Search

Background: The MEETINGDEM study aims to implement and evaluate an innovative, inclusive, approach to supporting community dwelling people with mild to moderate dementia and their family carers, called the Meeting Centers Support Program (MCSP), in three countries in the European Union (EU): Italy, Poland and United Kingdom. Demonstrated benefits of this person-centered approach, developed in The Netherlands, include high user satisfaction, reduced behavioral and mood problems, delayed admission to residential care, lower levels of caregiving-related stress, higher carer competence, and improved collaboration between care and welfare organizations.Methods: The project will be carried out over a 36 month period. Project partners in the three countries will utilize, and adapt, strategies and tools developed in the Netherlands. In Phase One (month 1-18) activities will focus on establishing an initiative group of relevant organizations and user representatives in each country, exploring pathways to care and potential facilitators and barriers to implementing the program, and developing country specific implementation plans and materials. In Phase Two (month 19‑36) training will be provided to organizations and staff, after which the meeting centers will be established and evaluated for impact on behavior, mood and quality of life of people with dementia and carers, cost-effectiveness, changes in service use, user satisfaction and implementation process.Discussion: An overall evaluation will draw together findings from the three countries to develop recommendations for successful implementation of MCSP across the EU. If the Meeting Centers approach can be widely implemented, this could lead to major improvements in dementia care across Europe and beyond.Trial Registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in May 2016: trial number: NTR5936 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In the current study, the Anderson model is used to determine equitable access to dementia care in Europe. Predisposing, enabling, and need variables were investigated to find out whether there is equitable access to dementia-specific formal care services. Results can identify which specific factors should be a target to improve access., Methods: A total of 451 People with middle-stage dementia and their informal carers from eight European countries were included. At baseline, there was no use of formal care yet, but people were expected to start using formal care within the next year. Logistic regressions were carried out with one of four clusters of service use as dependent variables (home social care, home personal care, day care, admission). The independent variables (predisposing, enabling, and need variables) were added to the regression in blocks., Results: The most significant predictors for the different care clusters are disease severity, a higher sum of (un)met needs, hours spent on informal care, living alone, age, region of residence, and gender., Conclusion: The Andersen model provided for this cohort the insight that (besides need factors) the predisposing variables region of residence, gender, and age do play a role in finding access to care. In addition, it showed us that the numbers of hours spent on informal care, living alone, needs, and disease severity are also important predictors within the model's framework. Health care professionals should pay attention to these predisposing factors to ensure that they do not become barriers for those in need for care., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Training, practice, and continuing professional development in old age psychiatry varies across Europe. The aims of this study were to survey current practice and develop recommendations to begin a debate on harmonization., Methods: A survey was sent out to 38 European countries via email. The survey was sent to members of the European Association of Geriatric Psychiatry (EAGP) Board, members of the World Psychiatric Association, and key old age psychiatrists or other psychiatrists with a special interest in the area for countries where old age psychiatry was not formally a specialty., Results: Through a process of networking, we identified a key individual from each country in Europe to participate in this study, and 30 out of 38 (79%) representatives responded. Training programs and duration varied between countries. Eleven countries reported that they had geriatric psychiatry training programs and most of these required geriatric psychiatry trainees to complete mandatory training for two years within old age psychiatry. Representatives from ten countries reported having specific Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for old age psychiatrists at consultant level., Conclusion: There is a clear indication that the recognition of geriatric psychiatry as a specialist discipline in Europe is on the rise. The training procedures and processes in place vary considerably between and sometimes within countries. There are several options for harmonizing old age psychiatry training across Europe with advantages to each. However, support is required from national old age psychiatry bodies across Europe and an agreement needs to be reached on a training strategy that encompasses supervision, development, and appraisal of the knowledge and skills sets of old age psychiatrists.

Psychosocial intervention makes a vital contribution to dementia care. However, the lack of consensus about which outcome measures to use to evaluate effectiveness prevents meaningful comparisons between different studies and interventions. This study used an iterative collaborative, evidence-based approach to identify the best of currently available outcome measures for European psychosocial intervention research. This included consensus workshops, a web-based pan-European consultation and a systematic literature review and a rigorous evaluation against agreed criteria looking at utility across Europe, feasibility and psychometric properties. For people with dementia the measures covered the domains of quality of life, mood, global function, behaviour and daily living skills. Family carer domains included mood and burden, which incorporated coping with behaviour and quality of life. The only specific staff domain identified was morale, but this included satisfaction and coping with behaviour. In conclusion twenty-two measures across nine domains were recommended in order to improve the comparability of intervention studies in Europe. Areas were identified where improved outcome measures for psychosocial intervention research studies are required.