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: As both epilepsy and challenging behaviour are highly prevalent in adults with intellectual disability (ID) it is important to explore any potential relationships between the two to inform patient care. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between epilepsy factors and challenging behaviour in adults with ID. Method: The sample was drawn from a clinical trial cohort (n = 246), with all participants displaying challenging behaviour across the range of ID. We described sociodemographic and clinical status (seizure types, seizure frequency and drug burden) in 70 participants with epilepsy (EP). We investigated differences in and predictors of challenging behaviour and mental ill-health, measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community and the Mini Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with Developmental Disabilities respectively, between participants with and without epilepsy (NEP). Results: More male participants were identified with epilepsy (EP = 76% and NEP = 61%, p = 0.026) and the EP group had lower adaptive behaviour scores than their NEP counterparts (Mean (SD) EP = 44.4 (24.1), NEP = 51.7 (25.0), p = 0.04). EP participants showed significantly less lethargy as measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community than NEP participants (Mean (SD) EP = 11.9 (7.4) and NEP = 15.1 (9.9); t-test p = 0.02). Younger age and poorer adaptive functioning were associated with challenging behaviour (beta=-0.520, p < 0.001 and beta=-0.30, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: These findings indicate that epilepsy does not appear to be associated with challenging behaviour in adults with ID. Therefore, while management of epilepsy is very important in a clinical context, it is essential that professionals should further elucidate reasons for the presentation of such behaviours in order to provide timely and targeted interventions.

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: The Resident Choice Assessment Scale (RCAS) is used to assess choice availability for adults with intellectual disabilities (ID). The aim of the study was to explore the factor structure, construct validity, and internal consistency of the measure in community settings to further validate this tool. Method: 108 paid carers of adults with ID living in supported accommodation and residential care facilities in urban, rural, and semirural areas in England completed the RCAS. Exploratory factor analyses were performed and the construct validity and internal consistency of the emerging factors were assessed. Results: Principal axis factoring with oblique rotations suggested a scale with two factors (Everyday Choices and Participation in Household Activities) which explained 45% of the variance; the factors showed favorable construct validity as they identified significant differences between those living in residential care homes compared with supported living; the factors also differentiated between people with different levels of intellectual impairment with less choice and participation in domestic activities for those with more severe ID compared to their counterparts with moderate and mild impairment. Five items did not load onto any factor, suggesting that these could be dropped from the scale when administered in community settings, thus resulting in an 18-item measure (RCAS-18). Conclusion: The RCAS-18 may provide a useful measure to assess choice availability for people with ID supported by paid carers in the community. The revised measure may be more suitable in capturing choice than the original version for use in community samples.

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]