Assessing deprescribing tools for implementation in care homes: A qualitative study of the views of care home staff.

BACKGROUND: Care home residents often experience polypharmacy (defined as taking five or more regular medicines). Therefore, we need to ensure that residents only take the medications that are appropriate or provide value (also known as medicines optimisation). To achieve this, deprescribing, or the reduction or stopping of prescription medicines that may no longer be providing benefit, can help manage polypharmacy and improve outcomes. Various tools, guides, and approaches have been developed to help support health professionals to deprescribe in regular practice. Little evaluation of these tools has been conducted and no work has been done in the care home setting. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to assess distinct types of deprescribing tools for acceptability, feasibility, and suitability for the care home setting. METHODS: Cognitive (think-aloud) interviews with care home staff in England were conducted (from December 2021 to June 2022) to assess five different deprescribing tools. The tools included a general deprescribing guidance, a generic (non-drug specific) deprescribing framework, a drug-specific deprescribing guideline/guide, a tool for identifying potentially inappropriate medications, and an electronic clinical decision support tool. Participants were recruited via their participation in another deprescribing study. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Eight care home staff from 7 different care homes were interviewed. The five deprescribing tools were reviewed and assessed as not acceptable, feasible, or suitable for the care home setting. All would require significant modifications for use in the care home setting (e.g., language, design, and its function or use with different stakeholders). CONCLUSIONS: As none of the tools were deemed acceptable, feasible, and suitable, future work is warranted to develop and tailor deprescribing tools for the care home setting, considering its specific context and users. Deprescribing implemented safely and successfully in care homes can benefit residents and the wider health economy.

Determinants of implementing deprescribing for older adults in English care homes: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the factors that may help or hinder deprescribing practice for older people within care homes. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews using framework analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). SETTING: Participants were recruited from two care home provider organisations (a smaller independently owned organisation and a large organisation) in England. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 23 care home staff, 8 residents, 4 family members and 1 general practitioner were associated with 15 care homes. RESULTS: Participants discussed their experiences and perceptions of implementing deprescribing within care homes. Major themes of (1) deprescribing as a complex process and (2) internal and external contextual factors influencing deprescribing practice (such as beliefs, abilities and relationships) were interrelated and spanned several CFIR constructs and domains. The quality of local relationships with and support from healthcare professionals were considered more crucial factors than the type of care home management structure. CONCLUSIONS: Several influencing social and contextual factors need to be considered for implementing deprescribing for older adults in care homes. Additional training, tools, support and opportunities need to be made available to care home staff, so they can feel confident and able to question or raise concerns about medicines with prescribers. Further work is warranted to design and adopt a deprescribing approach which addresses these determinants to ensure successful implementation.

New horizons for caring for people with dementia in hospital: the DEMENTIA CARE pointers for service change.

Approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions are older adults and almost half of these are likely to have some form of dementia. People with dementia are not only at an increased risk of adverse outcomes once admitted, but the unfamiliar environment and routinised practices of the wards and acute care can be particularly challenging for them, heightening their confusion, agitation and distress further impacting the ability to optimise their care. It is well established that a person-centred care approach helps alleviate some of the unfamiliar stress but how to embed this in the acute-care setting remains a challenge. In this article, we highlight the challenges that have been recognised in this area and put forward a set of evidence-based 'pointers for service change' to help organisations in the delivery of person-centred care. The DEMENTIA CARE pointers cover areas of: dementia awareness and understanding, education and training, modelling of person-centred care by clinical leaders, adapting the environment, teamwork (not being alone), taking the time to 'get to know', information sharing, access to necessary resources, communication, involving family (ask family), raising the profile of dementia care, and engaging volunteers. The pointers extend previous guidance, by recognising the importance of ward cultures that prioritise dementia care and institutional support that actively seeks to raise the profile of dementia care. The pointers provide a range of simple to more complex actions or areas for hospitals to help implement person-centred care approaches; however, embedding them within the organisational cultures of hospitals is the next challenge.

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

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesise qualitative data from studies exploring the experiences of hospital staff who care for people living with dementia (Plwd). BACKGROUND: In hospital, the number of Plwd continues to rise; however, their experiences of care remain problematic. Negative experiences of care are likely to contribute to poorer mental and physical health outcomes for Plwd while in hospital and after discharge. Experiences of the hospital staff who care for Plwd can also be poor or unrewarding. It is important to understand the experiences of staff in order to improve staff well-being and ultimately the experience of care for Plwd while in hospital. DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence synthesis of qualitative research. DATA SOURCES: We searched 16 electronic databases in March 2018 and completed forward and backward citation chasing. METHODS: Eligible studies explored the experiences of paid and unpaid staff providing care in hospital for Plwd. Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers, and quality appraisal was conducted. We prioritised included studies according to richness of text, methodological rigour and conceptual contribution. We adopted approaches of meta-ethnography to analyse study findings, creating a conceptual model to represent the line of argument. FINDINGS: Forty-five studies reported in 58 papers met the inclusion criteria, and of these, we prioritised 19 studies reported in 24 papers. The line of argument was that Institutions can improve staff experiences of care for Plwd by fostering person-centred care (PCC). PCC aligned with staff perceptions of 'good care'; however, staff often felt prevented from providing PCC because of care cultures that prioritised tasks, routines and physical health. Staff experienced conflict over the care they wanted to give versus the care they were able to give, and this caused moral distress. When staff were able to provide PCC, this increased experiences of job satisfaction and emotional well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Person-centred care not only has the potential to improve the experience of care for Plwd and their carers, but can also improve the experiences of hospital staff caring for Plwd. However, without institutional-level changes, hospital staff are often unable to provide PCC even when they have the experience and knowledge to do so. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Institutional-level areas for change include the following: training; performance indicators and ward cultures that prioritise psychological needs alongside physical needs; adequate staffing levels; inclusive approaches to carers; physical environments that promote familiarisation, social interaction and occupation; systems of documentation about individual needs of Plwd; and cultures of sharing knowledge across hierarchies.

Activity interventions to improve the experience of care in hospital for people living with dementia: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: An increasingly high number of patients admitted to hospital have dementia. Hospital environments can be particularly confusing and challenging for people living with dementia (Plwd) impacting their wellbeing and the ability to optimize their care. Improving the experience of care in hospital has been recognized as a priority, and non-pharmacological interventions including activity interventions have been associated with improved wellbeing and behavioral outcomes for Plwd in other settings. This systematic review aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of activity interventions to improve experience of care for Plwd in hospital. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in 16 electronic databases up to October 2019. Reference lists of included studies and forward citation searching were also conducted. Quantitative studies reporting comparative data for activity interventions delivered to Plwd aiming to improve their experience of care in hospital were included. Screening for inclusion, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third where necessary. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated where possible to support narrative statements and aid interpretation. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria (one randomized and five non-randomized uncontrolled studies) including 216 Plwd. Activity interventions evaluated music, art, social, psychotherapeutic, and combinations of tailored activities in relation to wellbeing outcomes. Although studies were generally underpowered, findings indicated beneficial effects of activity interventions with improved mood and engagement of Plwd while in hospital, and reduced levels of responsive behaviors. Calculated SMDs ranged from very small to large but were mostly statistically non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of identified studies indicate that activity-based interventions implemented in hospitals may be effective in improving aspects of the care experience for Plwd. Larger well-conducted studies are needed to fully evaluate the potential of this type of non-pharmacological intervention to improve experience of care in hospital settings, and whether any benefits extend to staff wellbeing and the wider ward environment.