The economics of dementia-care mapping in nursing homes: a cluster-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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Interventions for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations and a Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Dementia prevalence is increasing, with no cure at present. Drug therapies have potential side effects and risk of mortality. People with dementia are frequently offered non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life and relieve symptoms. Identifying which interventions are cost-effective is important due to finite resources in healthcare services.

AIMS

The aims were to review published economic evaluations of community and nursing home non-pharmacological interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and assess the usefulness of these evaluations for decision making in health services, for use by policy and local and national decision makers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021252999) of economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment with a narrative approach to data synthesis.

EXCLUSIONS

interventions for dementia prevention/early detection/end of life care. Databases searched: Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycArticles, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier and Regional Business News; timeframe 1 January 2011-11 May 2023. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

RESULTS

The review included 37 economic evaluations and four reviews worldwide across several distinct forms of care: physical activity, cognition, training, multicomponent, assistive technology and other (specialist dementia care, group living, home care vs care home). The intervention with the strongest evidence of cost-effectiveness was maintenance cognitive stimulation therapy. Case management, occupational therapy and dementia care management also showed good evidence of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

More economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of specific dementia care interventions is needed, with consistency of methods and outcome measures. This could improve local and national decision makers' confidence to promote future cost-effective dementia interventions.

The Costs of Dementia in Europe: An Updated Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of dementia is increasing, while new opportunities for diagnosing, treating and possibly preventing Alzheimer's disease and other dementia disorders are placing focus on the need for accurate estimates of costs in dementia. Considerable methodological heterogeneity creates challenges for synthesising the existing literature. This study aimed to estimate the costs for persons with dementia in Europe, disaggregated into cost components and informative patient subgroups.

METHODS

We conducted an updated literature review searching PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies published from 2008 to July 2021 reporting empirically based cost estimates for persons with dementia in European countries. We excluded highly selective or otherwise biased reports, and used a random-effects meta-analysis to produce estimates of mean costs of care across five European regions.

RESULTS

Based on 113 studies from 17 European countries, the estimated mean costs for all patients by region were highest in the British Isles (73,712 EUR), followed by the Nordics (43,767 EUR), Southern (35,866 EUR), Western (38,249 EUR), and Eastern Europe and Baltics (7938 EUR). Costs increased with disease severity, and the distribution of costs over informal and formal care followed a North-South gradient with Southern Europe being most reliant on informal care.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study represents the most extensive meta-analysis of the cost for persons with dementia in Europe to date. Though there is considerable heterogeneity across studies, much of this is explained by identifiable factors. Further standardisation of methodology for capturing resource utilisation data may further improve comparability of future studies. The cost estimates presented here may be of value for cost-of-illness studies and economic evaluations of novel diagnostic technologies and therapies for Alzheimer's disease.

The value of supportive care: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia

BACKGROUND

Almost 44 million people are currently living with dementia worldwide. This number is set to increase threefold by 2050, posing a serious threat to the sustainability of healthcare systems. Overuse of antipsychotic drugs for the management of the symptoms of dementia carries negative consequences for patients while also increasing the health expenditures for society. Supportive care (SC) interventions could be considered a safer and potentially cost-saving option. In this paper we provide a systematic review of the existing evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of SC interventions targeted towards persons living with dementia and their caregivers.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed between February 2019 and December 2021 through searches of the databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, Embase and PsycINFO. The search strategy was based on PRISMA 2020 recommendations. We considered studies published through December 2021 with no lower date limit. We distinguished between five categories of SC strategies: cognitive therapies, physical activity, indirect strategies (organisational and environmental changes), interventions primarily targeted towards family caregivers, and multicomponent interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 5,479 articles retrieved, 39 met the inclusion criteria. These studies analysed 35 SC programmes located at different stages of the dementia care pathway. Eleven studies provided evidence of high cost-effectiveness for seven interventions: two multicomponent interventions; two indirect interventions; two interventions aimed at caregivers of community-dwelling persons with dementia; one community-based cognitive stimulation and occupational programme.

CONCLUSION

We find that the most promising SC strategies in terms of cost-effectiveness are multicomponent interventions (targeted towards both nursing home residents and day-care service users), indirect strategies (group living and dementia care management at home), some forms of tailored occupational therapy, together with some psychosocial interventions for caregivers of community-dwelling persons with dementia. Our results suggest that the adoption of effective SC interventions may increase the economic sustainability of dementia care.

Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population.

METHOD

Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle.

CONCLUSION

No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.

The influence of care home managers on the implementation of a complex intervention: findings from the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of dementia care mapping

BACKGROUND

Many people with dementia live in care homes, where staff can struggle to meet their complex needs. Successful practice improvement interventions in these settings require strong managerial support, but little is known about how managers can support implementation in practice, or what factors support or hinder care home managers in providing this support. Using Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) as an example, this study explored how care home managers can support the implementation of complex interventions, and identified factors affecting their ability to provide this support.

METHODS

We undertook interviews with 48 staff members (managers and intervention leads) from care homes participating in the intervention arm of the DCM EPIC trial of DCM implementation.

RESULTS

Managerial support played a key role in facilitating the implementation of a complex intervention in care home settings. Managers could provide practical and financial support in many forms. However, managerial support and leadership approaches towards implementation were highly variable in practice, and implementation was easily de-stabilised by management changes or competing managerial priorities. How well managers understood, valued and engaged with the intervention, alongside the leadership style they adopted to support implementation, were key influences on implementation success.

CONCLUSIONS

For care home managers to effectively support interventions they must fully understand the proposed intervention and its potential value. This is especially important during times of managerial or practice changes, when managers lack the skills required to effectively support implementation, or when the intervention is complex. It may be unfeasible to successfully implement new interventions during times of managerial or practice instability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852 , registered 16/01/2014.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping in Care-Home Settings: Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Behaviours such as agitation impact on the quality of life of care-home residents with dementia and increase healthcare use. Interventions to prevent these behaviours have little evidence supporting their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a trial assessing Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) versus usual care for reducing agitation, and highlight methodological challenges of conducting evaluations in this population and setting.

METHODS

RCT data over 16 months from English care-home residents with dementia (intervention n = 418; control n = 308) were analysed. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from the healthcare provider perspective. We gathered resource use and utility (EQ-5D-5L and DEMQoL-Proxy-U) from people living with dementia and proxy informants (staff and relatives). Data were analysed using seemingly unrelated regression, accounting for care-home clustering and bootstrapping used to capture sampling uncertainty.

RESULTS

Costs were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (incremental = £1479) due in part to high cost outliers. There were small QALY gains (incremental = 0.024) in favour of DCM. The base-case ICER (£64,380 per QALY) suggests DCM is not cost-effective versus usual care. With the exception of analyses excluding high cost outliers, which suggested a potential for DCM to be cost-effective, sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case findings. Bootstrapped estimates suggested DCM had a low probability (< 0.20 where λ = £20,000) of being cost-effective versus control.

CONCLUSION

DCM does not appear to be a cost-effective intervention versus usual care in this group and setting. The evaluation highlighted several methodological challenges relating to validity of utility assessments, loss to follow-up and compliance. Further research is needed on handling high-cost individuals and capturing utility in this group. ISRCTN reference 82288852.

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: the EPIC cluster RCT

BACKGROUND

The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors.

SETTING

Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty care homes were randomised (intervention, n = 31; control, n = 19), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 recruited after 16 months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM in the previous 18 months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia or a score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging Test of Alzheimer's Disease, were proficient in English and were not terminally ill or permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on the delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation.

INTERVENTION

Two staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life.

RESULTS

There were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, n = 388; control, n = 287). There was no evidence of a difference in agitation levels between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score was -2.11 points, being lower in the intervention group than in the control (95% confidence interval -4.66 to 0.44; p = 0.104; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient: control = 0, intervention = 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated that DCM was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM cycle. Impacts, barriers to and facilitators of DCM implementation were identified.

LIMITATIONS

The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes.

FUTURE WORK

Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852.

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. 24, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals

BACKGROUND

Falls in care facilities and hospitals are common events that cause considerable morbidity and mortality for older people. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce the incidence of falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (August 2017); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017, Issue 8); and MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trial registers to August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing falls in older people in residential or nursing care facilities, or hospitals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author screened abstracts; two review authors screened full-text articles for inclusion. Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We calculated rate ratios (RaR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for rate of falls and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for outcomes such as risk of falling (number of people falling). We pooled results where appropriate. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five new trials (77,869 participants) were included in this update. Overall, we included 95 trials (138,164 participants), 71 (40,374 participants; mean age 84 years; 75% women) in care facilities and 24 (97,790 participants; mean age 78 years; 52% women) in hospitals. The majority of trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains, mostly relating to lack of blinding. With few exceptions, the quality of evidence for individual interventions in either setting was generally rated as low or very low. Risk of fracture and adverse events were generally poorly reported and, where reported, the evidence was very low-quality, which means that we are uncertain of the estimates. Only the falls outcomes for the main comparisons are reported here.Care facilitiesSeventeen trials compared exercise with control (typically usual care alone). We are uncertain of the effect of exercise on rate of falls (RaR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; 2002 participants, 10 studies; I² = 76%; very low-quality evidence). Exercise may make little or no difference to the risk of falling (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; 2090 participants, 10 studies; I² = 23%; low-quality evidence).There is low-quality evidence that general medication review (tested in 12 trials) may make little or no difference to the rate of falls (RaR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35; 2409 participants, 6 studies; I² = 93%) or the risk of falling (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 5139 participants, 6 studies; I² = 48%).There is moderate-quality evidence that vitamin D supplementation (4512 participants, 4 studies) probably reduces the rate of falls (RaR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; I² = 62%), but probably makes little or no difference to the risk of falling (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; I² = 42%). The population included in these studies had low vitamin D levels.Multifactorial interventions were tested in 13 trials. We are uncertain of the effect of multifactorial interventions on the rate of falls (RaR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.18; 3439 participants, 10 studies; I² = 84%; very low-quality evidence). They may make little or no difference to the risk of falling (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.05; 3153 participants, 9 studies; I² = 42%; low-quality evidence).HospitalsThree trials tested the effect of additional physiotherapy (supervised exercises) in rehabilitation wards (subacute setting). The very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect of additional physiotherapy on the rate of falls (RaR 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.34; 215 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0%), or whether it reduces the risk of falling (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93; 83 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0%).We are uncertain of the effects of bed and chair sensor alarms in hospitals, tested in two trials (28,649 participants) on rate of falls (RaR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) or risk of falling (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.24; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).Multifactorial interventions in hospitals may reduce rate of falls in hospitals (RaR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.01; 44,664 participants, 5 studies; I² = 52%). A subgroup analysis by setting suggests the reduction may be more likely in a subacute setting (RaR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 3747 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of multifactorial interventions on the risk of falling (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09; 39,889 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In care facilities: we are uncertain of the effect of exercise on rate of falls and it may make little or no difference to the risk of falling. General medication review may make little or no difference to the rate of falls or risk of falling. Vitamin D supplementation probably reduces the rate of falls but not risk of falling. We are uncertain of the effect of multifactorial interventions on the rate of falls; they may make little or no difference to the risk of falling.In hospitals: we are uncertain of the effect of additional physiotherapy on the rate of falls or whether it reduces the risk of falling. We are uncertain of the effect of providing bed sensor alarms on the rate of falls or risk of falling. Multifactorial interventions may reduce rate of falls, although subgroup analysis suggests this may apply mostly to a subacute setting; we are uncertain of the effect of these interventions on risk of falling.

Dementia Care Mapping in long-term care settings: a systematic review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

This systematic review identifies and reports the extent and nature of evidence to support the use of Dementia Care Mapping as an intervention in care settings.

METHODS

The review was limited to studies that used Dementia Care Mapping as an intervention and included outcomes involving either care workers and/or people living with dementia. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EBSCO, and Scopus and manually from identified articles reference lists. Studies published up to January 2017 were included. Initial screening of identified papers was based on abstracts read by one author; full-text papers were further evaluated by a second author. The quality of the identified papers was assessed independently by two authors using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A narrative synthesis of quantitative findings was conducted.

RESULTS

We identified six papers fulfilling predefined criteria. Studies consist of recent, large scale, good quality trials that had some positive impacts upon care workers' stress and burnout and benefit people with dementia in terms of agitated behaviors, neuropsychiatric symptoms, falls, and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Available research provides preliminary evidence that Dementia Care Mapping may benefit care workers and people living with dementia in care settings. Future research should build on the successful studies to date and use other outcomes to better understand the benefits of this intervention.

Person-Centered Dementia Care in the Community: A Perspective From the United Kingdom

Dementia is a global concern. Although effort is being put toward finding a cure, many advances have been made in ensuring excellence in dementia care. In the United Kingdom, the concept of person-centered dementia care has transformed what is expected for individuals with dementia. Now embraced in national policy in the United Kingdom, it was pioneered by Thomas Kitwood and Kathleen Bredin and driven by a concern for the quality of care for individuals with dementia in care homes. The purpose of the current article is to describe key concepts of Kitwood's pioneering work in person-centered dementia care and to use them to inform current community-based supports and services for individuals with dementia in their own homes, whether alone or with family carers. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, xx(x), xx-xx.].

Systematic review of the effective components of psychosocial interventions delivered by care home staff to people with dementia

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to understand what elements of psychosocial interventions are associated with improved outcomes for people with dementia to inform implementation in care homes.

DESIGN

A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative intervention studies was undertaken.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES

We included primary research studies evaluating psychosocial interventions that trained care home staff to deliver a specific intervention or that sought to change how staff delivered care to residents with dementia and reported staff and resident qualitative or quantitative outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO and EMBASE electronic databases and hand-searched references up to May 2016. Quality of included papers was rated independently by 2 authors, using operationalised checklists derived from standard criteria. We discussed discrepancies and reached consensus. We conducted a narrative synthesis of quantitative and a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings to find what was effective immediately and in sustaining change.

RESULTS

We identified 49 papers fulfilling predetermined criteria. We found a lack of higher quality quantitative evidence that effects could be sustained after psychosocial interventions finished with no evidence that interventions continued to work after 6 months. Qualitative findings suggest that staff valued interventions focusing on getting to know, understand and connect with residents with dementia. Successful elements of interventions included interactive training, post-training support, aiming to train most staff, retaining written materials afterwards and building interventions into routine care.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial interventions can improve outcomes for staff and residents with dementia in care homes; however, many trial results are limited. Synthesis of qualitative findings highlight core components of interventions that staff value and feel improve care. These findings provide useful evidence to inform the development of sustainable, effective psychosocial interventions in care homes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015017621.

Advancing aged care: a systematic review of economic evaluations of workforce structures and care processes in a residential care setting

Long-term care for older people is provided in both residential and non-residential settings, with residential settings tending to cater for individuals with higher care needs. Evidence relating to the costs and effectiveness of different workforce structures and care processes is important to facilitate the future planning of residential aged care services to promote high quality care and to enhance the quality of life of individuals living in residential care. A systematic review conducted up to December 2015 identified 19 studies containing an economic component; seven included a complete economic evaluation and 12 contained a cost analysis only. Key findings include the potential to create cost savings from a societal perspective through enhanced staffing levels and quality improvement interventions within residential aged care facilities, while integrated care models, including the integration of health disciplines and the integration between residents and care staff, were shown to have limited cost-saving potential. Six of the 19 identified studies examined dementia-specific structures and processes, in which person-centred interventions demonstrated the potential to reduce agitation and improve residents’ quality of life. Importantly, this review highlights methodological limitations in the existing evidence and an urgent need for future research to identify appropriate and meaningful outcome measures that can be used at a service planning level.

[Reinforced accommodation units and the management of patients with dementia]

Dementia is frequently associated with behavioural disorders that can be difficult to manage. In regards to these symptoms, psychoactive drugs are not very effective and have many potential side effects. In order to take care of patients with such severe disorders, specific units called "reinforced hosting units" ("UHR; Unités d'Hébergement Renforcées" in French) have been developed within long term care units. Specifically trained teams take care of these patients in specially designed settings. A French national inquiry has studied the development, the characteristics and the activity of these units in 2013 and 2012.