have an impact on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, disability or quality of life.

LIMITATIONS

Primary care study - possible residual confounding because of difficulties in identifying patients with sleep disturbance and by dementia severity. Clinical cohort studies - the small numbers of people living with dementia taking Z-drugs and outcomes not necessarily being measured before Z-drug initiation restricted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a dose-dependent increase in fracture risk, but no other harms, with Z-drug use in dementia. However, multiple outcomes were examined, increasing the risk of false-positive findings. The mortality association was unlikely to be causal. Further research is needed to confirm the increased fracture risk. Decisions to prescribe Z-drugs may need to consider the risk of fractures, balanced against the impact of improved sleep for people living with dementia and that of their carers. Our findings suggest that when Z-drugs are prescribed, falls prevention strategies may be needed, and that the prescription should be regularly reviewed.

FUTURE WORK

More research is needed on safe and effective management strategies for sleep disturbance in people living with dementia.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EU PAS) 18006.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Upregulation of Prickle2 Ameliorates Alzheimer's Disease-Like Pathology in a Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder that has no effective therapies. Prickle planar cell polarity protein 2 (Prickle2), is an important cytoplasmic regulator of Wnt/PCP signaling. It has been reported that Prickle2 deficiency reduced neurite outgrowth levels in mouse N2a cells and led to autism-like behaviors and hippocampal synaptic dysfunction in mice. However, much less is known about the relationship of Prickle2 to AD pathogenesis. RT-qPCR, Western blot and IHC results showed that the mRNA and protein levels of Prickle2 were reduced in APP/PS1/Tau transgenic (3xTg) mice. Intravenous injection of Prickle2-overexpressing AAV-PHP.eB vectors improved the cognitive deficits in 3xTg mice. We also demonstrated that Prickle2 could repress oxidative stress and neuroinflammation, ameliorate the amyloid β (Aβ) plaque pathology and reduce Tau hyperphosphorylation in APP/PS1 mice. Further investigation of the mechanism of Prickle2 in AD revealed that Prickle2 inhibited Wnt/PCP/JNK pathway in vivo and in vitro. Our results suggest that Prickle2 might be a potential candidate for the diagnosis and treatment of AD.

Improving mental health and reducing antipsychotic use in people with dementia in care homes: the WHELD research programme including two RCTs

Background

The effective management of agitation and other neuropsychiatric and behavioural symptoms in people with dementia is a major challenge, particularly in care home settings, where dementia severity is higher and there is limited training and support for care staff. There is evidence for the value of staff training and the use of psychosocial approaches; however, no intervention currently exists that combines these elements into an intervention that is fit for purpose and effective in these settings based on evidence from a randomised controlled trial.

Objective

The objective was to develop and evaluate a complex intervention to improve well-being, reduce antipsychotic use and improve quality of life in people with dementia in care homes through person-centred care, management of agitation and non-drug approaches.

Design

This was a 5-year programme that consisted of six work packages. Work package 1 consisted of two systematic reviews of personalised psychosocial interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms for people with dementia in care homes. Work package 2 consisted of a metasynthesis of studies examining implementation of psychosocial interventions, in addition to developing a draft Well-being and Health for people with Dementia (WHELD) programme. Work package 3 consisted of a factorial study of elements of the draft WHELD programme in 16 care homes. Work package 4 involved optimisation of the WHELD programme based on work package 3 data. Work package 5 involved a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 69 care homes, which evaluated the impact of the optimised WHELD programme on quality of life, agitation and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms in people with dementia. Work package 6 focused on dissemination of the programme.

Setting

This programme was carried out in care homes in the UK.

Participants

Participants of this programme were people with dementia living in care homes, and the health and care professionals providing treatment and care in these settings.

Results

Work package 1: reviews identified randomised controlled trials and qualitative evidence supporting the use of psychosocial approaches to manage behavioural symptoms, but highlighted a concerning lack of evidence-based training manuals in current use. Work package 2: the meta-analysis identified key issues in promoting the use of interventions in care homes. The WHELD programme was developed through adaptation of published approaches. Work package 3: the factorial trial showed that antipsychotic review alone significantly reduced antipsychotic use by 50% (odds ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.60). Antipsychotic review plus social interaction significantly reduced mortality (odds ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.57), but this group showed significantly worse outcomes in behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia than the group receiving neither antipsychotic review nor social interaction (mean difference 7.37 symptoms, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 13.22 symptoms). This detrimental impact was reduced when combined with social interaction (mean difference –0.44 points, 95% confidence interval –4.39 to 3.52 points), but with no significant benefits for agitation. The exercise intervention significantly improved neuropsychiatric symptoms (mean difference –3.58 symptoms, 95% confidence interval –7.08 to –0.09 symptoms) but not depression (mean difference –1.21 points, 95% confidence interval –4.35 to 1.93 points). Qualitative work with care staff provided additional insights into the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Work package 4: optimisation of the WHELD programme led to a final version that combined person-centred care training with social interaction and pleasant activities. The intervention was adapted for delivery through a ‘champion’ model. Work package 5: a large-scale, multicentre randomised controlled trial in 69 care homes showed significant benefit to quality of life, agitation and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms, at reduced overall cost compared with treatment as usual. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in quality of life (Dementia Quality of Life Scale – Proxy z-score of 2.82, mean difference 2.54, standard error of measurement 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 4.28, Cohen’s d effect size of 0.24; p = 0.0042). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory z-score of 2.68, mean difference –4.27, standard error of measurement 1.59, 95% confidence interval –7.39 to –1.15, Cohen’s d effect size of 0.23; p = 0.0076) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Nursing Home version z-score of 3.52, mean difference –4.55, standard error of measurement 1.28, 95% confidence interval –7.07 to –2.02, Cohen’s d of 0.30; p < 0.001). The WHELD programme contributed to significantly lower health and social care costs than treatment as usual (cost difference –£4740, 95% confidence interval –£6129 to –£3156). Focus groups were conducted with 47 staff up to 12 months after the end of work package 5, which demonstrated sustained benefits. Work package 6: the outputs of the programme were translated into general practitioner workshops and a British Medical Journal e-learning module, an updated national best practice guideline and a portfolio of lay and care home outreach activities.

Limitations

Residents with dementia were not involved in the qualitative work.

Conclusions

The WHELD programme is effective in improving quality of life and reducing both agitation and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms in people with dementia in care homes. It provides a structured training and support intervention for care staff, with lower overall costs for resident care than treatment as usual.

Future work

It will be important to consider the long-term sustainability of the WHELD programme and cost-effective means of long-term implementation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN40313497 and ISRCTN62237498.

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. 8, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

MEDREV (pharmacy-health psychology intervention in people living with dementia with behaviour that challenges): the feasibility of measuring clinical outcomes and costs of the intervention

Background

People living with dementia in care homes frequently exhibit “behaviour that challenges”. Anti-psychotics are used to treat such behaviour, but are associated with significant morbidity. This study researched the feasibility of conducting a trial of a full clinical medication review for care home residents with behaviour that challenges, combined with staff training. This paper focusses on the feasibility of measuring clinical outcomes and intervention costs.

Methods

People living with moderate to severe dementia, receiving psychotropics for behaviour that challenges, in care homes were recruited for a medication review by a specialist pharmacist. Care home and primary care staff received training on the management of challenging behaviour.

Data were collected at 8 weeks, and 3 and 6 months. Measures were Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version (NPI-NH), cognition (sMMSE), quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L/DEMQoL) and costs (Client Services Receipt Inventory).

Response rates, for clinical, quality of life and health economic measures, including the levels of resource-use associated with the medication review and other non-intervention costs were calculated.

Results

Twenty-nine of 34 participants recruited received a medication review. It was feasible to measure the effects of the complex intervention on the management of behaviour that challenges with the NPI-NH. There was valid NPI-NH data at each time point (response rate = 100%). The sMMSE response rate was 18.2%. Levels of resource-use associated with the medication review were estimated for all 29 participants who received a medication review. Good response levels were achieved for other non-intervention costs (100% completion rate), and the EQ-5D-5 L and DEMQoL (≥88% at each of the time points where data was collected).

Conclusions

It is feasible to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention for behaviour that challenges using the NPI-NH and quality of life measures.

Trial registration

ISRCTN58330068. Retrospectively registered, 15 October 2017.

The Rho kinase inhibitor fasudil attenuates Aβ1-42-induced apoptosis via the ASK1/JNK signal pathway in primary cultures of hippocampal neurons

Alzheimer's disease (AD), a chronic, progressive, neurodegenerative disorder, is the most common type of dementia. Beta amyloid (Aβ) peptide aggregation and phosphorylated tau protein accumulation are considered as one of the causes for AD. Our previous studies have demonstrated the neuroprotective effect of the Rho kinase inhibitor fasudil, but the mechanism remains elucidated. In the present study, we examined the effects of fasudil on Aβ_1-42 aggregation and apoptosis and identified the intracellular signaling pathways involved in these actions in primary cultures of mouse hippocampal neurons. The results showed that fasudil increased neurite outgrowth (52.84%), decreased Aβ burden (46.65%), Tau phosphorylation (96.84%), and ROCK-II expression. In addition, fasudil reversed Aβ_1-42-induced decreased expression of Bcl-2 and increases in caspase-3, cleaved-PARP, phospho-JNK(Thr183/Tyr185), and phospho-ASK1(Ser966). Further, fasudil decreased mitochondrial membrane potential and intracellular calcium overload in the neurons treated with Aβ_1-42. These results suggest that inhibition of Rho kinase by fasudil reverses Aβ_1-42-induced neuronal apoptosis via the ASK1/JNK signal pathway, calcium ions, and mitochondrial membrane potential. Fasudil could be a drug of choice for treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

Advance Care Planning in Nursing Homes - Improving the Communication Among Patient, Family, and Staff: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (COSMOS)

Introduction: The majority of nursing home (NH) patients suffer from complex diseases, including dementia. This makes advance care planning (ACP) particularly important.

Objectives: The aim was to investigate the effect of an ACP intervention on communication among NH staff, patient, and family. We further investigated whether the intervention affected nursing staff distress.

Methods: The ACP intervention was a part of the 4-month cluster randomized controlled COSMOS trial with a 9-month follow-up. Norwegian NH units (n = 72), with 765 patients were invited, and eligible units were cluster randomized to usual care or the intervention group. The ACP intervention consisted of an education program targeting all NH staff (nurses and physicians) and managers. Implementation was supported by a train-the-trainer approach, with regular phone calls from the researchers. The effect of the intervention was assessed by a data collection form and questionnaires. Nursing staff distress was assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory -Nursing Home version.

Results: Five hundred and forty five patients from 67 NH units were included and randomized to the intervention (N = 297; 36 units) and control group (N = 248; 31 units). Organized meetings between the family, patient, and nurses were conducted more frequently in the intervention compared to the control group at month 4 (OR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.6 to 9.4, p = 0.002). Monthly contact between family and nurses was also more frequent in the intervention group (OR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.6 to 3.5, p = 0.010). Nurses and families were more satisfied with their communication in the intervention compared to the control group. Staff distress was reduced in the intervention group at month 4 (B = -1.8, 95% CI = -3.1 to -0.4, p = 0.012). The intervention effect at month 4 did not persist during follow-up at month 9.

Conclusion: Compared to control, the ACP intervention improved the communication, and family and staff satisfaction as well as reduced staff distress. However, during the follow-up period these positive effects were not persistent. Indicating the necessity for ongoing staff support regarding ACP.

Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02238652).

Improving the quality of life of care home residents with dementia: Cost-effectiveness of an optimized intervention for residents with clinically significant agitation in dementia

INTRODUCTION

To examine whether an optimized intervention is a more cost-effective option than treatment as usual (TAU) for improving agitation and quality of life in nursing home residents with clinically significant agitation and dementia.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis within a cluster-randomized factorial study in 69 care homes with 549 residents was conducted. Each cluster was randomized to receive either the Well-being and Health for people with Dementia (WHELD) intervention or TAU for nine months. Health and social care costs, agitation, and quality of life outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Improvements in agitation and quality of life were evident in residents allocated to the WHELD intervention group. The additional cost of the WHELD intervention was offset by the higher health and social care costs incurred by TAU group residents (mean difference, £2103; 95% confidence interval, -13 to 4219).

DISCUSSION

The WHELD intervention has clinical and economic benefits when used in residents with clinically significant agitation.

Managing Faecal INcontinence in people with advanced dementia resident in Care Homes (FINCH) study: a realist synthesis of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Eighty per cent of care home residents in the UK are living with dementia. The prevalence of faecal incontinence (FI) in care homes is estimated to range from 30% to 50%. There is limited evidence of what is effective in the reduction and management of FI in care homes.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a theory-driven explanation of the effectiveness of programmes that aim to improve FI in people with advanced dementia in care homes.

DESIGN

A realist synthesis. This was an iterative approach that involved scoping of the literature and consultation with five stakeholder groups, a systematic search and analysis of published and unpublished evidence, and a validation of programme theories with relevant stakeholders.

DATA SOURCES

The databases searched included PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, SocAbs, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, BiblioMap, Sirius, OpenGrey, Social Care Online and the National Research Register.

RESULTS

The scoping identified six programme theories with related context-mechanism-outcome configurations for testing. These addressed (1) clinician-led support, assessment and review, (2) the contribution of teaching and support for care home staff on how to reduce and manage FI, (3) the causes and prevention of constipation, (4) how the cognitive and physical capacity of the resident affect outcomes, (5) how the potential for recovery, reduction and management of FI is understood by those involved and (6) how the care of people living with dementia and FI is integral to the work patterns of the care home and its staff. Data extraction was completed on 62 core papers with iterative searches of linked literature. Dementia was a known risk factor for FI, but its affect on the uptake of different interventions and the dementia-specific continence and toileting skills staff required was not addressed. Most care home residents with FI will be doubly incontinent and, therefore, there is limited value in focusing solely on FI or on single causes of FI such as constipation. Clinical assessment, knowledge of the causes of FI and strategies that recognise the individuals' preferences are necessary contextual factors. Valuing the intimate and personal care work that care home staff provide to people living with dementia and addressing the dementia-related challenges when providing continence care within the daily work routines are key to helping to reduce and manage FI in this population.

LIMITATIONS

The synthesis was constrained by limited evidence specific to FI and people with dementia in care homes and by the lack of dementia-specific evidence on continence aids.

CONCLUSIONS

This realist synthesis provides a theory-driven understanding of the conditions under which improvement in care for care home residents living with dementia and FI is likely to be successful.

FUTURE WORK

Future multicomponent interventions need to take account of how the presence of dementia affects the behaviours and choices of those delivering and receiving continence care within a care home environment.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009902.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Impact of person-centred care training and person-centred activities on quality of life, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes: A cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Agitation is a common, challenging symptom affecting large numbers of people with dementia and impacting on quality of life (QoL). There is an urgent need for evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial interventions to improve these outcomes, particularly in the absence of safe, effective pharmacological therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a person-centred care and psychosocial intervention incorporating an antipsychotic review, WHELD, on QoL, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes, and to determine its cost.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This was a randomised controlled cluster trial conducted between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015 that compared the WHELD intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in people with dementia living in 69 UK nursing homes, using an intention to treat analysis. All nursing homes allocated to the intervention received staff training in person-centred care and social interaction and education regarding antipsychotic medications (antipsychotic review), followed by ongoing delivery through a care staff champion model. The primary outcome measure was QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy). Secondary outcomes were agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version [NPI-NH]), antipsychotic use, global deterioration (Clinical Dementia Rating), mood (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly), mortality, quality of interactions (Quality of Interactions Scale [QUIS]), pain (Abbey Pain Scale), and cost. Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. In all, 847 people were randomised to WHELD or TAU, of whom 553 completed the 9-month randomised controlled trial. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy Z score 2.82, p = 0.0042; mean difference 2.54, SEM 0.88; 95% CI 0.81, 4.28; Cohen's D effect size 0.24). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (CMAI Z score 2.68, p = 0.0076; mean difference 4.27, SEM 1.59; 95% CI -7.39, -1.15; Cohen's D 0.23) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI-NH Z score 3.52, p < 0.001; mean difference 4.55, SEM 1.28; 95% CI -7.07,-2.02; Cohen's D 0.30). Benefits were greatest in people with moderately severe dementia. There was a statistically significant benefit in positive care interactions as measured by QUIS (19.7% increase, SEM 8.94; 95% CI 2.12, 37.16, p = 0.03; Cohen's D 0.55). There were no statistically significant differences between WHELD and TAU for the other outcomes. A sensitivity analysis using a pre-specified imputation model confirmed statistically significant benefits in DEMQOL-Proxy, CMAI, and NPI-NH outcomes with the WHELD intervention. Antipsychotic drug use was at a low stable level in both treatment groups, and the intervention did not reduce use. The WHELD intervention reduced cost compared to TAU, and the benefits achieved were therefore associated with a cost saving. The main limitation was that antipsychotic review was based on augmenting processes within care homes to trigger medical review and did not in this study involve proactive primary care education. An additional limitation was the inherent challenge of assessing QoL in this patient group.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the WHELD intervention confers benefits in terms of QoL, agitation, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, albeit with relatively small effect sizes, as well as cost saving in a model that can readily be implemented in nursing homes. Future work should consider how to facilitate sustainability of the intervention in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62237498.

The cost of care homes for people with dementia in England: a modelling approach

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost of care for people with dementia in institutional care settings, to understand the major cost drivers and to highlight opportunities for service development.

METHODS

Data on 277 residents with dementia in 16 UK residential or nursing homes were collected. We estimated care and support costs and fitted models to the data. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

Care home residents cost £792 weekly: 95% of the costs accounted for by direct fees. Hospital contacts contributed the largest proportion of the additional costs. Having an established diagnosis of dementia (b = 0.070; p < 0.05) was associated with higher costs. No association was found between cost and needs (b = -0.002; p = 0.818).

CONCLUSION

The absence of an association between cost and needs emphasizes the importance of a more needs-based costing system which could result in clinical and economic advantages. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Study protocol Implementation of the Veder contact method (VCM) in daily nursing home care for people with dementia: an evaluation based on the RE-AIM framework

OBJECTIVES

People with dementia in nursing homes benefit from person-centred care methods. Studies examining the effect of these methods often fail to report about the implementation of these methods. The present study aims to describe the implementation of the Veder contact method (VCM) in daily nursing home care.

METHOD

A process analysis will be conducted based on qualitative data from focus groups with caregivers and interviews with key figures. To investigate whether the implementation of VCM is reflected in the attitude and behaviour of caregivers and in the behaviour and quality of life of people with dementia, a controlled observational cohort study will be conducted. Six nursing home wards implementing VCM will be compared with six control wards providing Care As Usual. Quantitative data from caregivers and residents will be collected before (T0), and 9-12 months after the implementation (T1). Qualitative analysis and multilevel analyses will be carried out on the collected data and structured based on the constructs of the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance).

CONCLUSION

By using the RE-AIM framework this study introduces a structured and comprehensive way of investigating the implementation process and implementation effectiveness of person-centred care methods in daily dementia care.

Review of Positive Psychology Outcome Measures for Chronic Illness, Traumatic Brain Injury and Older Adults: Adaptability in Dementia?

BACKGROUND

Despite positive psychology being increasingly recognised as an important agent in well-being, there is a lack of standardised outcome measures for psychosocial dementia research. This review assessed positive psychology outcome measures using standardised criterion in populations that were identified as having shared characteristics. It aimed to identify robust measures that were suitable for potential adaption or use within a dementia population.

SUMMARY

The review identified 16 positive psychology outcome measures (and 8 further psychometric assessments of these) within the constructs of resilience, self-efficacy, religiousness/spirituality, life valuation, sense of coherence, autonomy, resourcefulness and a combined measure (CASP-19). Scale development studies were subject to a quality assessment, and most were found to be lacking information on reproducibility and responsiveness.

KEY MESSAGES

A wide range of measures within the constructs of positive psychology was identified as having potential utility for psychosocial research within a dementia population. Examples included the CD-RISC, GSWB, SWLS, MPAQ, RSOA and CASP-19. It is recommended that such scales are further adapted or validated for people with dementia. Underreporting of appropriate psychometric analyses hampered this review, and it is recommended that future authors endeavour to report such analyses.

COSMOS--improving the quality of life in nursing home patients: protocol for an effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized clinical hybrid trial

BACKGROUND

Nursing home patients have complex mental and physical health problems, disabilities and social needs, combined with widespread prescription of psychotropic drugs. Preservation of their quality of life is an important goal. This can only be achieved within nursing homes that offer competent clinical conditions of treatment and care. COmmunication, Systematic assessment and treatment of pain, Medication review, Occupational therapy, Safety (COSMOS) is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial that combines and implements organization of activities evidence-based interventions to improve staff competence and thereby the patients' quality of life, mental health and safety. The aim of this paper is to describe the development, content and implementation process of the COSMOS trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

COSMOS includes a 2-month pilot study with 128 participants distributed among nine Norwegian nursing homes, and a 4-month multicenter, cluster randomized effectiveness-implementation clinical hybrid trial with follow-up at month 9, including 571 patients from 67 nursing home units (one unit defined as one cluster). Clusters are randomized to COSMOS intervention or current best practice (control group). The intervention group will receive a 2-day education program including written guidelines, repeated theoretical and practical training (credited education of caregivers, physicians and nursing home managers), case discussions and role play. The 1-day midway evaluation, information and interviews of nursing staff and a telephone hotline all support the implementation process. Outcome measures include quality of life in late-stage dementia, neuropsychiatric symptoms, activities of daily living, pain, depression, sleep, medication, cost-utility analysis, hospital admission and mortality.

DISCUSSION

Despite complex medical and psychosocial challenges, nursing home patients are often treated by staff possessing low level skills, lacking education and in facilities with a high staff turnover. Implementation of a research-based multicomponent intervention may improve staff's knowledge and competence and consequently the quality of life of nursing home patients in general and people with dementia in particular.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02238652.

Dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a general overview

Dealing with the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) is often complex. Given the controversy with regard to antipsychotics for behavioral problems in people with dementia, there has been a renewed emphasis on nonpharmacological interventions, with progress in the design of the relevant studies. Potential nonpharmacological interventions for BPSD are: cognitive training/stimulation, rehabilitative care, activities of daily living, music therapy, massage/touch, physical activity, education/training of professionals, and education and psychosocial support of informal caregivers. Use of antipsychotics in the management of BPSD is controversial due to limited efficacy and the risk of serious adverse effects, but credible alternatives remain scarce. The problem of chronic use of antipsychotics in nursing homes should be tackled. Discontinuation of antipsychotic medication in older individuals with BPSD appears to be feasible. Discontinuation efforts are needed to differentiate between patients for whom antipsychotics have no added value and patients for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.