[Implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of case management for people with dementia and their informal caregivers: results of the COMPAS study]

Case management after acquired brain injury compared to care as usual: study protocol for a 2-year pragmatic randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel groups

Background

People with acquired brain injury may suffer from cognitive, emotional and behavioural changes in the long term. Continuity of care is often lacking, leading to a variety of unmet needs and hindering psychosocial functioning from the occurrence of brain injury up to years thereafter. Case management aims to prevent (escalation of) problems and to facilitate timely access to appropriate services. In other populations, case management has shown to improve psychosocial well-being. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility of case management after acquired brain injury and its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, compared to care as usual.

Methods

This is a pragmatic randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel groups and repeated measures in adults with ABI and their family, taking place between November 2019 and December 2021 in three provinces in the Netherlands. Participants will be randomly allocated to either the case management group, receiving case management from hospital discharge up to 2 years thereafter, or the control group, receiving care as usual. Effectiveness will be evaluated every 6 months for 18–24 months by patient-reported psychosocial well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (USER-P) restriction subscale and the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LiSat)), self-management (Patient Activation Measure (PAM)) and care needs (Longer-term Unmet Needs after Stroke (LUNS)). Family outcomes include self-efficacy (Carer Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES)), caregiver burden (Caregiver Strain Index (CSI)), psychosocial well-being (LiSat, HADS), family needs (Family Needs Questionnaire (FNQ)). Feasibility will be evaluated using qualitative methods, assessing fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, reach, recruitment and context. Cost-effectiveness will be determined by the EQ-5D-3L and service use.

Discussion

At the moment, there is no integrated health care service for people with acquired brain injury and their family members in the long term. If case management is shown to be feasible and (cost)-effective, it could bridge the gap between patients’ and families’ needs and the available services.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register NL8104. Registered on 22 October 2019.

Involuntary treatment in dementia care at home: Results from the Netherlands and Belgium

Aims and objectives

To gain insight into the request, use and associated factors of involuntary treatment in people with dementia (PwD) receiving professional home care in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Background

Most of the PwD remain living at home as long as possible. Due to complex care needs, this can result in an increased risk for care provided against the wishes of the client and/or to which the client resists, referred to as involuntary treatment.

Design

Secondary data analyses of two cross‐sectional surveys.

Methods

Dementia case managers and district nurses filled in a questionnaire for each PwD in their caseload. This study included data of 627 PwD receiving professional home care in the Netherlands and 217 in Belgium. The same methodology (questionnaire and variables) was used in both samples. Descriptive statistics and multi‐level logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the data. The study adhered to the STROBE checklist.

Results

More than half of the PwD (50.7%) living at home received involuntary treatment (Belgium 68.2% and the Netherlands 44.7%). Nonconsensual care (82.7%) was the most common, followed by psychotropic medication (40.7%) and physical restraints (18.5%). Involuntary treatment use was associated with living alone, greater ADL dependency, lower cognitive ability, higher family caregiver burden and receiving home care in Belgium versus the Netherlands. Involuntary treatment was most often requested by family caregivers.

Conclusions

Involuntary treatment is often used in PwD, which is in line with previous findings indicating dementia as a risk factor for involuntary treatment use. More research is needed to gain insight into variations in prevalence across other countries, which factors influence these differences and what countries can learn from each other regarding prevention of involuntary treatment.

Relevance to clinical practice

To provide person‐centred care, it is important to study ways to prevent involuntary treatment in PwD and to stimulate dialogue between professional and family caregivers for alternative interventions.