Search

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]

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]

Objectives: Many family carers of a person with dementia experience pre‐death grief. We aimed to identify strategies that help carers manage pre‐death grief. We hypothesised that emotion and problem focussed styles would be associated with lower, and dysfunctional coping with higher grief intensity. Methods: Mixed methods observational study using structured and semi‐structured interviews with 150 family carers of people with dementia living at home or in a care home. Most participants were female (77%), caring for a parent (48%) or partner/spouse (47%) with mild (25%), moderate (43%) or severe (32%) dementia. They completed the Marwit‐Meuser Caregiver Grief Inventory Short Form and the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief‐COPE) questionnaire. We asked carers to identify strategies used for managing grief. We recorded field notes for 150 interviews and audio‐recorded additional interviews with a sub‐sample of 16 participants. Results: Correlations indicated that emotion‐oriented coping was associated with lower grief (R = −0.341), and dysfunctional coping with higher grief (R = 0.435), with a small association with problem‐focused strategies (R = −0.109), partly supporting our hypothesis. Our qualitative themes broadly match the three Brief‐COPE styles. Unhelpful strategies of denial and avoidance align with dysfunctional coping strategies. Psychological strategies (including acceptance and humour) and seeking support were consistent with emotion‐focused strategies, but we did not identify a theme relating to problem‐focused strategies. Conclusion: Most carers identified multiple strategies for processing grief. Carers could readily identify supports and services that they found helpful for managing pre‐death grief, yet current services appear under‐resourced to meet growing demand. [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]

Multiple primary outcomes are sometimes collected and analysed in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and are used in favour of a single outcome. By collecting multiple primary outcomes, it is possible to fully evaluate the effect that an intervention has for a given disease process. A simple approach to analysing multiple outcomes is to consider each outcome separately, however, this approach does not account for any pairwise correlations between the outcomes. Any cases with missing values must be ignored, unless an additional imputation step is performed. Alternatively, multivariate methods that explicitly model the pairwise correlations between the outcomes may be more efficient when some of the outcomes have missing values. In this paper, we present an overview of relevant methods that can be used to analyse multiple outcome measures in RCTs, including methods based on multivariate multilevel (MM) models. We perform simulation studies to evaluate the bias in the estimates of the intervention effects and the power of detecting true intervention effects observed when using selected methods. Different simulation scenarios were constructed by varying the number of outcomes, the type of outcomes, the degree of correlations between the outcomes and the proportions and mechanisms of missing data. We compare multivariate methods to univariate methods with and without multiple imputation. When there are strong correlations between the outcome measures (ρ >.4), our simulation studies suggest that there are small power gains when using the MM model when compared to analysing the outcome measures separately. In contrast, when there are weak correlations (ρ <.4), the power is reduced when using univariate methods with multiple imputation when compared to analysing the outcome measures separately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand the feasibility of recruiting people with advanced cancer into a randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs a standardised talking control (TC) and delivering ACT to this population; to explore the acceptability of outcome measures and generate normative data.Methods: This was a feasibility two-arm randomised controlled trial. Participants were attendees with advanced cancer at one of three hospice-based day-therapy units in London, United Kingdom, who demonstrated low scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G). The primary end point was 3 months.Results: The recruitment target was 54 participants; 42 people were recruited and randomised to up to eight individual sessions of ACT (n = 20) or TC (n = 22). Eighteen out of 42 (43%) of participants completed the primary outcome at 3 months, and at least one follow-up was available in 30/42 (71%) participants. An exploratory analysis revealed a non-significant adjusted mean difference after 3 months in the main outcome FACT-G of -3.41 (CI = -18.61-11.79) with TC having better functioning. Over 6 months, the adjusted mean difference between trial arms was 2.25 (CI = -6.03-10.52) in favour of ACT.Conclusions: It is feasible to recruit people with advanced cancer in a trial of ACT versus TC. Future research should test the effectiveness of ACT in a fully powered trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore global changes in the prescription of analgesic drugs over time in the international long‐term care (LTC) population. Design: Systematic review. Setting: We included original research articles in English, published and unpublished, that included number of participants, country and year(s) of data collection, and prescription of analgesics (analgesics not otherwise specified, opioids, acetaminophen; scheduled only, or scheduled plus as needed (PRN)). Participants: LTC residents. Measurements: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, using keywords for LTC facilities and analgesic medication; hand‐searched references of eligible papers; correspondence. Studies were quality rated using an adapted Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Pearson correlation coefficients were generated between percentage of residents prescribed an analgesic and year of data collection. If available, we investigated changes in acetaminophen and opioid prescriptions. Results: Forty studies met inclusion criteria. A moderate correlation (0.59) suggested that scheduled prescription rates for analgesics have increased over time. Similar findings were reflected in scheduled prescriptions for acetaminophen and opioids. No increase was seen when analyzing scheduled plus PRN analgesics. Use of opioids (scheduled plus PRN) appears to have increased over time. Conclusion: Worldwide, use of opioids and acetaminophen has increased in LTC residents. Research is needed to explore whether this reflects appropriate pain management for LTC residents and if PRN medication is used effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI; (Cohen-Mansfield and Kerin, 1986)) is a well-known tool for assessing agitated behaviours in people with dementia who reside in long-term care. No studies have evaluated the psychometric qualities and factor structure of the CMAI in acute general hospitals, a setting where people with demand may become agitated.Method: Longitudinal study investigating pain, agitation and behavioural problems in 230 people with dementia admitted to acute general hospitals in 2011-2012. Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory was completed as part of a battery of assessments including PAINAD to measure pain.Results: A nine-item two-factor model of aggressive and nonaggressive behaviours proved to be the best-fitting measurement model in this sample, (χ2  = 96.3, df = 26, p<0.001; BIC [Bayesian Information Criterion] = 4593.06, CFI [Comparative Fit Index] = 0.884, TLI [Tucker Lewis Index] = 0.839, RMSEA [Root Mean Square Error of the Approximation] = 0.108). Although similar to the original factor structure, the new model resulted in the elimination of item 13 (screaming). Validity was confirmed with the shortened CMAI showing similar associations with pain as the original version of the CMAI, in particular the link between aggressive behaviours and pain.Conclusion: The factor structure of the CMAI was broadly consistent with the original solution although a large number of items were removed. Scales reflecting physical and verbal aggression were combined to form an Aggressive factor, and physical and verbal nonaggressive behaviours were combined to form the Nonaggressive factor. A shorter, more concise version of the CMAI was developed for use in acute general hospital settings. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]