Search

IntroductionMost people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes, and are supported to do so by family carers and homecare workers. There are concerns that homecare is often unable to meet the needs of this client group, with limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve it for people living with dementia. We have developed a training and support programme for homecare workers (NIDUS-Professional) to be delivered alongside support sessions for people living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). We aim to assess (1) its acceptability among homecare workers and employing agencies, and (2) the feasibility of homecare workers, people living with dementia and their family carers completing the outcomes of intervention in a future randomised controlled trial.Methods and analysisThis is a cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, multisite feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 60-90 homecare workers, 30-60 clients living with dementia and their family carers through 6-9 English homecare agencies. In the intervention arm, homecare staff will be offered six group sessions on video call over three months, followed by monthly group sessions over the subsequent three-month period. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and at six months.Ethics and disseminationThe study received ethical approval on 7 January 2020 from the Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee. Study reference: 19/LO/1667. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentation and blog to research and clinical audiences; we will attend forums to present findings to participating homecare agencies and their clients.Trial registration numberISRCTN15757555.

Background: Acute hospital wards can be difficult places for many people living with dementia. Promoting comfort and wellbeing can be challenging in this environment. There is little evidence‐based support for professionals working on acute care wards on how to respond to distress and maximise comfort and wellbeing among patients living with dementia. Objectives: Our overall aim was to codesign an evidence‐based easy‐to‐use heuristic decision‐support framework, which was acceptable and practical but acknowledges the complex and acute nature of caring for patients with dementia in the hospital. This paper presents the development process and resulting framework. Methods: A codesign study was informed by data from (1) a literature review of the care and management of people living with dementia in acute hospitals; (2) a cohort study of comfort and discomfort in people with dementia in acute hospitals; and (3) interviews with family carers and health care professionals. We synthesised evidence from these data sources and presented to key stakeholders through codesign meetings and workshops to produce our decision‐support framework. Results: The framework consists of a series of flowcharts and operates using a three‐stage process of: (1) assess comfort/discomfort; (2) consider causes of discomfort; and (3) address patient needs to manage the discomfort. Conclusion: Working with key stakeholders, synthesising diverse quantitative and qualitative evidence to build a clinical framework is a feasible approach to help address the needs of patients living with dementia in an acute hospital setting. The result is a framework which is now ready for evaluation and implementation. Patient and Public Contribution: We worked closely with people living with dementia and family carers throughout this study, including the development of the study protocol with input on study development and design, through to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and codesign of the decision support framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There has been global investment of new ways of working to support workforce pressures, including investment in clinical pharmacists working in primary care by the NHS in the England. Clinical pharmacists are well suited to support older adults who have multiple long-term conditions and are on multiple medications. It is important to establish an evidence base for the role of clinical pharmacists in supporting older adults in primary care, to inform strategic and research priorities. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, map and describe existing research and policy/guidance on the role of clinical pharmacists in primary care supporting older adults, and the models of care they provide. Methods and analysis: A scoping review guided by the Joanne Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, using a three-step strategy. We will search Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, PSYCHInfo, and Cochrane for English language articles, from 2015 –present day. Grey literature will be searched using Grey Matters guidelines, the Index of Grey Literature and Alternative Sources and Resources, and Google keyword searching. References of all included sources will be hand searched to identify further resources. Using the Population, Concept and Context framework for inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles will be independently screened by two reviewers. The inclusion and exclusion criteria will be refined after we become familiar with the search results, following the iterative nature of a scoping review. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool using Microsoft Excel and presented using a narrative synthesis approach. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Review findings will be disseminated in academic conferences and used to inform subsequent qualitative research. Findings will be published and shared with relevant local and national organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A second opinion or a prognostic algorithm may increase prognostic accuracy. This study assessed the level to which clinicians integrate advice perceived to be coming from another clinician or a prognostic algorithm into their prognostic estimates, and how participant characteristics and nature of advice received affect this. Methods: An online double‐blind randomised controlled trial was conducted. Palliative doctors, nurses and other types of healthcare professionals were randomised into study arms differing by perceived source of advice (algorithm or another clinician). In fact, the advice was the same in both arms (emanating from the PiPS‐B14 prognostic model). Each participant reviewed five patient summaries. For each summary, participants: (1) provided an initial probability estimate of two‐week survival (0% 'certain death'—100% 'certain survival'); (2) received advice (another estimate); (3) provided a final estimate. Weight of Advice (WOA) was calculated for each summary (0 '100% advice discounting' – 1 '0% discounting') and multilevel linear regression analyses were conducted. Clinical trial registration number: NCT04568629. Results: A total of 283 clinicians were included in the analysis. Clinicians integrated advice from the algorithm more than advice from another clinician (WOA difference = −0.12 [95% CI ‐0.18, −0.07], p < 0.001). There was no interaction between study arm and participant profession, years of palliative care or overall experience. Advice of intermediate strength (75%) was given a lower WOA (0.31) than advice received at either the 50% (WOA 0.40) or 90% level (WOA 0.43). The overall interaction between strength of advice and study arm on WOA was significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Clinicians adjusted their prognostic estimates more when advice was perceived to come from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician. Research is needed to understand how clinicians make prognostic decisions and how algorithms are used in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. Aim: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. Design: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]–100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. Setting/participants: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. Results: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). Conclusions: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oral health problems increase with age, and are common in nursing home residents, especially in those with dementia. These problems can lead to tooth loss, diminished oral function and malnutrition. Objectives: To compare oral function, nutritional status and quality of life (QoL) between residents with and without dementia, and to examine associations between these variables. Methods: Cross‐sectional study conducted in four UK nursing homes. Residents aged 65 + with and without dementia were included. Information was collected on demographics, dental status, quality of swallowing and chewing, xerostomia and orofacial pain. During oral examination, information was collected on number of teeth and occlusal units (OU), and functional categories (eg, OU combined with dentures). Multiple linear regression was used for statistical analysis. Results: Of 84 residents with and 27 without dementia participated. Residents with dementia had significantly fewer teeth (Dementia median (IQR) = 14 (6‐21), vs No dementia 22 (12.75‐24.25); P =.021), fewer OU (Dementia median (IQR) = 0 (0‐3), vs No dementia 4 (0‐7); P =.001) and poorer functional categories (Z = −3.283; P =.001), and nutritional status was significantly poorer than those without (Dementia Mean (SD) = 8.3 (2.7), vs No dementia 10.4 (2.0); P =.002). In the regression model, quality of chewing (Coef (95% CI) = −1.27 (−2.22, −0.31); P =.010) was significantly correlated with nutritional status. Conclusion: Oral function and nutritional status of residents with dementia was poorer than those without. Almost half of all residents had insufficient oral function, which was negatively associated with QoL and nutritional status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To (1) describe the prescription and administration of regular and 'as required' (pro re nata [PRN]) analgesics in English care homes, (2) investigate individual and care home factors associated with analgesic use. Methods: We collected data (2014–2016) at 0‐, 4‐, and 12‐months nested in a longitudinal cohort study of 86 English care homes about residents with diagnosed or probable dementia. We describe analgesics prescribed as regular or PRN medication, by class, and PRN administration. We explored individual differences (sociodemographic; dementia severity [Clinical Dementia Rating]), and care home differences (type; ownership; number of beds; dementia‐registered/specialist; Care Quality Commission rating) in prescription and administration using multilevel regression models. Results: Data were available for 1483 residents. At baseline, 967 residents (67.9%) were prescribed analgesics: 426 residents (28.7%) prescribed regular analgesics and 670 (45.2%) prescribed PRN. Paracetamol was the most prescribed analgesic (56.7%), with PRN prescriptions more common than regular (39.7% vs. 16.6%). Across all study visits, 344 residents (mean = 41.9%) with a PRN prescription did not receive any analgesic in the 2 weeks prior to data collection. Male residents and those with severe dementia received fewer analgesics. Care homes differences in PRN administration were not explained by the modelled variables. Conclusions: Pain management in English care homes largely relies on PRN paracetamol that is frequently prescribed but infrequently administered. Care homes differ in how often they administer PRN analgesics. Some care home residents particularly those with more severe dementia are likely to have untreated pain. Key points: English care home residents with dementia are frequently prescribed pro re nata (PRN) analgesics but these are infrequently administered.Some groups of residents (male, more severe dementia) receive fewer analgesics and may be at risk of undertreatment for pain.Before prescribing pain relief, clinicians need to consider the risk that PRN analgesics may not be administered.Pragmatic pain management guidelines specifically for care home residents with dementia and improving medication documentation may optimise analgesic use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-Family, a 6–8 session manualised, individually tailored, modular intervention supporting independence at home for people with dementia; and explore participants' and facilitators' experiences of the intervention. In this single group multi-site feasibility study, trained, supervised non-clinically qualified graduates (facilitators) delivered NIDUS-Family to family carer and people living with dementia dyads. We recruited participants from GP practices and memory services in London and Bradford. We completed quantitative outcomes pre- and post-intervention; and conducted qualitative interviews with participants and facilitators. Our pre-specified main outcomes were proportion of potential participants approached who agreed to participate, intervention adherence and acceptability to family carers, and facilitator fidelity to the manual. We recruited 16 dyads (57% of those approached); 12 (75%) completed the intervention. Of 12 participants rating intervention acceptability, 9 (75%) agreed or strongly agreed that it had helped; 2 (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed and 1 (8%) disagreed. Mean facilitator fidelity was high (81.5%). Dyads set on average 3.9 goals; these most commonly related to getting out and about and increasing activity/hobby participation (n = 10); carer wellbeing (n = 6), managing physical complaints (n = 6); meal preparation/cooking (n = 5); and reducing irritability, frustration or aggression (n = 5). Almost all secondary outcomes changed in a direction indicating improvement. In our qualitative analysis we identified three overarching themes; relationships facilitate change, goal-focused versus manualised approach and balancing the needs of carers and people with dementia. NIDUS-Family was feasible and acceptable to participants. Following refinements, testing in a pragmatic trial is underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This correction notice is for an article titled "Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial." The correction states that the 9th author's name is Victoria Vickerstaff, not Jessica Vickerstaff, and their affiliation is the "Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK" instead of the "Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK" as originally published. The original article has been corrected. The authors of the article are Alexandra Burton, Penny Rapaport, Marina Palomo, Kathryn Lord, Jessica Budgett, Julie Barber, Rachael Hunter, Laurie Butler, Victoria Vickerstaff, Kenneth Rockwood, Margaret Ogden, Debs Smith, Iain Lang, Gill Livingston, Briony Dow, Helen Kales, Jill Manthorpe, Kate Walters, Juanita Hoe, Vasiliki Orgeta, Quincy Samus, and Claudia Cooper. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: As populations age globally, there is an increasing prevalence of dementia, with an estimated 153 million living with dementia by 2050. Up to 70% of people with dementia experience dementia-related psychosis (D-RP). Antipsychotic medications are associated with many adverse effects in older people. This review aims to evaluate the evidence of non-pharmacological interventions in managing D-RP., Method: The search of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane included randomised controlled trials that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions. Data extraction and assessment of quality were assessed independently by two researchers. Heterogenous interventions were pooled using meta-analysis., Results: A total of 18 articles (n = 2040 participants) were included and categorised into: sensory-, activity-, cognitive- and multi-component-orientated. Meta-analyses showed no significant impact in reducing hallucinations or delusions but person-centred care, cognitive rehabilitation, music therapy, and robot pets showed promise in single studies., Conclusions and Implications: Future interventions should be developed and evaluated with a specific focus on D-RP as this was not the aim for many of the included articles., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (LiGHT) Trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) compared to topical hypotensive medication as 1 st -line therapy for ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma. This sub-study explores the impact of pre-treatment (baseline) intraocular pressure (IOP) on treatment response for SLT and medication., Design: Post hoc analysis of randomised control trial data., Participants: 1146 eyes from 662 patients were included in this analysis: 559 eyes in the SLT group and 587 in the medication group., Methods: IOP reduction at 8 weeks following treatment with either SLT or prostaglandin analogue (PGA) eye drop initiation was assessed at different levels of baseline IOP, and the groups were compared. Differences in absolute and percentage IOP lowering between SLT and PGA medication were tested with a linear mixed effects model. Differences in the probability of achieving ≥20% IOP lowering between SLT and PGA medication, at different levels of baseline IOP, was estimated using a logistic mixed effects model., Main Outcome Measure: IOP lowering response to SLT versus PGA eye drops., Results: Mean IOP was not significantly different between the groups, at baseline or 8 weeks following treatment initiation. Both treatments showed greater IOP lowering at higher baseline IOP and less IOP lowering at lower baseline IOP. SLT tended to achieve more IOP lowering than PGA drops at higher baseline IOP. PGA drops performed better at lower baseline IOP, and the difference compared to SLT, in terms of percentage IOP reduction, was significant at baseline IOP ≤ 17 mmHg. There was a significant difference in the relationship between baseline IOP and probability of ≥20% IOP lowering between the two treatments (p = 0.01), with SLT being more successful than PGA at baseline IOP > 22.51 mmHg., Conclusions: These data confirm previous reports of greater IOP lowering with higher baseline IOP for both SLT and topical hypotensive medication. In treatment naïve eyes, at higher baseline IOP, SLT was more successful at achieving ≥20% IOP lowering than PGA drops. At lower baseline IOP, a statistically greater percentage, but not absolute, IOP lowering was seen with PGA drops compared to SLT, although the clinical significance of this is uncertain., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)