Systematic policy and evidence review to consider how dementia education and training is best delivered in the social care workforce, and how policy does or can enable its implementation in England

Saskia Delray, Sube Banerjee, Sedigheh Zabihi, Madeline Walpert, Karen Harrison-Dening, Charlotte Kenten, Yvonne Birks, Clarissa Marie Giebel, Mohammed Akhlak Rauf, Sally Reynolds, Claudia Cooper
{"title":"Systematic policy and evidence review to consider how dementia education and training is best delivered in the social care workforce, and how policy does or can enable its implementation in England","authors":"Saskia Delray, Sube Banerjee, Sedigheh Zabihi, Madeline Walpert, Karen Harrison-Dening, Charlotte Kenten, Yvonne Birks, Clarissa Marie Giebel, Mohammed Akhlak Rauf, Sally Reynolds, Claudia Cooper","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.24.24312532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Very many social care clients have dementia, but few social care workers receive dementia-specific training. Objective: To systematically review dementia training interventions for social care, review past policies and hold stakeholder workshops considering how future policy can support quality dementia training in social care. Methods: We searched electronic databases, November 2015 to February 2024, including studies describing dementia training and support interventions for social care workers, assessing risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We reviewed English policies January 2015 to April 2024 to identify social and policy contexts relevant to dementia training. We consulted home care and care home stakeholders regarding how findings could inform future policy. Results: We included 56 studies (50 in care homes, 6 in home care). There was good quality evidence that dementia training interventions in care homes that engaged staff champions to integrate practice-based learning reduced agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms and antipsychotic prescribing and improved life quality of residents with dementia. One study found this approach was cost-effective. In home care, evidence was limited; group training was valued, and improved staff sense of dementia care competence in one study. We identified 27 policies and related documents; and consulted 18 stakeholders. Stakeholders supported mandatory dementia training but considered implementation very challenging in current economic contexts.\nConclusions: We found strong evidence for dementia training in care homes, but a relative lack of research in home care. Policy options identified to implement evidence require investment, which could deliver substantial savings across health and social care.","PeriodicalId":501388,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","volume":"192 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.24.24312532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Very many social care clients have dementia, but few social care workers receive dementia-specific training. Objective: To systematically review dementia training interventions for social care, review past policies and hold stakeholder workshops considering how future policy can support quality dementia training in social care. Methods: We searched electronic databases, November 2015 to February 2024, including studies describing dementia training and support interventions for social care workers, assessing risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We reviewed English policies January 2015 to April 2024 to identify social and policy contexts relevant to dementia training. We consulted home care and care home stakeholders regarding how findings could inform future policy. Results: We included 56 studies (50 in care homes, 6 in home care). There was good quality evidence that dementia training interventions in care homes that engaged staff champions to integrate practice-based learning reduced agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms and antipsychotic prescribing and improved life quality of residents with dementia. One study found this approach was cost-effective. In home care, evidence was limited; group training was valued, and improved staff sense of dementia care competence in one study. We identified 27 policies and related documents; and consulted 18 stakeholders. Stakeholders supported mandatory dementia training but considered implementation very challenging in current economic contexts. Conclusions: We found strong evidence for dementia training in care homes, but a relative lack of research in home care. Policy options identified to implement evidence require investment, which could deliver substantial savings across health and social care.
对政策和证据进行系统性审查,以考虑如何在社会护理人员队伍中最好地开展痴呆症教育和培训,以及政策如何在英格兰实施或能够实施痴呆症教育和培训
背景:很多社会护理服务对象都患有痴呆症,但很少有社会护理工作者接受过专门针对痴呆症的培训。目标系统回顾社会护理痴呆症培训干预措施,回顾过去的政策,并举办利益相关者研讨会,考虑未来的政策如何支持社会护理中的高质量痴呆症培训。方法:检索电子数据库我们检索了 2015 年 11 月至 2024 年 2 月的电子数据库,包括描述社会护理人员痴呆症培训和支持干预措施的研究,并使用混合方法评估工具评估了偏倚风险。我们查阅了 2015 年 1 月至 2024 年 4 月的英国政策,以确定与痴呆症培训相关的社会和政策背景。我们就研究结果如何为未来政策提供参考咨询了家庭护理和护理院的利益相关者。研究结果我们纳入了 56 项研究(50 项针对护理院,6 项针对家庭护理)。有高质量的证据表明,在护理院开展的痴呆症培训干预活动中,员工倡导将基于实践的学习融入其中,从而减少了躁动、神经精神症状和抗精神病药物处方,并提高了痴呆症住院患者的生活质量。一项研究发现,这种方法具有成本效益。在家庭护理方面,证据有限;在一项研究中,小组培训受到重视,并提高了员工对痴呆症护理能力的认识。我们确定了 27 项政策和相关文件,并咨询了 18 位利益相关者。利益相关者支持强制性痴呆症培训,但认为在目前的经济环境下,实施起来非常困难:我们发现了在护理院开展痴呆症培训的有力证据,但在家庭护理方面的研究相对缺乏。为落实证据而确定的政策方案需要进行投资,这可在医疗和社会护理领域节省大量资金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信