Search

Introduction: This study aimed to provide insight into the merits of DementiaNet, a network-based primary care innovation for community-dwelling dementia patients., Methods: Longitudinal mixed methods multiple case study including 13 networks of primary care professionals as cases. Data collection comprised continuously-kept logs; yearly network maturity score (range 0-24), yearly quality of care assessment (quality indicators, 0-100), and in-depth interviews., Results: Networks consisted of median nine professionals (range 5-22) covering medical, care and welfare disciplines. Their follow-up was 1-2 years. Average yearly increase was 2.03 (95%-CI:1.20-2.96) on network maturity and 8.45 (95%-CI:2.80-14.69) on quality indicator score. High primary care practice involvement and strong leadership proved essential in the transition towards more mature networks with better quality of care., Discussion: Progress towards more mature networks favored quality of care improvements. DementiaNet appeared to be effective to realize transition towards network-based care, enhance multidisciplinary collaboration, and improve quality of dementia care., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Primary healthcare professionals will increasingly be required to manage and optimise their treatment for patients with dementia. With DementiaNet, we aim to reduce the burden of dementia on healthcare services and society through implementation and facilitation of integrated network-based care with increased dementia expertise. DementiaNet is designed as a stepwise approach including clinical leadership, quality improvement cycles and interprofessional training, which are tailor-made to the local context. For example, the composition of the network and improvement goals are tailored to the local context and availability. Here, we describe the linked evaluation study which aims to provide insight in effectiveness, process and mechanism of the DementiaNet approach through an innovative evaluation design., Methods and Analysis: We designed a longitudinal, mixed methods, multiple case study. Study population consists of two levels: (i) local DementiaNet networks of primary care professionals and (ii) patients and informal caregivers who receive care from these networks. At the start and after 12 and 24 months, quantitative data are collected for each network on: level of network maturity, quality of care indicators and outcomes reported by informal caregivers of dementia patients. We assess changes in networks over time and the association with quality of care and informal caregiver-reported outcomes. Throughout the study, logs about each network are registered. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with network members and informal caregivers will provide insight in experiences and opinions regarding effects and mechanisms through which changes in quantitative outcomes are effectuated. Rich narratives will be constructed about the development of the local networks using collected data., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was reviewed by the local medical ethics committee; formal judgement was not required (protocol number: 2015-2053). The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and presentations for healthcare professionals where appropriate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Informal care is essential for many people with dementia (PwD), but it often results in a considerable burden for the caregiver. The perseverance time instrument integrates the aspect of perceived burden with the caregiver's capacity to cope with the burden, in contrast to most available instruments, which measure solely the burden of caregiving. The aim of this study was to extend insight into psychometric properties of the perseverance time instrument, specifically the construct validity, responsiveness, and predictive validity, within the population of informal caregivers for PwD., Methods: Data from two studies among informal caregivers of community-dwelling PwD in the Netherlands were used. The first study included 198 caregivers from a single region in the Netherlands and lasted 1 year. The second was a cross-sectional nationwide study with 166 caregivers for PwD. Questionnaires of both studies included questions regarding demographics and informal care, perseverance time, and other informal caregiver outcomes (Caregiver Strain Index, Self-rated Burden scale, Care-related Quality of Life instrument, and visual analogue scale health scores). Construct validity and responsiveness were assessed using a hypothesis-testing approach. The predictive validity of demographic characteristics and perseverance time for living situation after 1 year (living at home, institutionalized, or deceased) was assessed with multivariable multinomial regression., Results: All but one of the hypotheses regarding construct validity were met. Three of five hypotheses regarding responsiveness were met. Perseverance time scores at baseline were associated with living situation after 1 year (p < 0.01), unlike age, sex, and relationship with PwD. Perseverance time strongly increased predictive power for living situation after 1 year (c-index between 0.671 and 0.775) in addition to demographic characteristics., Conclusions: This study supports previous findings regarding the construct validity of the perseverance time instrument and adds new evidence of good construct validity, responsiveness, and predictive validity. The predictive power of perseverance time scores for living situation exceeds the predictive power of other burden measures and indicates informal care as an important factor for maintaining the patient at home.

Introduction: The rising incidence and policies to keep dementia patients in their own homes are increasingly putting pressure on primary care systems and budgets. The DementiaNet program stimulates development of primary care networks of medical, nursing and welfare professionals for community-dwelling dementia patients through practice facilitation. This study aimed to provide insight into the merits and drawbacks of this program, mechanisms and which contextual factors influenced them. Methods: In this longitudinal mixed methods multiple case study, primary care professionals with shared caseloads of dementia patients, were enrolled to form networks in the DementiaNet program. Data collection consisted of continuously kept logs, yearly structured interviews to rate the network maturity score (range 0-24), yearly quality of care assessment through a sum score of quality indicators (range 0-100), and in-depth interviews regarding experiences and perceived effects. Quantitative data were analyzed through mixed models; qualitative data with thematic analysis. Results were integrated by combined interpretation. Results: Thirteen networks were successfully initiated in the program, consisting of a median of 9 professionals. Overall, the networks showed an average yearly increase of 2.03 (95% CI 1.20-2.96) on network maturity and 8.45 (95% CI 2.80-14.69) on quality indicator sum scores. Mixed methods interpretation revealed patterns regarding network and contextual factors enabling the transition towards more mature networks and better quality of care. Discussion: Time trends in network maturity and quality of care indicators showed overall improvements. Several enabling factors for the transition to network-based care were identified including strong and adequate leadership (preferably with leaders from primary care practice), high involvement of motivated primary care physicians, high acquaintanceship with other network members, and network seize with a compact network that operates in a relatively small geographical area. Conclusions: Participation in the DementiaNet program was associated with increased network maturity and subsequent beneficial effects on quality of care. Adaptation towards a more mature network seemed to favour quality of care improvements. Lesson learned: The multiple case study design demonstrated its value in the evaluation of DementiaNet as example of a complex health care innovation by incorporating interactions and contextual dependency. Limitations: The main limitation of the study was the limited follow-up. The DementiaNet approach demands considerable changes in behaviour and practice from large numbers of actors; such adaptations require time and will be different per network. Indeed, networks work different in speed of change and improvement goals. Nonetheless, these initial results show improvements even over one and two year timeframes. Suggestions for future research: A succeeding study will be initiated to ensure longer followup of existing networks, while simultaneously expanding the number of networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To assess the feasibility and validity of the International Dementia Alliance ( IDEAL) instrument for Informal Caregivers ( IDEAL- IC), which is based on the IDEAL instrument for professionals ( IDEAL-P), for staging individuals with dementia. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Memory clinic of a university hospital. Participants Informal caregivers of 73 community-dwelling elderly adults referred to a memory clinic and six geriatric registrars. Measurements Caregivers completed the IDEAL- IC; physicians completed the original IDEAL-P and the Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes ( CDR- SB). Missing items and floor and ceiling effects were reviewed to assess feasibility. To test construct validity, a priori hypotheses were defined for expected correlations between IDEAL- IC, IDEAL-P, and CDR- SB scores. Results Seventy-three IDEAL- IC instruments were completed, 86% of which had no missing items. Three percent of all 730 individual items were missing. No floor or ceiling effects were detected. CDR scores were 0 7%, 0.5 in 33%, 1 in 27%, 2 in 10%, and unknown in 23%. IDEAL- IC scores correlated highly with IDEAL-P scores (correlation coefficient ( r) = 0.70) and with CDR- SB scores ( r = 0.65) as expected; the difference between these two correlations was smaller than expected. Agreement between IDEAL- IC and IDEAL-P scores was 34% within a range of 1 point difference on 36-point scales, 57% within a range of two points, and 81% within a range of five points. Correlation between IDEAL-P and CDR- SB was very high ( r = 0.85). Conclusion Results of this study indicate good feasibility and high validity of staging dementia by informal caregivers using the IDEAL- IC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rearrangements are needed in primary care because of aging populations, the increased prevalence of dementia and increasing costs of health care. With DementiaNet, we aim to enhance primary care via integrated network-based care. We focus on structural collaboration from healthcare professionals from medical, care and social domains, and increased dementia expertise. Here, we describe our evaluation study on the DementiaNet innovation to provide insight in the merits and drawbacks of the DementiaNet innovation. Methods: The evaluation study is a longitudinal, mixed methods, multiple case study. The study population consists of two levels: (i) local DementiaNet networks of primary care professionals, and (ii) dyads of dementia patients and their informal caregivers who receive care from DementiaNet networks. At the start of participation and after 12 and 24 months, quantitative data is collected in each network on the maturity of the network, quality of care indicators, and outcomes reported by informal caregivers. Additionally, qualitative data is collected via in-depth interviews with professionals in the networks and dyads of patients and informal caregivers which provide insight in experiences and opinions regarding effects of the DementiaNet approach and the mechanism through which changes in quantitative outcomes are effectuated. Results: This study is currently ongoing with 17 networks included. Preliminary results of the first five networks show stable or improved quality of care and mostly positive experience with the DementiaNet approach. Analysis of quantitative data at 12 months (n=12) and at 24 months (n=5) will show time trends of these networks regarding their quality of care scores and association with informal caregiver-reported outcomes. Additionally, qualitative results from the interviews will be available. Discussion: This study will show whether the DementiaNet innovation leads to improved quality of dementia care and if this is associated with informal caregiver-reported outcomes, through an innovative study design that is designed to capture the complexity. Furthermore, it will provide insight in how this approach is perceived by primary care professionals. This evaluation study adds to the evidence-base of integrated health care, taken from a complex systems perspective. Conclusion: To conclude, this evaluation study will provide insight in the merits and drawbacks, facilitators and barriers, and improvement opportunities of the DementiaNet approach for integrated dementia care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Collaborative primary care is needed to meet the complex needs of individuals with dementia and their informal caregivers. In the Netherlands, shortcomings of current dementia care still exists, including ad hoc based collaboration, lack of feedback on quality to professionals involved, and incomplete implementation of established multidisciplinary guidelines. We developed and implemented DementiaNet, an integrated care approach in primary care that aims to reduce the burden of the disease on individuals, health care services, and society. DementiaNet is network-based care which stimulates collaboration, enhances knowledge and skills and encourages quality improvement cycles. We applied a bottom up and tailor made approach and supported local primary care networks in the Netherlands to implement 5 core processes: network based care, clinical leadership, quality improvement cycles, inter professional practice based training, and communication support tools. A two year leadership support program for network leaders was an important part of the intervention and our study included a one group pre-test-posttest design using Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI-self and LPI-observer; score 30 to 300) to investigate the network leaders performance. Results: Currently, 17 local networks are formed and 22 clinical leaders developed leadership collaborative competencies (2 General Practitioners (GPs), 11 Community Nurses (CNs), 3 Practice Nurses, 4 Dementia care case managers and 2 Occupational Therapists). The networks vary on membership, quality of care and strength of collaboration due to local circumstances. Activities and goals of each networks vary as well, ranging from getting to know each other in person, improving on dementia care knowledge to introducing shared care plans. Poor communication between GPs and CNs, hindered implementation, as well as lacking management's support and poor financial arrangements. The leadership program helped clinical leaders to facilitate network collaboration and stimulate improvement of dementia care as a joint effort. Discussion: Networked care is difficult to accomplish because many complex factors have to be taken into account. Although leadership is often expressed as an important prerequisite for implementing collaborative care models, clinical leaders are not often explicitly supported in executing their leadership role. Conclusion: Results show that clinical practice varies and the DementiaNet approach can lead to quality improvement and stronger collaboration with medical and nursing professionals in leadership roles. Collaborative leadership has to be actively supported and empowered, as professionals are not automatically qualified to execute this leading role in an collaborative network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]