Search

Abstract Background Living with a life-limiting illness, people with dementia benefit from palliative care which considers the holistic needs of the person and their family. However, little is known about how palliative care may be best provided to people living with dementia at home in the community. We examined four exemplary dementia palliative care services for people with dementia in the community, to see what activities they were providing, what were the commonalities and differences, and what lessons could be learned. Methods A long-list of dementia palliative care services in Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales, was identified through a survey, and four exemplar services were chosen based on criteria including: in operation >six months; provides identifiable activities; availability of routinely collected service data; not exclusively for people with dementia in final hours or days of life. Mixed-methods of data collection included interviews, focus-groups and surveys with service staff, surveys of service users, and routinely collected service data. The RE-AIM framework was used to describe and understand the sample of dementia palliative care services. Results The four services had varied organisational structures and were led by different disciplines. However, they all provided common core activities including holistic and person-centred care, early advance care planning with service user involvement, carer support, integrated healthcare services, continuity of care, 24/7 support, bereavement support. All had needs-based referral criteria, accepting any age or dementia sub-type. All supported people with dementia to remain living at home and to have a comfortable, dignified death in their preferred place. Conclusions An effective dementia palliative care service may take different forms. Whether the service is dementia-led or Specialist Palliative Care-led, efficacy is associated with providing a range of key activities and implementing them effectively. The data collected strongly suggests the benefits of the dementia palliative care services to a person with dementia and their families and offers valuable insight into the key factors for the establishment and successful running of such services.

Abstract Background Blogging can help to maximise the impact of one’s work in academia and beyond by making research findings accessible for multiple knowledge users, such as healthcare professionals and the public, as well as other researchers. As part of the knowledge exchange and dissemination activities of the Model for Dementia Palliative Care Project, this study explored stakeholders’ views of blogs as a means to translate research findings. Methods A web-based survey was developed, piloted, and revised. It was distributed electronically via key dementia and palliative care organisations websites, newsletters, social media platforms, and within the staff mailing lists of five Universities in Ireland. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results Complete responses were received from 128 participants. The majority of respondents were healthcare researchers (n = 53), followed by healthcare providers (n = 46). The preferred methods of reviewing research findings were scientific papers, websites and news articles. Respondents read healthcare blogs “sometimes” (39.1%), with

Abstract Background Palliative care is identified internationally as a priority for efficacious dementia care. Research into “effective models” of palliative care for people with dementia has been recommended by several European countries. To build an effective service-delivery model we must gain an understanding of existing models used in similar settings. The study aim is to identify core components of extant models of palliative care for people with dementia, and their families, who are living at home in the community. Methods A scoping review was employed. The search strategy was devised to identify all peer-reviewed research papers relating to the above aim. This process was iterative, and the search strategy was refined as evidence emerged and was reviewed. All types of study designs and both quantitative and qualitative studies of non-pharmacological interventions were considered for inclusion. Results The search identified 2,754 unique citations, of which 18 papers were deemed eligible for inclusion. Although a palliative care approach is recommended from early in the disease process, most evidence involves end-of-life care or advanced dementia and pertains to residential care. The majority of the research reviewed focused on the effects of advance care planning, and end-of-life care; specialist palliative care input, and/or generalist palliative care provided by dementia services to enable people to remain at home and to reduce costs of care. Community staff training in palliative care appeared to improve engagement with Specialist Palliative Care teams. Integration of dementia and palliative care services was found to improve care received for people with dementia and their carers. Conclusions While the evidence for integration of dementia and palliative care services is promising, further high-quality research is necessary particularly to identify the key components of palliative care for people living with dementia. This is imperative to enable people with dementia to inform their own care, to stay living at home for as long as possible, and, where appropriate, to die at home.

Abstract Background Worldwide, millions of people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers are experiencing physical and psychological distress. Psychosocial support and education can reduce distress and prevent avoidable healthcare resource use. To date, we lack knowledge from large-scale studies on which interventions generate positive outcomes for people with cancer and their informal caregivers’ quality of life. This protocol describes the DIAdIC study that will evaluate the effectiveness of two psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at improving patient-family caregiver dyads’ emotional functioning and self-efficacy. Methods We will conduct an international multicenter three-arm randomized controlled trial in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each country, 156 dyads (936 in total) of people with advanced cancer and their family caregiver will be randomized to one of the study arms: 1) a nurse-led face-to-face intervention (FOCUS+), 2) a web-based intervention (iFOCUS) or 3) a control group (care as usual). The two interventions offer tailored psychoeducational support for patient-family caregiver dyads. The nurse-led face-to-face intervention consists of two home visits and one online video session and the web-based intervention is completed independently by the patient-family caregiver dyad in four online sessions. The interventions are based on the FOCUS intervention, developed in the USA, that addresses five core components: family involvement, optimistic outlook, coping effectiveness, uncertainty reduction, and symptom management. The FOCUS intervention will be adapted to the European context. The primary outcomes are emotional functioning and self-efficacy of the patient and the family caregiver, respectively. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, benefits of illness, coping, dyadic communication, and ways of giving support of the patient and family caregiver. Discussion DIAdIC aims to develop cost-effective interventions that integrate principles of early palliative care into standard care. The cross-country setup in six European countries allows for comparison of effectiveness of the interventions in different healthcare systems across Europe. By focusing on empowerment of the person with cancer and their family caregiver, the results of this RCT can contribute to the search for cost-effective novel interventions that can relieve constraints on professional healthcare. Trial registration Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov on 12/11/2020, identifier NCT04626349 . Date and version identifier 20211209_DIAdIC_Protocol_Article.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to explore expert professionals’ opinions on service provision to children under six with life-limiting neurodevelopmental disabilities (LLNDD), including the goals of care and the integration and coordination of palliative care in general and specialist services. Methods A Delphi design was used with three questionnaire rounds, one open-ended and two closed response rounds. Primary data collected over a six-month period from expert professionals with five years’ (or more) experience in pediatric, intellectual disability and/or palliative care settings. Ratings of agreement and prioritization were provided with agreement expressed as a median (threshold = 80%) and consensus reported as interquartile ranges. Stability was measured using non-parametric tests. Results Primary goals of care were achievement of best possible quality of life, effective communication and symptom management. Service integration and coordination were considered inadequate, and respondents agreed that areas of deficiency included palliative care. Improvement strategies included a single care plan, improved communication and key worker appointments. Conclusions The findings suggest that services do not serve this group well with deficiencies in care compounded by a lack of information on available services and sub-optimal communication between settings. Further research is needed to develop an expert-based consensus regarding the care of children with LLNDD.

Abstract Background The self-management of osteoarthritis (OA) and low back pain (LBP) through activity and skills (SOLAS) theory-driven group-based complex intervention was developed primarily for the evaluation of its acceptability to patients and physiotherapists and the feasibility of trial procedures, to inform the potential for a definitive trial. Methods This assessor-blinded multicentre two-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial compared the SOLAS intervention to usual individual physiotherapy (UP; pragmatic control group). Patients with OA of the hip, knee, lumbar spine and/or chronic LBP were recruited in primary care physiotherapy clinics (i.e. clusters) in Dublin, Ireland, between September 2014 and November 2015. The primary feasibility objectives were evaluated using quantitative methods and individual telephone interviews with purposive samples of participants and physiotherapists. A range of secondary outcomes were collected at baseline, 6 weeks (behaviour change only), 2 months and 6 months to explore the preliminary effects of the intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat according to participants’ cluster allocation and involved descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews. A linear mixed model was used to contrast change over time in participant secondary outcomes between treatment arms, while adjusting for study waves and clusters. Results Fourteen clusters were recruited (7 per trial arm), each cluster participated in two waves of recruitment, with the average cluster size below the target of six participants (intervention: mean (SD) = 4.92 (1.31), range 2–7; UP: mean (SD) = 5.08 (2.43), range 1–9). One hundred twenty participants (83.3% of n = 144 expected) were recruited (intervention n = 59; UP n = 61), with follow-up data obtained from 80.8% (n = 97) at 6 weeks, 84.2% (n = 101) at 2 months and 71.7% (n = 86) at 6 months. Most participants received treatment as allocated (intervention n = 49; UP n = 54). The qualitative interviews (12 participants; 10 physiotherapists (PTs) found the intervention and trial procedures acceptable and appropriate, with minimal feasible adaptations required. Linear mixed methods showed improvements in most secondary outcomes at 2 and 6 months with small between-group effects. Conclusions While the SOLAS intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants and PTs, the recruitment of enough participants is the biggest obstacle to a definitive trial. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN49875385 . Registered on 26 March 2014.

Abstract Background Dementia is the most common neurological disorder worldwide and is a life-limiting condition, but very often is not recognised as such. People with dementia, and their carers, have been shown to have palliative care needs equal in extent to those of cancer patients. However, many people with advanced dementia are not routinely being assessed to determine their palliative care needs, and it is not clear why this is so. Main body An interdisciplinary workshop on “Palliative Care in Neurodegeneration, with a focus on Dementia”, was held in Cork, Ireland, in May 2016. The key aim of this workshop was to discuss the evidence base for palliative care for people with dementia, to identify ‘gaps’ for clinical research, and to make recommendations for interdisciplinary research practice. To lead the discussion throughout the day a multidisciplinary panel of expert speakers were brought together, including both researchers and clinicians from across Ireland and the UK. Targeted invitations were sent to attendees ensuring all key stakeholders were present to contribute to discussions. In total, 49 experts representing 17 different academic and practice settings, attended. Key topics for discussion were pre-selected based on previously identified research priorities (e.g. James Lind Alliance) and stakeholder input. Key discussion topics included: i. Advance Care Planning for people with Dementia; ii. Personhood in End-of-life Dementia care; iii. Topics in the care of advanced dementia at home. These topics were used as a starting point, and the ethos of the workshop was that the attendees could stimulate discussion and debate in any relevant area, not just the key topics, summarised under iv. Other priorities. Conclusions The care experienced by people with dementia and their families has the potential to be improved; palliative care frameworks may have much to offer in this endeavour. However, a solid evidence base is required to translate palliative care into practice in the context of dementia. This paper presents suggested research priorities as a starting point to build this evidence base. An interdisciplinary approach to research and priority setting is essential to develop actionable knowledge in this area.