首页> 外文OA文献 >Impact of person-centered care training and person-centered activities on quality of life, agitation and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the WHELD intervention
【2h】

Impact of person-centered care training and person-centered activities on quality of life, agitation and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the WHELD intervention

机译:以人为中心的护理培训和以人为中心的活动对住在疗养院中的痴呆症患者的生活质量,躁动和抗精神病药物使用的影响:WHELD干预的整群随机对照试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Agitation is a common, distressing and challenging symptom affecting large numbers of people with dementia and impacting significantly on quality of life (QoL). There is an urgent need for evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial intervention to improve these outcomes, particularly in the absence of safe, effective pharmacological therapies. This study aimed to conduct a large and rigorous RCT to evaluate the efficacy of a person-centered care and psychosocial intervention (WHELD) on QoL, agitation and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes, and to determine the cost of the intervention.udMethods and Findings: This was a randomized controlled cluster trial comparing the WHELD intervention with treatment as usual in people with dementia living in 69 UK nursing homes, using an intention to treat analysis. All nursing homes allocated to the WHELD intervention received staff training in person-centered care (PCC), social interaction (SoI) and education regarding antipsychotic medications (AM) followed by ongoing delivery through a care staff champion model. The primary outcome measure was QoL (DEMQOL-proxy). Key secondary outcomes were agitation (Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory), neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI) and antipsychotic use. Other secondary outcome measures were global deterioration (CDR), mood (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia CSSD), unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need in the Elderly -CANE), mortality, quality of interactions (Quality of Interactions Scale -QUIS), pain (Abbey pain scale) and cost. Intervention costs were calculated using published cost function figures and compared with usual costs. 847 people were randomized to WHELD or treatment as usual, of whom 553 completed the nine month RCT. The WHELD intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in QoL compared to treatment as usual over nine months (DEMQOL proxy z score 2.82, p=0.0042, Mean Difference 2.54 SEM 0.88, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 0.81, 4.28, Cohen's D 0.24). There was also statisticallya significant benefits in agitation (CMAI Z score 2.68 p=0.0076, Mean Difference 4.27 SEM 1.59, 95% CI -7.39, -1.15, Cohen's D 0.23) and in overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (Z score 3.52 Mean Difference 4.55 SEM 1.28 p=0.00045, 95% CI -7.07,-2.02, Cohen's D 0.30). The benefits were greatest in people with moderate-moderately severe dementia. There was also a statistically significant benefit in positive care interactions as measured by QUIS (19.7% increase, SEM 8.94, 95% CI 2.12, 37.16, Cohen's D 0.55, P=0.03). There were no statistically significant differences between the WHELD intervention and treatment as usual for the other secondary outcomes. A sensitivity analysis using a pre-specified imputation model confirmed statistically significant benefits in DEMQOL proxy, and CMAI and NPI with the WHELD intervention compared to treatment as usual. Antipsychotic drug prescribing was at a low stable level in both treatment groups across the study and the WHELD treatment intervention did not reduce antipsychotic use. The WHELD intervention reduced cost compared to treatment as usual, and the benefits achieved were therefore associated with a cost saving. The main limitation was that antipsychotic review was based on augmenting processes within care homes to trigger medical review and did not in this study involve proactive primary care education. The high mortality rate leading to non-completion in a significant proportion of participants leads to interpretation challenges for this study and for all long term intervention studies in nursing homes.udConclusionsudThese findings suggest that this staff training and non-pharmacological intervention for people with dementia living in nursing homes may be able to achieve benefits to QoL, agitation and neuropsychiatric symptoms, as well as cost saving in a model that can readily be implemented into nursing homes. The benefits in QoL, agitation and neuropsychiatric symptoms had a small effect size. The benefits to agitation and neuropsychiatric symptoms are comparable to (agitation) or better than (NPI) the benefits seen with antipsychotic drugs. Importantly, the benefits were achieved in the context of a cost saving and used a model that can readily be implemented into nursing homes.
机译:背景:躁动是一种常见的,令人困扰和具有挑战性的症状,影响许多痴呆症患者并严重影响生活质量(QoL)。迫切需要以证据为基础的,具有成本效益的社会心理干预措施,以改善这些结果,尤其是在缺乏安全,有效的药物治疗的情况下。这项研究旨在进行大型而严格的RCT,以评估以人为中心的护理和心理社会干预(WHELD)对住在疗养院中的痴呆症患者的QoL,躁动和抗精神病药物的疗效,并确定干预成本 udMethods and Findings:这是一项随机对照试验,比较了WHELD干预和照常治疗在英国69家养老院中痴呆症患者的情况,并进行了治疗意向分析。所有分配给WHELD干预的疗养院都接受了以人为中心的护理(PCC),社交互动(SoI)和抗精神病药物(AM)教育的员工培训,然后通过护理人员支持者模型进行持续分娩。主要结局指标为QoL(DEMQOL-proxy)。主要的次要结局为躁动(Cohen Mansfield躁动量表),神经精神症状(NPI)和抗精神病药的使用。其他次要结局指标包括总体恶化(CDR),情绪(痴呆症CSSD的康奈尔抑郁量表),未满足的需求(坎贝尔韦尔老年人需求量评估-CANE),死亡率,互动质量(互动质量量表-QUIS),疼痛(修道院疼痛量表)和成本。使用公布的成本函数数字计算干预成本,并将其与常规成本进行比较。 847人被随机分配至WHELD或照常治疗,其中553人完成了为期9个月的RCT。与常规治疗相比,WHELD干预在9个月内的生活质量有了统计学上的显着改善(DEMQOL代理z评分2.82,p = 0.0042,平均差异2.54 SEM 0.88,95%置信区间(CI)0.81,4.28,科恩D 0.24) 。搅拌(CMAI Z得分2.68 p = 0.0076,平均差异4.27 SEM 1.59,95%CI -7.39,-1.15,Cohen's D 0.23)和总体神经精神症状(Z得分3.52平均差异4.55 SEM 1.28)在统计学上也有显着益处p = 0.00045,95%CI -7.07,-2.02,Cohen D 0.30)。对于中度至重度痴呆症患者,其益处最大。通过QUIS衡量,在积极护理互动中也有统计学上的显着优势(增加19.7%,SEM 8.94,95%CI 2.12,37.16,Cohen D 0.55,P = 0.03)。对于其他次要结局,WHELD干预和常规治疗之间无统计学差异。与常规治疗相比,使用预先指定的插补模型进行的敏感性分析证实,使用WHELD干预后,DEMQOL代理,CMAI和NPI在统计学上具有显着优势。在整个研究中,两个治疗组的抗精神病药物处方均处于较低的稳定水平,并且WHELD治疗干预措施并未减少抗精神病药物的使用。与通常的治疗相比,WHELD干预降低了成本,因此,所获得的好处与节省成本有关。主要的局限性在于,抗精神病药物审查是基于护理院内的扩大程序来触发医学审查,而本研究中并未涉及积极的初级护理教育。高死亡率导致相当大比例的参与者无法完成工作,这给这项研究以及疗养院的所有长期干预研究带来了解释上的挑战。 ud结论 ud这些发现表明,这种人员培训和针对人群的非药物干预住在疗养院中的痴呆症患者可能能够从QoL,躁动和神经精神症状中受益,并且可以通过易于在疗养院中实施的模型节省成本。 QoL,躁动和神经精神症状的益处影响范围很小。躁动和神经精神症状的益处与抗精神病药的益处相当(激动)或优于(NPI)。重要的是,这些好处是在节省成本的情况下实现的,并使用了可以轻松应用于疗养院的模型。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号