Search

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.)

Background: Although national guidelines recommend that everyone with dementia receives personalised post-diagnostic support, few do. Unlike previous interventions that improved personalised outcomes in people with dementia, the NIDUS-Family intervention is fully manualised and deliverable by trained and supervised, non-clinical facilitators. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family in supporting the attainment of personalised goals set by people with dementia and their carers., Methods: We did a two-arm, single-masked, multi-site, randomised, clinical trial recruiting patient-carer dyads from community settings. We randomly assigned dyads to either home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family or goal setting and routine care (control). Randomisation was blocked and stratified by site (2:1; intervention to control), with allocations assigned via a remote web-based system. NIDUS-Family is tailored to goals set by dyads by selecting modules involving behavioural interventions, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills, enablement, and environmental adaptations. The intervention involved six to eight video-call or telephone sessions (or in person when COVID-19-related restrictions allowed) over 6 months, then telephone follow-ups every 2-3 months for 6 months. The primary outcome was carer-rated goal attainment scaling (GAS) score at 12 months. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11425138., Findings: Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2021, we assessed 1083 potential dyads for eligibility, 781 (72·1%) of whom were excluded. Of 302 eligible dyads, we randomly assigned 98 (32·4%) to the control group and 204 (67·5%) to the intervention group. The mean age of participants with dementia was 79·9 years (SD 8·2), 169 (56%) were women, and 133 (44%) were men. 247 (82%) dyads completed the primary outcome, which favoured the intervention (mean GAS score at 12 months 58·7 [SD 13·0; n=163] vs 49·0 [14·1; n=84]; adjusted difference in means 10·23 [95% CI 5·75-14·71]; p<0·001). 31 (15·2%) participants in the intervention group and 14 (14·3%) in the control group experienced serious adverse events., Interpretation: To our knowledge, NIDUS-Family is the first readily scalable intervention for people with dementia and their family carers that improves attainment of personalised goals. We therefore recommend that it be implemented in health and care services., Funding: UK Alzheimer's Society., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KR reports personal fees (primarily for invited guest lectures, rounds, and academic symposia on frailty) from the Burnaby Division Family Practice, McMaster University, Chinese Medical Association, Wake Forest University Medical School Centre (advisory board member), University of Omaha, the Atria Institute, EPI Pharma (data safety monitoring board advisory board member), and Ardea Outcomes, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03332979)., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Most 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 Analysis: This 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 Dissemination: The 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 Number: ISRCTN15757555., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Advance care planning in dementia does not always happen. As dementia progresses, decisions are often left for family carers to make with professionals., Aim: To test the feasibility and acceptability of the delivery and use of a decision aid for family carers of people with severe dementia or towards the end-of-life., Design: Feasibility study using a before-after design of a paper-based decision aid with family carers of people with severe dementia or towards the end-of-life. Criteria for whether to progress to full evaluation included achieving: 70% recruitment rate of target of 30 people, and retention of 70% at 6 months. Outcome measures at baseline, 3 and 6 months, included: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), EQ5D-5L and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life (SWC-EOLD)., Participants: Twenty-eight family carers were recruited (93% of target), 26 completed baseline assessment and 20 (71%) of those were followed-up at 6 months., Results: Almost all outcomes changed indicating improvement over 6 months. The DCS and K10 scores decreased indicating less decisional conflict and less psychological distress. The decision aid was acceptable, 25% found it very helpful and 55% a little helpful at 6 months., Conclusion: We met the success criteria demonstrating this study was feasible and acceptable to carers. Future research should test the effectiveness of the decision aid in a full scale evaluation.

Background: Dementia is a life limiting disease following a progressive trajectory. As carers often become key decision makers, their knowledge of dementia will have health implications for the person living with dementia as well as carer's psychological wellbeing., Aim: To explore how sociodemographic factors, health literacy and dementia experience influence family carers knowledge about dementia., Method: In this cross-sectional, mixed methods study, we interviewed 150 family carers and assessed their dementia knowledge using the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS). Linear regression analyses were used to examine whether health literacy, previous experiences of dementia, support group attendance and sociodemographic characteristics predicted knowledge. Sixteen carers also completed qualitative interviews which explored unmet information needs. Transcripts and field notes were thematically analysed., Results: Most participants were partners (47%) or adult children (48%) and cared for someone with severe (32%) or moderate (43%) dementia. Mean DKAS scores were 34.8/50 (SD = 7.0, range = 17-48) reflecting 8/25 incorrect answers. Backwards elimination regression found greater dementia knowledge was associated with greater health literacy for appraising information (coef 3.48, 95% CI (1.38, 5.58); p = 0.001) and more years of education (coef 0.39, 95% CI (0.12, 0.65); p = 0.004). Although not significant, knowledge was slightly lower in those who attended a support group, and a trend was found between ability to understand health information and knowledge. Only 39% accurately identified dementia as life shortening, indicating notable gaps in knowledge. Four qualitative themes were identified; arm yourself with information, ability to steer through information, other experience of dementia can be helpful and the importance of relationships with health care professionals., Conclusions: In an information age, vast amounts of information are available, but this can bring difficulties. Carers with more years of education and higher health literacy knew more about dementia. Professionals should consider how carers with lower health literacy can be supported through provision of timely, relevant information.

Background: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months., Methods: A randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator., Discussion: Increasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. Gerodontology published by Gerodontology Association and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study., Main Results: We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence).  Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: 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., Method: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: NIDUS-Family was feasible and acceptable to participants. Following refinements, testing in a pragmatic trial is underway.

Objectives: determine and compare the prevalence of orofacial pain in older nursing home residents with and without dementia and explore the association between orofacial pain and health factors., Methods: cross-sectional study conducted in four UK nursing homes. We used the Orofacial-Pain Scale for Non-Verbal Individuals (OPS-NVI) to identify orofacial pain in residents with dementia. Residents who were able to communicate self-reported orofacial pain. A brief oral examination was conducted. Information on demographics, Clinical Dementia Rating, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory, Barthel Index, 5-level Euroqol 5 Dimension, Oral Health Impact Profile 14, Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form and medication was collected. Chi-squared tests, independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare outcomes between groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of orofacial pain., Results: orofacial pain, assessed with the OPS-NVI, was present in 48.8% (95% confidence interval [C.I.] 36.1-50.7) of residents with dementia. Self-reported orofacial pain was present in 37.8% (95% C.I. 20.4-53.7) of residents with dementia and in 14.8% (95% C.I. 0.5-30.4) residents without dementia. Orofacial pain was significantly more prevalent in residents with dementia than those without (OPS-NVI; P = 0.002, self-report; P = 0.04). Having a soft diet, xerostomia, being dentate, and poor oral hygiene in dentate residents were significant predictors of orofacial pain in residents with dementia., Conclusion: orofacial pain was more prevalent in residents with dementia. Oral health care should be part of routine care for residents, especially for those with dementia, to improve oral health and decrease the risk of developing orofacial pain., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: We aimed to critically evaluate decision aids developed for practitioners and caregivers when providing care for someone with dementia or for use by people with dementia themselves. Decision aids may be videos, booklets, or web-based tools that explicitly state the decision, provide information about the decision, and summarize options along with associated benefits and harms. This helps guide the decision maker through clarifying the values they place on the benefits or harms of the options., Design: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature in electronic databases (CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO) in March 2018. Reference lists were searched for relevant papers and citations tracked. Data were synthesized with meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Papers were included if they met the following criteria: 1) the focus of the paper was on the evaluation of a decision aid; 2) the decision aid was used in dementia care; and 3) the decision aid was aimed at professionals, people with dementia, or caregivers., Results: We identified 3618 studies, and 10 studies were included, covering three topics across six decision aids: 1) support with eating/feeding options, 2) place of care, and 3) goals of care. The mode of delivery and format of the decision aids varied and included paper-based, video-based, and audio-based decision aids. The decision aids were shown to be effective, increasing knowledge and the quality of communication. The meta-analysis demonstrated that decisions are effective in reducing decisional conflict among caregivers (standardized mean difference = -0.50, 95% confidence interval [ - 0.97, - 0.02])., Conclusion: Decision aids offer a promising approach for providing support for decision-making in dementia care. People are often faced with more than one decision, and decisions are often interrelated. The decision aids identified in this review focus on single topics. There is a need for decision aids that cover multiple topics in one aid to reflect this complexity and better support caregivers.

Aims: To assess the validity of the resting and chewing components of the recently developed observational diagnostic tool, the Orofacial Pain Scale for Non-Verbal Individuals (OPS-NVI)., Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was carried out in two UK hospitals. A total of 56 participants with dementia who were admitted to the acute hospital were observed for 3 minutes during rest and during chewing, and the OPS-NVI was used to identify orofacial pain. Afterwards, the participants were asked about the presence of orofacial pain using self-report pain scales. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of the OPS-NVI were calculated for each activity. Spearman coefficient was calculated to assess the correlation between the number of positively scored behavior items of the OPS-NVI and the presence of orofacial pain according to self-report., Results: According to the OPS-NVI, orofacial pain was present in 5.4% of participants during rest and in 9.1% during chewing. According to self-report, the prevalence of orofacial pain was 5.4% during rest and 10.7% during chewing. The specificity of the OPS-NVI was 98.1% to 100%, the sensitivity was 66.7% to 83.3%, and the AUROC was 0.824 to 0.917. The predictive validity showed a strong correlation (0.633 to 0.930, P < .001) between the number of positive behavior items and the self-reported presence of orofacial pain., Conclusion: The resting and chewing components of the OPS-NVI showed promising concurrent and predictive validity. Nevertheless, further validation is required and highly recommended.

Background: Pain and delirium are common in people with dementia admitted to hospitals. These are often under-diagnosed and under-treated. Pain is implicated as a cause of delirium but this association has not been investigated in this setting., Objective: To investigate the relationship between pain and delirium in people with dementia, on admission and throughout a hospital admission., Design: Exploratory secondary analysis of observational prospective longitudinal cohort data., Setting: Two acute hospitals in the UK., Methodology: Two-hundred and thirty participants aged ≥70 years were assessed for dementia severity, delirium ((Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD)) scale and prescription of analgesics. Logistic and linear regressions explored the relationship between pain and delirium using cross-sectional data., Results: Pain at rest developed in 49%, and pain during activity for 26% of participants during their inpatient stay. Incident delirium developed in 15%, of participants, and 42% remained delirious for at least two assessments. Of the 35% of participants who were delirious and unable to self-report pain, 33% of these participants experienced pain at rest, and 56 experienced pain during activity. The odds of being delirious were 3.26 times higher in participants experiencing pain at rest (95% Confidence Interval 1.03-10.25, P = 0.044)., Conclusion: An association between pain at rest and delirium was found, suggesting pain may be a risk factor for delirium. Since pain and delirium were found to persist and develop during an inpatient stay, regular pain and delirium assessments are required to manage pain and delirium effectively.

Background: Orofacial pain in people with dementia is difficult to detect, and often under-treated. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of orofacial pain in people with dementia in acute hospitals in the UK. Secondary aims were to examine oral health status and explore associations between orofacial pain and oral health factors., Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was carried out in two UK hospitals. Using the Orofacial Pain Scale in Non-Verbal Individuals (OPS-NVI) to identify orofacial pain, 101 participants with dementia, admitted to acute medical wards, were observed for at least 3 min during rest and chewing. Verbal participants were then asked about presence of orofacial pain, using self-report pain scales. Finally, a brief oral assessment was performed., Results: Orofacial pain, assessed with the OPS-NVI, was present in 11.9% (95% C.I. 5.9, 18.8) of participants at rest and 21.9% (95% C.I. 14.6, 31.3) whilst chewing. Participants who were no longer able to self-report pain were significantly more likely to experience orofacial pain. Oral health in both dentate and edentate participants was poor. Brush frequency, indication of chewing quality, consistency of the food, presence of extra-oral abnormalities, person who performed mouth care, and oral hygiene in dentate participants were significant predictors for the presence of orofacial pain., Conclusion: Improving oral care in acute hospital patients with dementia, particularly those who cannot self-report pain, may significantly reduce pain and suffering in this population.

Background: Increasing number of people are dying with advanced dementia. Comfort and quality of life are key goals of care., Aims: To describe (1) physical and psychological symptoms, (2) health and social care service utilisation and (3) care at end of life in people with advanced dementia., Design: 9-month prospective cohort study., Setting and Participants: Greater London, England, people with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Scale 6e and above) from 14 nursing homes or their own homes., Main Outcome Measures: At study entry and monthly: prescriptions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pressure sore risk/severity (Waterlow Scale/Stirling Scale, respectively), acute medical events, pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), quality of life (Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia Scale), resource use (Resource Utilization in Dementia Questionnaire and Client Services Receipt Inventory), presence/type of advance care plans, interventions, mortality, place of death and comfort (Symptom Management at End of Life in Dementia Scale)., Results: Of 159 potential participants, 85 were recruited (62% alive at end of follow-up). Pain (11% at rest, 61% on movement) and significant agitation (54%) were common and persistent. Aspiration, dyspnoea, septicaemia and pneumonia were more frequent in those who died. In total, 76% had 'do not resuscitate' statements, less than 40% advance care plans. Most received primary care visits, there was little input from geriatrics or mental health but contact with emergency paramedics was common., Conclusion: People with advanced dementia lived with distressing symptoms. Service provision was not tailored to their needs. Longitudinal multidisciplinary input could optimise symptom control and quality of life.

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, (χ 2  = 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., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Many people with dementia die in nursing homes, but quality of care may be suboptimal. We developed the theory-driven 'Compassion Intervention' to enhance end-of-life care in advanced dementia., Objectives: To (1) understand how the Intervention operated in nursing homes in different health economies; (2) collect preliminary outcome data and costs of an interdisciplinary care leader (ICL) to facilitate the Intervention; (3) check the Intervention caused no harm., Design: A naturalistic feasibility study of Intervention implementation for 6 months., Settings: Two nursing homes in northern London, UK., Participants: Thirty residents with advanced dementia were assessed of whom nine were recruited for data collection; four of these residents' family members were interviewed. Twenty-eight nursing home and external healthcare professionals participated in interviews at 7 (n=19), 11 (n=19) and 15 months (n=10)., Intervention: An ICL led two core Intervention components: (1) integrated, interdisciplinary assessment and care; (2) education and support for paid and family carers., Data Collected: Process and outcome data were collected. Symptoms were recorded monthly for recruited residents. Semistructured interviews were conducted at 7, 11 and 15 months with nursing home staff and external healthcare professionals and at 7 months with family carers. ICL hours were costed using Department of Health and Health Education England tariffs., Results: Contextual differences were identified between sites: nursing home 2 had lower involvement with external healthcare services. Core components were implemented at both sites but multidisciplinary meetings were only established in nursing home 1. The Intervention prompted improvements in advance care planning, pain management and person-centred care; we observed no harm. Six-month ICL costs were £18 255., Conclusions: Implementation was feasible to differing degrees across sites, dependent on context. Our data inform future testing to identify the Intervention's effectiveness in improving end-of-life care in advanced dementia., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02840318: Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors had no competing interests, (© 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: Many studies have examined the mental health of carers of people with dementia. Few have examined their experiences in the advanced stages of disease and into bereavement. We aimed to understand the experiences of carers during advanced dementia exploring the links between mental health and experiences of end of life care., Methods: Mixed methods longitudinal cohort study. Thirty-five family carers of people with advanced dementia (6 at home, 29 in care homes) were recruited and assessed monthly for up to nine months or until the person with dementia died, then at two and seven months into bereavement. Assessments included: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Short Form 12 health-related quality of life, 22-item Zarit Burden Interview, Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced, Inventory of Complicated Grief and Satisfaction with Care at End of Life in Dementia. Subsequently, 12 carers (34%) were bereaved and 12 undertook a qualitative interview two months after death; these data were analysed thematically. We analysed quantitative and qualitative data independently and then merged findings at the point of interpretation., Results: At study entry psychological distress was high; 26% reached caseness for depression and 41% for anxiety and median complicated grief scores were 27 [IQR 22-37] indicating that on average 11 of the 16 grief symptoms occurred at least monthly. Physical health reflected population norms (mean = 50) and median burden scores were 17 [IQR 9-30]. Three qualitative themes were identified: the importance of relationships with care services, understanding of the progression of dementia, and emotional responses to advanced dementia. An overarching theme tying these together was the carer's ability to control and influence end of life care., Conclusions: While carers report high levels of psychological distress during advanced dementia, the experience of end of life care in dementia may be amenable to change with the provision of sensitive and timely information about the natural progression of dementia. Regular health status updates and end of life discussions can help families understand dementia progression and prepare for end of life. The extent to which our findings reflect practice across the UK or internationally warrants further investigation.

Background: There are concerns about the quality of care that people with dementia receive in the general hospital. Staff report a lack of confidence and inadequate training in dementia care., Methods: A train-the-trainer model was implemented across eight acute hospital trusts in London via a large academic health and science network. Impact was evaluated using mixed methods. Data were collected at (a) individual level: "Sense of Competence in Dementia Care" (SCID), (b) ward level: Person Interaction and Environment (PIE) observations, (c) organization level: use of specific tools, i.e. "This Is Me," (d) systems level: numbers and types of staff trained per trust. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics and paired t-test with thematic framework analysis for PIE observations., Results: The number of staff trained per trust ranged from 67 to 650 (total 2,020). A total of 1,688 (85%) baseline questionnaires and 456 (27%) three month follow-up questionnaires were completed. Mean SCID score was 43.2 at baseline and 50.7 at follow-up (paired t-test, p < 0.001). All sub-scales showed a small increase in competence, the largest being for "building relationships." Organizational level data suggested increased use of carer's passport, "This Is Me" documentation, dementia information leaflets, delirium screening scales, and pathways. PIE observations demonstrated improved staff-patient interactions but little change in hospital environments., Conclusions: There was a significant improvement in staffs' sense of competence in dementia care and the quality of interactions with patients. More hospitals adopted person-centered tools and pathways. Work is required to investigate if these changes improve hospital outcomes for people with dementia.

Background and Aims: When a person with dementia (PWD) has lost the ability to make treatment decisions, clinicians often rely on family carers to know and articulate these preferences with assumed accuracy. This study used the Life Support Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ) to explore whether family carers' choices show agreement with the end of life care preferences of the person with dementia for whom they care and what factors influence this., Methods: A cross-sectional study interviewing 60 dyads (a person with early dementia and preserved capacity and their family carer) each completing a modified LSPQ. We assessed how closely carers' choices resembled the PWD's preferences for treatment in three proposed health states: the here and now; severe stroke with coma; terminal cancer. Agreement between the PWD and their family carer responses was assessed using Kappa and Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) statistics. We examined whether carer burden and distress, and relationship quality, influenced agreement., Results: In interviews PWD were able to indicate their treatment preferences across all three scenarios. In the here-and-now most wanted antibiotics (98%), fewer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (50%) and tube feeding (47%). In severe stroke and coma antibiotics remained the more preferred treatment (88%), followed by CPR (57%) and tube feeding (30%). In advanced cancer PWD expressed lower preferences for all treatments (antibiotics 68%; CPR 50%; tube feeding 37%). Carers' choices were similar to the PWDs' preferences in the here-and-now (71% (k = 0.03; PABAK = 0.4) with less agreement for future hypothetical health states. In severe stroke and coma carers tended wrongly to suggest that the PWD preferred more intervention (antibiotic, 67%; k = -0.022; PABAK = -0.60; CPR, 73%; k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.20, tube feeding, 66%; k = 0.25; PABAK = -0.12). In advanced cancer the agreement between PWD and carers was low (antibiotics; k = -0.03; PABAK = -0.52; CPR, k = -0.07; PABAK = -0.45; tube feeding; k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.22). However, both PWD and carers showed marked uncertainty about their preferences for end of life treatment choices. Relationship quality, carer distress and burden had no influence on agreement., Conclusions: This study is the first to have used the LSPQ with PWD in the UK to consider treatment options in hypothetical illness scenarios. Key finding are that family carers had a low to moderate agreement with PWD on preferences for end of life treatment. This underscores how planning for care at the end of life is beset with uncertainty, even when the carer and PWD perceive the care-giving/receiving relationship is good. Families affected by dementia may benefit from early and ongoing practical and emotional support to prepare for potential changes and aid decision making in the context of the realities of care towards the end of life.

Background: The prevalence of dementia is rising worldwide and many people will die with the disease. Symptoms towards the end of life may be inadequately managed and informal and professional carers poorly supported. There are few evidence-based interventions to improve end-of-life care in advanced dementia., Aim: To develop an integrated, whole systems, evidence-based intervention that is pragmatic and feasible to improve end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia and support those close to them., Design: A realist-based approach in which qualitative and quantitative data assisted the development of statements. These were incorporated into the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to achieve consensus on intervention components. Components were mapped to underlying theory of whole systems change and the intervention described in a detailed manual., Setting/participants: Data were collected from people with dementia, carers and health and social care professionals in England, from expert opinion and existing literature. Professional stakeholders in all four countries of the United Kingdom contributed to the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method process., Results: A total of 29 statements were agreed and mapped to individual, group, organisational and economic/political levels of healthcare systems. The resulting main intervention components are as follows: (1) influencing local service organisation through facilitation of integrated multi-disciplinary care, (2) providing training and support for formal and informal carers and (3) influencing local healthcare commissioning and priorities of service providers., Conclusion: Use of in-depth data, consensus methods and theoretical understanding of the intervention components produced an evidence-based intervention for further testing in end-of-life care in advanced dementia., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: Globally, the number of people who die with dementia is increasing. The importance of a palliative approach in the care of people with dementia is recognised and there are national polices to enhance current care. In the UK implementation of these polices is promoted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Dementia Quality Standards (QS). Since publication of the QS new care interventions have been developed., Aim: To explore critically the current international research evidence on effect available to inform NICE Dementia QS relevant to end of life (EOL) care., Design: We used systematic review methods to seek the research evidence for three statements within the Dementia QS. These are those that recommend: (1) a case management approach, (2) discussing and consideration of making a statement about future care (SFC) and (3) a palliative care assessment (PCA). We included evaluative studies of relevant interventions that used a comparative design, such as trials and cohort studies, and measured EOL care outcomes for persons dying with moderate to severe dementia. Our primary outcome of interest was whether the intervention led to a measurable impact on wellbeing for the person with dementia and their family. We assessed included studies for quality using a scale by Higginson and colleagues (2002) for assessment of quality of studies in palliative care, and two authors undertook key review processes. Data sources included Cinahl, Embase, and PsychINFO from 2001 to August 2014. Our search strategy included free text and medical subject headings relevant to population and recommended care., Results: We found seven studies evaluating a care intervention; four assessed SFC, three PCA. None assessed case management. Studies were of weak design; all used retrospective data and relied on others for precise record keeping and for accurate recall of events. There was limited overlap in outcome measurements. Overall reported benefits were mixed., Conclusions: Quality statements relevant to EOL care are useful to advance practice however they have a limited evidence base. High quality empirical work is needed to establish that the recommendations in these statements are best practice.

Pain is underdetected and undertreated in people with dementia. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of pain in people with dementia admitted to general hospitals and explore the association between pain and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 230 people, aged above 70, with dementia and unplanned medical admissions to 2 UK hospitals. Participants were assessed at baseline and every 4 days for self-reported pain (yes/no question and FACES scale) and observed pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scale [PAINAD]) at movement and at rest, for agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitating Inventory [CMAI]) and BPSD (Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer Disease Scale [BEHAVE-AD]). On admission, 27% of participants self-reported pain rising to 39% on at least 1 occasion during admission. Half of them were able to complete the FACES scale, this proportion decreasing with more severe dementia. Using the PAINAD, 19% had pain at rest and 57% had pain on movement on at least 1 occasion (in 16%, this was persistent throughout the admission). In controlled analyses, pain was not associated with CMAI scores but was strongly associated with total BEHAVE-AD scores, both when pain was assessed on movement (β = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07-0.32, P = 0.002) and at rest (β = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14-0.69, P = 0.003). The association was the strongest for aggression and anxiety. Pain was common in people with dementia admitted to the acute hospital and associated with BPSD. Improved pain management may reduce distressing behaviours and improve the quality of hospital care for people with dementia.

Introduction: In the UK approximately 700,000 people are living with, and a third of people aged over 65 will die with, dementia. People with dementia may receive poor quality care towards the end of life. We applied a realist approach and used mixed methods to develop a complex intervention to improve care for people with advanced dementia and their family carers. Consensus on intervention content was achieved using the RAND UCLA appropriateness method and mapped to sociological theories of process and impact. Core components are: (1) facilitation of integrated care, (2) education, training and support, (3) investment from commissioners and care providers. We present the protocol for an exploratory phase I study to implement components 1 and 2 in order to understand how the intervention operates in practice and to assess feasibility and acceptability., Methods and Analysis: An 'Interdisciplinary Care Leader (ICL)' will work within two care homes, alongside staff and associated professionals to facilitate service integration, encourage structured needs assessment, develop the use of personal and advance care plans and support staff training. We will use qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data for a range of outcome and process measures to detect effects on individual residents, family carers, care home staff, the intervention team, the interdisciplinary team and wider systems. Analysis will include descriptive statistics summarising process and care home level data, individual demographic and clinical characteristics and data on symptom burden, clinical events and quality of care. Qualitative data will be explored using thematic analysis. Findings will inform a future phase II trial., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was granted (REC reference 14/LO/0370). We shall publish findings at conferences, in peer-reviewed journals, on the Marie Curie Cancer Care website and prepare reports for dissemination by organisations involved with end-of-life care and dementia., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

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]

Objectives: Family caregivers of people with dementia can experience loss and grief before death. We hypothesized that modifiable factors indicating preparation for end of life are associated with lower pre-death grief in caregivers.Design: Cross-sectional.Setting: Caregivers of people with dementia living at home or in a care home.Participants: In total, 150 caregivers, 77% female, mean age 63.0 (SD = 12.1). Participants cared for people with mild (25%), moderate (43%), or severe dementia (32%).Measurements: Primary outcome: Marwit-Meuser Caregiver Grief Inventory Short Form (MMCGI-SF). We included five factors reflecting preparation for end of life: (1) knowledge of dementia, (2) social support, (3) feeling supported by healthcare providers, (4) formalized end of life documents, and (5) end-of-life discussions with the person with dementia. We used multiple regression to assess associations between pre-death grief and preparation for end of life while controlling for confounders. We repeated this analysis with MMCGI-SF subscales ("personal sacrifice burden"; "heartfelt sadness"; "worry and felt isolation").Results: Only one hypothesized factor (reduced social support) was strongly associated with higher grief intensity along with the confounders of female gender, spouse, or adult child relationship type and reduced relationship closeness. In exploratory analyses of MMCGI-SF subscales, one additional hypothesized factor was statistically significant; higher dementia knowledge was associated with lower "heartfelt sadness."Conclusion: We found limited support for our hypothesis. Future research may benefit from exploring strategies for enhancing caregivers' social support and networks as well as the effectiveness of educational interventions about the progression of dementia (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03332979). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives determine and compare the prevalence of orofacial pain in older nursing home residents with and without dementia and explore the association between orofacial pain and health factors. Methods cross-sectional study conducted in four UK nursing homes. We used the Orofacial-Pain Scale for Non-Verbal Individuals (OPS-NVI) to identify orofacial pain in residents with dementia. Residents who were able to communicate self-reported orofacial pain. A brief oral examination was conducted. Information on demographics, Clinical Dementia Rating, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory, Barthel Index, 5-level Euroqol 5 Dimension, Oral Health Impact Profile 14, Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form and medication was collected. Chi-squared tests, independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare outcomes between groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of orofacial pain. Results orofacial pain, assessed with the OPS-NVI, was present in 48.8% (95% confidence interval [C.I.] 36.1–50.7) of residents with dementia. Self-reported orofacial pain was present in 37.8% (95% C.I. 20.4–53.7) of residents with dementia and in 14.8% (95% C.I. 0.5–30.4) residents without dementia. Orofacial pain was significantly more prevalent in residents with dementia than those without (OPS-NVI; P  = 0.002, self-report; P  = 0.04). Having a soft diet, xerostomia, being dentate, and poor oral hygiene in dentate residents were significant predictors of orofacial pain in residents with dementia. Conclusion orofacial pain was more prevalent in residents with dementia. Oral health care should be part of routine care for residents, especially for those with dementia, to improve oral health and decrease the risk of developing orofacial pain. [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]