| Literature DB >> 30478131 |
Katherine Froggatt1, Shakil Patel1, Guillermo Perez Algorta1, Frances Bunn2, Girvan Burnside3, Joanna Coast4, Lesley Dunleavy1, Claire Goodman2, Ben Hardwick3, Julie Kinley5, Nancy J Preston1, Catherine Walshe1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many people living with advanced dementia live and die in nursing care homes. The quality of life, care and dying experienced by these people is variable. Namaste Care is a multisensory programme of care developed for people with advanced dementia. While there is emerging evidence that Namaste Care may be beneficial for people with dementia, there is a need to conduct a feasibility study to establish the optimum way of delivering this complex intervention and whether benefits can be demonstrated in end-of-life care, for individuals and service delivery. The aim of the study is to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a full trial of the Namaste Care intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A feasibility study, comprising a parallel, two-arm, multicentre cluster controlled randomised trial with embedded process and economic evaluation. Nursing care homes (total of eight) who deliver care to those with advanced dementia will be randomly allocated to intervention (delivered at nursing care home level) or control. Three participant groups will be recruited: residents with advanced dementia, informal carers of a participating resident and nursing care home staff. Data will be collected for 6 months. Feasibility objectives concern the recruitment and sampling of nursing homes, residents, informal carers and staff; the selection and timing of primary (quality of dying and quality of life) and secondary clinical outcome measures (person centredness, symptom presence, agitation, quality of life, resource use and costs and residents' activity monitored using actigraphy). Acceptability, fidelity and sustainability of the intervention will be assessed using semistructured interviews with staff and informal carers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 17/WA0378). Dissemination plans include working with a public involvement panel, through a website (http://www.namastetrial.org.uk), social media, academic and practice conferences and via peer reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14948133; Pre-results. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: dementia; feasibility study; namaste care; nursing care homes; palliative care; randomised controlled trial
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30478131 PMCID: PMC6254402 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026531
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Flow diagram outlining the process of the study.
Summary of resident data collected by care home staff, outcome measures and time schedule
| Data collected and tool used | Pre-intervention | Monthly | At 6 months or death | ||
| Socio-demographics | Age, gender, ethnicity, existing medical conditions, stage of dementia on Functional Assessment of Staging of Alzheimer’s Disease score | x | x | x | |
| Quality of dying | Measure to assess quality of death using CAD-EOLD (Comfort Assessment in Dying with Dementia) | x | x | x | |
| Quality of life of the person with dementia | EQ-5D-5L | x | x | x | |
| Neuropsychiatric Inventory (Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Questionnaire) | Measure to assess psychiatric state of resident using NPI-Q | x | x | x | |
| Pain | Measure to assess level of pain using PAIN-AD | x | x | x | |
| Quality of life | EQ-5D-5L | x | x | x | |
| ICECAP Supportive Care Measure | Health economic measure using ICEPCAP-SCM | x | x | x | |
| ICECAP-O measure (CEpop CAPability measure for Older people) | Health economic measure using ICEPCAP-O | x | x | x | – |
| Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory | Measure to assess resident agitation | x | x | x | |
| ICECAP Supportive Care Measure using Think Aloud | Health economic measure using ICEPCAP-SCM using Think Aloud | x | x | x | |
| ICECAP-O measure using Think Aloud | Health economic measure using ICECAP-O using Think Aloud | x | x | x | |
Summary of informal carer data collected, as assessed by informal carers, outcome measures and time schedule
| Data collected and tool used | Baseline | At 1 month | At 6 months or death | |
| Socio-demographics | Age, gender, ethnicity, existing medical conditions | x | – | – |
| Service use in the prior month | Client Service Receipt Inventory | x | x | x |
| Quality of life of the carer | EQ-5D-5L | x | x | x |
| Satisfaction with care | SWC-EOLD (Satisfaction with Care at the End-of-Life in Dementia) | x | x | x |
| ICECAP Close Person Measure of health economic evaluation | Health economic evaluation using ICECAP-CPM | x | x | x |
| ICECAP Close Person Measure of health economic evaluation | Health economic evaluation using ICEPCAP-CPM completing using Think Aloud | x | x | x |
Summary of staff data collected as assessed by care home staff: outcome measures and time schedule
| Data collected and tool used | Preintervention | 6 months | |
| Staff socio-demographics | Age, gender, ethnicity | X | – |
| Staff work characteristics | Highest qualification, role in care home, length of service | X | – |
| Organisational support for person-centred care | The Person-Centred Care Assessment Tool | X | X |
| Organisational support for readiness for change | The Alberta Context Tool Questionnaire | X | – |
Summary of nursing care home level data collected, outcome measures, time schedule and the type of person assessing the outcome measure
| Data collected and tool used | Pre intervention | Monthly | At 6 months only | Postintervention | |
| Care home occupancy level | Number of available beds to new residents | S | – | – | – |
| Cost of living in the care home | Fees to live in the care home | S | – | – | – |
| Contributions from local government | Fees paid by the local government for each resident | S | – | – | – |
| Staffing levels | Number and type of staff | S | – | – | – |
| Number of GP practices the care home works with | Number of GP practices the care home works with | S | – | – | – |
| Number of GPs the care home works with | Number of GPs the care home works with | S | – | – | – |
| Level of need of residents in the care home | Amount of support each resident needs | S | – | – | – |
| Staff turnover and sickness levels | Number of staff in the care home and monthly sickness record | S | S | – | – |
| Ambulances and hospital use | Number and length of hospital admissions (days), A&E attendances and readmissions | S | S | S | – |
| Number of hospital admissions | Respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, dehydration, congestive heart failure? | S | S | S | – |
| Out of hours GP contacts | GP visits or telephone contact | R | R | R | R |
Measure assessed by S: care home staff; R: researcher.
Data collected as part of the process evaluation
| Outcome measures or rationale for data collection | Data collected through | Time of data collection |
| To assess carers’ perceptions of Namaste Care (intervention arm) or carers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of usual care (control arm) | Interviews conducted by the researcher | Approximately 16–24 weeks after the first resident is recruited at the nursing home |
| Staff members’ perceptions of Namaste Care (intervention arm) or perceptions of the effectiveness of usual care (control arm) | Interviews conducted by the researcher | Approximately 24 weeks after the first resident is recruited at the nursing home |
| To assess the fidelity, acceptability and appropriateness of Namaste Care (intervention arm) or assess effectiveness of usual care (control arm) | Observations conducted by the researcher | Approximately 2, 4 and 24 weeks after the start of the intervention for nursing homes in the intervention arm |
| To assess the fidelity, acceptability and appropriateness of the Namaste Care (intervention arm) | Data log completed by the staff delivering the Namaste Care session | Throughout the intervention |