Staff experiences of implementing Dementia Care Mapping to improve the quality of dementia care in care homes: a qualitative process evaluation

Background Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) is a widely used, staff-led, psychosocial intervention to support the implementation of person-centred care. Efficacy evaluations in care homes have produced mixed outcomes, with implementation problems identified. Understanding the experiences of staff trained to lead DCM implementation is crucial to understanding implementation challenges, yet this has rarely been formally explored. This study aimed to examine the experiences of care home staff trained to lead DCM implementation, within a large cluster randomised controlled trial. Methods Process evaluation including, semi-structured interviews with 27 trained mappers from 16 intervention allocated care homes. Data were analysed using template variant of thematic analysis. Results Three main themes were identified 1) Preparedness to lead - While mappers overwhelmingly enjoyed DCM training, many did not have the personal attributes required to lead practice change and felt DCM training did not adequately equip them to implement it in practice. For many their expectations of the mapper role at recruitment contrasted with the reality once they began to attempt implementation; 2) Transferring knowledge into practice – Due to the complex nature of DCM, developing mastery required regular practice of DCM skills, which was difficult to achieve within available time and resources. Gaining engagement of and transferring learning to the wider staff team was challenging, with benefits of DCM largely limited to the mappers themselves, rather than realised at a care home level; and 3) Sustaining DCM - This required a perception of DCM as beneficial, allocation of adequate resources and support for the process which was often not able to be provided, for the mapper role to fit with the staff member’s usual duties and for DCM to fit with the home’s ethos and future plans for care. Conclusions Many care homes may not have staff with the requisite skills to lead practice change using DCM, or the requisite staffing, resources or leadership support required for sustainable implementation. Adaptations to the DCM tool, process and training may be required to reduce its complexity and burden and increase chances of implementation success. Alternatively, models of implementation not reliant on care home staff may be required.

Evaluation of a Music Intervention on Well-being and Behavior of People with Dementia Using Dementia Care Mapping

Introduction: Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) was originally developed as an observation tool to examine person-centered care in long-term care facilities and to evaluate the quality of life and well-being of people with dementia (PwD). However, the effects of a music intervention using this tool have not been investigated so far. This leads to the following research question: How does a music intervention which involves music therapy and other music-based interventions affect the observed well-being and behavior of PwD living in nursing homes? Methods: In this 14-week, non-controlled music intervention study, data from 30 PwD aged between 52 and 97 (M = 81.4 years) were analyzed. DCM coding involves continuous observation for five hours on four days in the baseline and intervention phase. In the follow-up phase PwD were mapped on two days for five hours. The DCM method were used to measure well-being and certain behaviors of PwD. Results: The well-being during the observation remained almost constant and corresponds to a neutral state of affect and focused contact, with no indication of positive or negative sensations. Significant improvements in certain behaviors were observed in the course from baseline to intervention phase. For example, it was shown that physical activities of the participants, such as (instructed) sports exercises, strengthening or physically challenging exercises in the intervention phase were significantly higher (M = 0.99, SD = 1.82) than at baseline phase (M = 0.00, SD = 0.00) (z = -2.37, p = .02, n = 26). Similar results were shown for expressive/creative activities or work-related activities (e.g. washing dishes). Conclusion: In summary, it can be stated that music interventions can promote communication and movement. However, musical stimulation is not one of the essential components of improving behavioral and psychological symptoms or well-being for PwD in nursing homes.

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: the EPIC cluster RCT

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.