Search

Objectives:Psychotropic drugs are frequently and sometimes inappropriately used for the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia, despite their limited efficacy and side effects. Interventions to address neuropsychiatric symptoms and psychotropic drug use are multifactorial and often multidisciplinary. Suboptimal implementation of these complex interventions often limits their effectiveness. This systematic review provides an overview of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of complex interventions targeting neuropsychiatric symptoms and psychotropic drug use in long-term care.Design:To identify relevant studies, the following electronic databases were searched between 28 May and 4 June: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and CINAHL. Two reviewers systematically reviewed the literature, and the quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. The frequency of barriers and facilitators was addressed, followed by deductive thematic analysis describing their positive of negative influence. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data synthesis.Results:Fifteen studies were included, using mostly a combination of intervention types and care programs, as well as different implementation strategies. Key factors to successful implementation included strong leadership and support of champions. Also, communication and coordination between disciplines, management support, sufficient resources, and culture (e.g. openness to change) influenced implementation positively. Barriers related mostly to unstable organizations, such as renovations to facility, changes toward self-directed teams, high staff turnover, and perceived work and time pressures.Conclusions:Implementation is complex and needs to be tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of the organization in question. Champions should be carefully chosen, and the application of learned actions and knowledge into practice is expected to further improve implementation.

Objectives:Nursing home residents with dementia are sensitive to detrimental auditory environments. This paper presents the first literature review of empirical research investigating (1) the (perceived) intensity and sources of sounds in nursing homes, and (2) the influence of sounds on health of residents with dementia and staff.Design:A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Study quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used a narrative approach to present the results.Results:We included 35 studies. Nine studies investigated sound intensity and reported high noise intensity with an average of 55–68 dB(A) (during daytime). In four studies about sound sources, human voices and electronic devices were the most dominant sources. Five cross-sectional studies focused on music interventions and reported positives effects on agitated behaviors. Four randomized controlled trials tested noise reduction as part of an intervention. In two studies, high-intensity sounds were associated with decreased nighttime sleep and increased agitation. The third study found an association between music and less agitation compared to other stimuli. The fourth study did not find an effect of noise on agitation. Two studies reported that a noisy environment had negative effects on staff.Conclusions:The need for appropriate auditory environments that are responsive to residents’ cognitive abilities and functioning is not yet recognized widely. Future research needs to place greater emphasis on intervention-based and longitudinal study design.

The most severe COVID-19 infections and highest mortality rates are seen among long-term care residents. To reduce the risk of infection, physical distancing is important. This study investigates what physical distancing measures were discussed by COVID-19 outbreak teams of Dutch long-term care organizations and what challenges they encountered. The COVID-19 MINUTES study is a qualitative multi-center study (n = 41) that collected minutes of COVID-19 outbreak teams from March 2020 to October 2021. Textual units about distancing measures were selected and analyzed using manifest content analysis for the first wave: early March–early May 2020; the intermediate period of 2020: mid-May–mid-September 2020; and the second wave: late September 2020–mid-June 2021. During all periods, COVID-19 outbreak teams often discussed distancing visitors from residents. Moreover, during the first wave they often discussed isolation measures, during the intermediate period they often discussed distancing staff and volunteers from residents, and during both the intermediate period and the second wave they often discussed distancing among residents. During all periods, less often admission measures were discussed. Challenges persisted and included unrest among and conflicts between visitors and staff, visitors violating measures, resident non-adherence to measures, and staffing issues. The discussed distancing measures and corresponding challenges may guide local long-term care and (inter)national policymakers during the further course of the COVID-19 pandemic, outbreaks of other infectious diseases, and long-term care innovations.

Introduction Group music therapy (GMT) represents a promising person-centered approach facilitating emotional and social interaction and alleviating behavioral and psychological symptoms in people with dementia. The aim of this study is to produce a consensus statement that can inform provision of and research on person-centered group music therapy (GMT) for persons with dementia. Method We used a Delphi consensus procedure of two iterations in which music therapists rated their agreement with predefined statements about descriptions of GMT in structured questionnaires. Music therapists from eight countries (Austria, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and UK) participated in the Delphi iterations. Results In the first iteration 57 music therapists participated and 34 in the second iteration. Consensus was reached on 75 out of 91 statements covering five themes: (1) People who can benefit from GMT, (2) Short and long-term goals, (3) Therapy frame & Assessment (4) Therapeutic approaches within GMT and (5) Therapists’ qualities and attitudes. Discussion This consensus statement provides therapists and researchers with practical information to which music therapists agree on an international level. It may serve as a foundation for developing more extensive and in-depth guidelines and fidelity measures. The statements underlinethat the music therapist must adapt therapy to the needs and wishes of persons with dementia, which can be seen in the consensus statements about group size, group dynamics, distractions and interruptions during the therapy. publishedVersion

COVID-19 posed enormous challenges for nursing home staff, which may have caused stress and mental health problems. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of mental health problems among nursing home staff and investigate the differences in job demands, work functioning and mental health between staff with and without COVID contact or COVID infection and across different levels of COVID worries. In this cross-sectional study, 1669 employees from 10 nursing home organizations filled in an online questionnaire between June and September 2020. The questionnaire measured the participants’ characteristics, COVID contact, infection and worries, job demands, work functioning, depressive symptoms and burnout. Differences were investigated with multilevel models to account for clustering at the organization level. Of the participants, 19.1% had high levels of depressive symptoms and 22.2% burnout. Job demands, work functioning, depressive symptoms and burnout differed between participants who never worried and participants who often or always worried about the COVID crisis. Differences were smaller for participants with and without COVID contact or infection. Most models improved when clustering was accounted for. Nursing homes should be aware of the impact of COVID worries on job demands, work functioning and mental health, both at the individual and organizational level.

ObjectivesNursing homes are hit relatively hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Dutch long-term care (LTC) organisations installed outbreak teams (OTs) to coordinate COVID-19 infection prevention and control. LTC organisations and relevant national policy organisations expressed the need to share experiences from these OTs that can be applied directly in COVID-19 policy. The aim of the ‘COVID-19 management in nursing homes by outbreak teams’ (MINUTES) study is to describe the challenges, responses and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch nursing homes. In this first article, we describe the MINUTES Study and present data characteristics.DesignThis large-scale multicentre study has a qualitative design using manifest content analysis. The participating organisations shared their OT minutes and other meeting documents on a weekly basis. Data from week 16 (April) to week 53 (December) 2020 included the first two waves of COVID-19.SettingNational study with 41 large Dutch LTC organisations.ParticipantsThe LTC organisations represented 563 nursing home locations and almost 43 000 residents.ResultsAt least 36 of the 41 organisations had one or more SARS-CoV-2 infections among their residents. Most OTs were composed of management, medical staff, support services staff, policy advisors and communication specialists. Topics that emerged from the documents were: crisis management, isolation of residents, personal protective equipment and hygiene, staff, residents’ well-being, visitor policies, testing and vaccination.ConclusionsOT meeting minutes are a valuable data source to monitor the impact of and responses to COVID-19 in nursing homes. Depending on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection and analysis will continue until November 2021. The results are used directly in national and organisational COVID-19 policy.

Elizabeth G Birkenhäger-Gillesse,1,2 Sarah IM Janus,1 Wilco P Achterberg,3 Sytse U Zuidema1 1Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2Laurens Care Centers, Division Long Stay, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 3Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Elizabeth G Birkenhäger-GillesseLaurens Care Centers, Division Long Stay, Pres. Rooseveltweg 22, Rotterdam, 3068 TR, the NetherlandsTel +31619699113Email b.birkenhager@laurens.nlPurpose: Does participating in a multicomponent intervention targeting caregivers change the prescription rates of psychotropic drugs of caregivers or the person with dementia (PWD) they live with and care for.Patients and Methods: Participants were 142 dyads of community-dwelling cohabiting caregivers and PWD randomized to intervention or control (care as usual). Participating caregivers received the intervention in a holiday accommodation over five days in groups of two to six dyads. During this time, caregivers attended 14 psychoeducational group sessions on relevant emotional, relational, practical, financial, and social changes related to living with PWD. These sessions were delivered by a psychologist, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, an elderly care physician, a dietician and a social worker and included combating social isolation, planning for the future, re-rolling, medical aspects of dementia, fitness, therapeutic use of facilities, nutrition and using community services. The design was a randomized controlled trial. Outcomes were compared 3 months after baseline. Drug use for both caregivers and PWD were reported as all psychotropic drug use and specified as antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anxiolytic and hypnotic drug use based on Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classifications.Results: Compared to the control group, no significant difference was observed in psychotropic drug use by 3 months after baseline among caregivers (p 0.22 MD − 0.08 95% CI − 0.20– 0.05) or PWD (p 0.61, MD 0.04 95% − 0.12– 0.21) in the intervention group.Conclusion: A multicomponent course for caregivers living with PWD did not affect psychotropic drug use by either person. This may be explained by the low level of baseline drug use and the lack of the prescribing physician involvement in the present study. The low baseline drug use likely reflects selection bias for caregiver participants who were more inclined to use psychosocial interventions in preference to psychotropic medication, making them more likely to participate in caregiver training.Keywords: caregiver, dementia, psychotropic drugs, psychosocial intervention, training

Objectives We performed a randomized controlled study to evaluate the effects of caregiver training on the well-being of both people with dementia and their caregivers. Before the effect analysis, we conducted a process evaluation to estimate internal and external validity. This was anticipated to augment our understanding of the outcomes. Methods We focused on three questions. (a) Was the intervention performed as planned (internal validity)? (b) Can qualitative data be used to inform how the intervention evoked change? (c) Can the study outcomes be extrapolated to all caregivers living with people who have dementia (external validity)? Results Responses from participants assigned to the intervention group suggested that the intervention was feasible, could be performed as planned, and that modelling and discussions between participants were important. However, participant recruitment to the entire study was ultimately laborious because participants had issues with the study design (risk of being assigned to the control group) and referrers lacked familiarity with the training (new type of intervention). Participants were also younger and better educated compared with the general population. Some dropouts in the follow-up period occurred due to the number of questionnaires, and this was more pronounced in the control group. Conclusions Although we achieved high internal validity, we lack certainty about the external validity. We not only experienced general difficulty in recruiting participants but also tended to recruit a biased sample that was relatively young and well educated. These factors combine to limit our ability to extrapolate the results to the general population.

Objectives Caregivers for people with dementia (PWD) have reported needing emotional and social support, improved coping strategies, and better information about the illness and available support services. In this study, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of an Australian multicomponent community-based training program that we adapted and implemented in a non-medical Dutch health care setting. Methods and design A randomized controlled trial was performed: 142 dyads of cohabiting caregivers and PwD were randomized to control (care as usual) or intervention (training program) groups and outcomes were compared. Programs lasted 1 week, comprised 14 sessions, and were delivered by specialist staff. We included 16 groups of two to six caregivers. The primary outcome was care-related quality of life (CarerQol-7D) at 3 months. The main secondary outcomes for caregivers were self-rated burden, health and mood symptoms, and for PwD were neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and agitation. Results No significant difference was observed for the primary outcome. However, caregivers experienced fewer role limitations due to physical function (adjusted mean difference, 13.04; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3.15-22.93), emotional function (13.52; 95%CI, 3.76-23.28), and pain reduction (9.43; 95%CI, 1.00-17.86). Positive outcomes identified by qualitative analysis included better acceptance and coping and improved knowledge of dementia and available community services and facilities. Conclusion Quantitative analysis showed that the multicomponent course did not affect care-related quality of life but did have a positive effect on experienced role limitations and pain. Qualitative analysis showed that the course met the needs of participating dyads.

We translated and modified an ambiance scale for use by (in)formal caregivers in Dutch nursing homes. We tested validity and reliability of the modified Ambiance Scale.Convenience sampling was used to enrol (in)formal caregivers in three nursing homes in the Netherlands. 104 questionnaires were filled in; 45 by informal caregivers, 46 by formal caregivers. Ten caregivers filled in the questionnaire twice for test-retest purposes. Three original items were used, and seven newly were added to form the modified Ambiance Scale. Each item consisted of an adjective pair assessing an aspect of ambiance on a scale of 1 (homelike) to 5 (institutional). Caregivers filled in the questionnaire on two different days to assess intra rater reliability. Differences in scoring between formal and informal caregivers and between original and new items were analyzed.The questionnaire was easy to comprehend and fill in. Internal consistency was good (This study demonstrated that the modified Ambiance Scale had good internal consistency, moderate replicability and both informal and formal caregivers' overall ratings were comparable. The modified Ambiance Scale is a valid, reliable and easy to use tool to assess ambiance in nursing home settings.

Background: The more (inappropriate) drugs a patient uses, the higher the risk of drug related problems. To reduce these risks, medication reviews can be performed. Objective: To report changes in the prescribed number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs before and after performing a medication review in high-risk polypharmacy patients. A secondary objective was to study reasons for continuing potentially inappropriate drugs (PIDs). Setting Dutch community pharmacy and general medical practice. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal intervention study with a pre-test/post-test design and follow-up of 1 week and 3 months was performed. The study population consisted of 126 patients with polypharmacy and with additional risk for drug related problems that underwent a medication review in five community pharmacies. The medication review was performed by the pharmacist in close cooperation with the general practitioner of each corresponding patient. Main outcome measure: Number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs, and appropriateness of prescribed medicines. Results: The average number of drugs a patient used 1 day before the review was 8.7 (SD = 2.9), which decreased (p

Background: A typical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia have been tested in much larger trials than the older conventional drugs. The advantage of larger sample sizes is that negative findings become less likely and the effect estimates more precise. However, as sample sizes increase, the trials also get more expensive and time consuming while exposing more patients to drugs with unknown safety profiles. Moreover, a large sample size might yield a statistically significant effect that is not necessarily clinically relevant.Objective: To assess (1) the variation in sample size and sample size calculations of antipsychotic trials in dementia, (2) the size of reported treatment effects and related statistical significance, and (3) general study characteristics that might be related to sample size.Study Design and Setting: We performed a meta-epidemiological study of randomized trials that tested antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. The trials compared conventional or atypical antipsychotics with placebo or another antipsychotic. Two reviewers independently extracted sample size, sample size calculations, reported treatment effects with p-values, and general study characteristics (drug type, trial duration, type of funding). We calculated a reference sample size of 83 and 433 per study group for the placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials respectively.Results: We identified 33 placebo-controlled trials, and 18 head-to-head trials. Only 14 (42%) and 2 (11%), respectively, reported a sample size calculation. The average sample size per arm was 34 (range 6-179) in placebo-controlled trials testing conventional drugs, 107 (8-237) in such trials testing atypical drugs, and 104 (95-115) in such trials testing both drug types; it was 31 (10-88) in head-to-head trials. Thirteen out of 18 trials with sample sizes larger than required (72%) reported a statistically significant treatment effect, of which two (15%) were clinically relevant. None of the head-to-head trials reported a statistically significant treatment effect, even though some suggested non-inferiority. In placebo-controlled trials of atypical drugs, longer trial duration (>6 weeks) and commercial funding were associated with higher sample size.Conclusion: Sample size calculations were poorly reported in antipsychotic trials for dementia. Placebo-controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics showed large sample size fallacy while head-to-head trials were massively underpowered.