BackgroundPsychosocial person-centred interventions are considered best practice for addressing complex behaviours and care needs such as agitation and anxiety, and for improving the quality of life of people with dementia in care homes. Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) is an established practice development tool and process aimed to help care home staff deliver more person-centred care. To date, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of DCM™ and have found mixed results. These results are suggested to be the outcome of intervention implementation, which may be impacted by a range of factors. This study reports the barriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation in care homes found during the process evaluation conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial.MethodsEighteen of the 31 DCM™ intervention care homes were recruited to participate in the embedded process evaluation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 83 participants, comprising care home managers, trained DCM™ users (mappers), expert external mappers, staff members, relatives, and residents.ResultsBarriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation were found at the mapper level (e.g. motivation and confidence), the DCM™ intervention level (e.g. understanding of DCM™) and the care home level (e.g. staffing issues, manager support). Further barriers caused by the burden of trial participation were also identified (e.g. additional paperwork).ConclusionsImplementing DCM™ is complex and a greater consideration of potential barriers and facilitators in planning future studies and in practice could help improve implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852, registered 16/01/2014.

Background and objectives: People with dementia occupy around one quarter of general hospital beds, with concerns consistently raised about care quality. Improving workforce knowledge, skills and attitudes is a mechanism for addressing this. However little is known about effective ways of training healthcare staff about dementia. This study aimed to understand models of dementia training most likely to lead to improved practice and better care experiences for people with dementia, and to understand barriers and facilitators to implementation. Method: A collective case study was conducted in three National Health Service Acute Hospital Trusts in England. Multiple data sources were used including interviews with training leads/facilitators, ward managers and staff who had attended training; satisfaction surveys with patients with dementia and/or carers; and observations of care using Dementia Care Mapping. Results: Interactive face-to-face training designed for general hospital staff was valued. Simulation and experiential learning methods were felt to be beneficial by some staff and stressful and distressing by others. Skilled delivery by an experienced and enthusiastic facilitator was identified as important. Staff identified learning and practice changes made following their training. However, observations revealed not all staff had the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to deliver good care. Patient and carer satisfaction with care was mixed. A major barrier to training implementation was lack of resources. Supportive managers, organisational culture and strong leadership were key facilitators. Conclusion:Dementia training can lead to improved care practices. There are a range of key barriers and facilitators to implementation that must be considered.

Background The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. Objective To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care. Design A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors. Setting Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub. Participants Fifty care homes were randomised (intervention, n = 31; control, n = 19), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 recruited after 16 months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM in the previous 18 months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia or a score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging Test of Alzheimer’s Disease, were proficient in English and were not terminally ill or permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on the delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation. Intervention Two staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. Results There were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, n = 388; control, n = 287). There was no evidence of a difference in agitation levels between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score was –2.11 points, being lower in the intervention group than in the control (95% confidence interval –4.66 to 0.44; p = 0.104; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient: control = 0, intervention = 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated that DCM was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM cycle. Impacts, barriers to and facilitators of DCM implementation were identified. Limitations The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important. Conclusions There was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes. Future work Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objectives: Behaviours associated with agitation are common in people living with dementia. The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) is a 29-item scale widely used to assess agitation completed by a proxy (family carer or staff member). However, proxy informants introduce possible reporting bias when blinding to the treatment arm is not possible, and potential accuracy issues due to irregular contact between the proxy and the person with dementia over the reporting period. An observational measure completed by a blinded researcher may address these issues, but no agitation measures with comparable items exist.Design: Development and validation of an observational version of the CMAI (CMAI-O), to assess its validity as an alternative or complementary measure of agitation.Setting: Fifty care homes in England.Participants: Residents (N = 726) with dementia.Measurements: Two observational measures (CMAI-O and PAS) were completed by an independent researcher. Measures of agitation, functional status, and neuropsychiatric symptoms were completed with staff proxies.Results: The CMAI-O showed adequate internal consistency (α = .61), criterion validity with the PAS (r = .79, p = < .001), incremental validity in predicting quality of life beyond the Functional Assessment Staging of Alzheimer's disease (β = 1.83, p < .001 at baseline) and discriminant validity from the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Apathy subscale (r = .004, p = .902). Conclusions:The CMAI-O is a promising research tool for independently measuring agitation in people with dementia in care homes. Its use alongside the CMAI could provide a more robust understanding of agitation amongst residents with dementia.

Background Up to 80% of care home residents have dementia. Ensuring this workforce is appropriately trained is of international concern. Research indicates variable impact of training on a range of resident and staff outcomes. Little is still known about the most effective approaches to the design, delivery and implementation of dementia training. This study aimed to investigate the features and contextual factors associated with an effective approach to care home staff training on dementia. Methods An embedded, collective case study was undertaken in three care home provider organisations who had responded to a national training audit. Data collected included individual or small group interviews with training leads, facilitators, staff attending training, managers, residents and their relatives. Observations of care practice were undertaken using Dementia Care Mapping. Training delivery was observed and training materials audited. A within case analysis of each site, followed by cross case analysis using convergence coding was undertaken. Results All sites provided bespoke, tailored training, delivered largely using face-to-face, interactive methods, which staff and managers indicated were valuable and effective. Self-study booklets and on-line learning where were used, were poorly completed and disliked by staff. Training was said to improve empathy, knowledge about the lived experience of dementia and the importance of considering and meeting individual needs. Opportunities to continually reflect on learning and support to implement training in practice were valued and felt to be an essential component of good training. Practice developments as a result of training included improved communication, increased activity, less task-focussed care and increased resident well-being. However, observations indicated positive well-being and engagement was not a consistent experience across all residents in all sites. Barriers to training attendance and implementation were staff time, lack of dedicated training space and challenges in gaining feedback on training and its impact. Facilitators included a supportive organisational ethos and skilled training facilitation. Conclusions Effective training is tailored to learners’, delivered face-to-face by an experienced facilitator, is interactive and is embedded within a supportive organisational culture/ethos. Further research is needed on the practical aspects of sustainable and impactful dementia training delivery and implementation in care home settings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1186-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.