The role of the Alzheimer's Society in hospital: evaluation of a new support service for patients and their carers

Woods, P.A.; Tadros, George

doi:10.12968/bjnn.2014.10.5.219

Cited by 3 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…START has been shown to be cost-effective and has been recommended for use throughout the NHS [22]. The qualitative data supports the use of PCIS but suggests that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach which can be used, as every patient with dementia and their carers will have different needs, preferences and responses [23,24].…”

Section: Results 2 3 and 4 Persisted At 24 Months Followingmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The results are split by intervention used and whether patient or carer outcomes are presented. Five studies reported quantitative outcomes [ 18 – 22 ], the remaining study and service evaluation reported qualitative outcomes [ 23 , 24 ]. The quantitative results are tabulated by patient or carer outcomes in Tables 2 and 3 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Woods and Tadros [23] was the only study to use information provision not delivered as part of a psychoeducational programme. This intervention was open to the general public, but particularly aimed at those with dementia.…”

Section: Approaches Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can help to reduce isolation, fear and hopelessness for both patients and their carers [30]. This may not be true of the one-to-one approaches by Livingston et al [21,22,24] and Woods and Tadros [23]; however, the latter study did involve linking service users to further services in the community, which may have a similar effect.…”

Section: Approaches Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…when adjusted for preintervention scores (Cornell scale, BASDEC) No significant change when adjusted for pre-intervention scores (RAID, BAI) -Marshall et al [20] Non-significant evidence of improvement (QOL-AD) Non-significant evidence of a reduction in cognitive functioning (MMSE) Non-significant evidence of improvement (Rosenberg scale) No change (Cornell scale) -Average contacts with NHS increased then decreased Use of social groups and day care increasedLivingston et al[21] Non-significant increase (QOL-AD) qualitative outcomes[23,24]. The quantitative results are tabulated by patient or carer outcomes in…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of the provision and efficacy of patient and carer information and support (PCIS) interventions for patients with dementia and their informal carers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The NHS dementia strategy identifies patient and carer information and support (PCIS) as a core component of gold-standard dementia care. This is the first systematic review of PCIS, performed to analyse the literature and evidence for these interventions. Aims To systematically review literature evaluating the effectiveness of the provision of PCIS for people with dementia and their informal carers, in inpatient and outpatient settings. Methods Searches of four online biomedical databases, accessed in September 2018. Studies were selected if they were: relating to people with dementia or their informal carers, based in inpatient or outpatient settings, published in Englishlanguage peer-reviewed journals no earlier than the year 2000 and assessed dementia-related information or social support interventions, by measuring qualitative or quantitative carer or patient-reported outcomes. Standardised data extraction and quality appraisal forms were used. Results 7 of 43 full-text papers analysed were eligible for analysis. 3 papers were different arms of one original study. Trends were present in the quantitative results towards reduced patient and carer depression and anxiety and the themes in the qualitative analysis were in favour of the intervention. Conclusions The studies analysed were too heterogeneous in design, population and outcomes measured to make a conclusive opinion about the efficacy of these interventions. It is surprising that for such a common condition, a gold-standard evidence-based intervention and standardised delivery for provision of PCIS for people living with dementia in the UK does not exist. Further research is therefore vital.

show abstract

Section: Results 2 3 and 4 Persisted At 24 Months Followingmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approaches Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approaches Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of the provision and efficacy of patient and carer information and support (PCIS) interventions for patients with dementia and their informal carers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The experiences of hospital staff who provide care for people living with dementia: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Gwernan‐Jones

Abbott

Lourida

et al. 2020

Int J Older People Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Understanding and improving experiences of care in hospital for people living with dementia, their carers and staff: three systematic reviews

Gwernan‐Jones

Lourida

Abbott

et al. 2020

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Being in hospital can be particularly confusing and challenging not only for people living with dementia, but also for their carers and the staff who care for them. Improving the experience of care for people living with dementia in hospital has been recognised as a priority. Objectives To understand the experience of care in hospital for people living with dementia, their carers and the staff who care for them and to assess what we know about improving the experience of care. Review methods We undertook three systematic reviews: (1) the experience of care in hospital, (2) the experience of interventions to improve care in hospital and (3) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the experience of care. Reviews 1 and 2 sought primary qualitative studies and were analysed using meta-ethnography. Review 3 sought comparative studies and economic evaluations of interventions to improve experience of care. An interweaving approach to overarching synthesis was used to integrate the findings across the reviews. Data sources Sixteen electronic databases were searched. Forwards and backwards citation chasing, author contact and grey literature searches were undertaken. Screening of title and abstracts and full texts was performed by two reviewers independently. A quality appraisal of all included studies was undertaken. Results Sixty-three studies (reported in 82 papers) were included in review 1, 14 studies (reported in 16 papers) were included in review 2, and 25 studies (reported in 26 papers) were included in review 3. A synthesis of review 1 studies found that when staff were delivering more person-centred care, people living with dementia, carers and staff all experienced this as better care. The line of argument, which represents the conceptual findings as a whole, was that ‘a change of hospital culture is needed before person-centred care can become routine’. From reviews 2 and 3, there was some evidence of improvements in experience of care from activities, staff training, added capacity and inclusion of carers. In consultation with internal and external stakeholders, the findings from the three reviews and overarching synthesis were developed into 12 DEMENTIA CARE pointers for service change: key institutional and environmental practices and processes that could help improve experience of care for people living with dementia in hospital. Limitations Few of the studies explored experience from the perspectives of people living with dementia. The measurement of experience of care across the studies was not consistent. Methodological variability and the small number of intervention studies limited the ability to draw conclusions on effectiveness. Conclusions The evidence suggests that, to improve the experience of care in hospital for people living with dementia, a transformation of organisational and ward cultures is needed that supports person-centred care and values the status of dementia care. Changes need to cut across hierarchies and training systems to facilitate working patterns and interactions that enable both physical and emotional care of people living with dementia in hospital. Future research needs to identify how such changes can be implemented, and how they can be maintained in the long term. To do this, well-designed controlled studies with improved reporting of methods and intervention details to elevate the quality of available evidence and facilitate comparisons across different interventions are required. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086013. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

show abstract

The role of the Alzheimer's Society in hospital: evaluation of a new support service for patients and their carers

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

A systematic review of the provision and efficacy of patient and carer information and support (PCIS) interventions for patients with dementia and their informal carers

A systematic review of the provision and efficacy of patient and carer information and support (PCIS) interventions for patients with dementia and their informal carers

The experiences of hospital staff who provide care for people living with dementia: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Understanding and improving experiences of care in hospital for people living with dementia, their carers and staff: three systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About