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]

Background: Prognostic information is important for patients with cancer, their families, and clinicians. In practice, survival predictions are made by clinicians based on their experience, judgement, and intuition. Previous studies have reported that clinicians' survival predictions are often inaccurate. This study reports a secondary analysis of data from the Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2) to assess the accuracy of survival estimates made by doctors and nurses. Methods and findings: Adult patients (n = 1833) with incurable, locally advanced or metastatic cancer, recently referred to palliative care services (community teams, hospital teams, and inpatient palliative care units) were recruited. Doctors (n = 431) and nurses (n = 777) provided independent prognostic predictions and an agreed multi-professional prediction for each patient. Clinicians provided prognostic estimates in several formats including predictions about length of survival and probability of surviving to certain time points. There was a minimum follow up of three months or until death (whichever was sooner; maximum follow-up 783 days). Agreed multi-professional predictions about whether patients would survive for days, weeks or months+ were accurate on 61.9% of occasions. The positive predictive value of clinicians' predictions about imminent death (within one week) was 77% for doctors and 79% for nurses. The sensitivity of these predictions was low (37% and 35% respectively). Specific predictions about how many weeks patients would survive were not very accurate but showed good discrimination (patients estimated to survive for shorted periods had worse outcomes). The accuracy of clinicians' probabilistic predictions (assessed using Brier's scores) was consistently better than chance, improved with proximity to death and showed good discrimination between groups of patients with different survival outcomes. Conclusions: Using a variety of different approaches, this study found that clinicians predictions of survival show good discrimination and accuracy, regardless of whether the predictions are about how long or how likely patients are to survive. Accuracy improves with proximity to death. Although the positive predictive value of estimates of imminent death are relatively high, the sensitivity of such predictions is relatively low. Despite limitations, the clinical prediction of survival should remain the benchmark against which any innovations in prognostication are judged. Study registration: ISRCTN13688211. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13688211. [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]

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. 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. 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. NIDUS-Family was feasible and acceptable to participants. Following refinements, testing in a pragmatic trial is underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) is a widely used intervention for ameliorating challenging behaviour (CB), evidence for its use in adults with intellectual disability (ID) and comorbid autism (ASD) is lacking. We report a planned subsidiary analysis of adults with both ASD and ID who participated in a randomised trial of PBS delivered by health professionals. Methods: The study was a multicentre, cluster randomised trial conducted in 23 community ID services in England, participants were randomly allocated to either the delivery of PBS (n = 11 clusters) or to treatment as usual (TAU; n = 12). One-hundred and thirteen participants (46% of all participants in the trial) had a diagnosis of ID, autism spectrum disorder and CB (ASD+); (47 allocated to the intervention arm, and 66 to the control). CB (primary outcome) was measured with the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist total score (ABC-CT). Secondary outcomes included mental health status, psychotropic medication use, health and social care costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 12 months. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in ABC-CT between ASD+ groups randomised to the two arms over 12 months (adjusted mean difference = − 2.10, 95% CI: − 11.3 7.13, p = 0.655) or other measures. The mean incremental cost of the intervention per participant was £628 (95% CI -£1004 to £2013). There was a difference of 0.039 (95% CI − 0.028 to 0.103) for QALYs and a cost per QALY gained of £16,080. Conclusions: Results suggest lack of clinical effectiveness for PBS delivered by specialist ID clinical teams. Further evidence is needed from larger trials, and development of improved interventions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01680276. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]