利用危机小组(AQUEDUCT)实现痴呆症的质量和有效性:一项随机对照试验,评估痴呆症危机管理小组使用的最佳实践资源包的影响

IF 15.7 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
M. Orrell, L. O’Raw, D. M. Coleston, M. Opazo Breton, B. Guo, T. Dening, J. Hoe, B. Lloyd-Evans, E. Moniz-Cook, F. Poland, M. Redley, A. Worden, D. Challis
{"title":"利用危机小组(AQUEDUCT)实现痴呆症的质量和有效性:一项随机对照试验,评估痴呆症危机管理小组使用的最佳实践资源包的影响","authors":"M. Orrell, L. O’Raw, D. M. Coleston, M. Opazo Breton, B. Guo, T. Dening, J. Hoe, B. Lloyd-Evans, E. Moniz-Cook, F. Poland, M. Redley, A. Worden, D. Challis","doi":"10.1038/s41467-025-61537-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People with dementia frequently experience mental health crisis requiring psychiatric hospital admission. In the UK, Teams Managing Crisis in Dementia (TMCDs) vary in structure and practice due to the absence of a standardized model. A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the AQUEDUCT Best Practice Tool and online Resource Kit (RK). Twenty-three TMCDs across England were randomised 1:1 To receive the RK plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control) (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN42855694). The primary outcome was the number of psychiatric hospital admissions for people with dementia at the primary endpoint of six months. Secondary outcomes included TMCD staff mental health (GHQ-12), psychological flexibility (WAAQ), and work engagement (UWES); and for people with dementia and carers, service satisfaction (CSQ-8) and mental wellbeing (GHQ-12). There was no significant difference in number of psychiatric admissions between groups (incident rate ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.37-1.48; <i>p</i> = 0.397) and the primary endpoint was met. No significant differences were found for the secondary outcomes across staff or service user groups. Fidelity to the intervention varied; five TMCDs met or exceeded implementation criteria, while others reported structural barriers. Limited engagement was attributed to the absence of a learning collaborative and pandemic-related service pressures. Although the RK was valued by staff for guiding quality improvement, it did not significantly reduce hospital admissions or improve secondary outcomes. Future studies should prioritise implementation support and explore systemic barriers to service improvement in dementia crisis care.</p>","PeriodicalId":19066,"journal":{"name":"Nature Communications","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Achieving Quality and Effectiveness in Dementia Using Crisis Teams (AQUEDUCT): a randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of a best practice Resource Kit used by teams managing crisis in dementia\",\"authors\":\"M. Orrell, L. O’Raw, D. M. Coleston, M. Opazo Breton, B. Guo, T. Dening, J. Hoe, B. Lloyd-Evans, E. Moniz-Cook, F. Poland, M. Redley, A. Worden, D. Challis\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41467-025-61537-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People with dementia frequently experience mental health crisis requiring psychiatric hospital admission. In the UK, Teams Managing Crisis in Dementia (TMCDs) vary in structure and practice due to the absence of a standardized model. A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the AQUEDUCT Best Practice Tool and online Resource Kit (RK). Twenty-three TMCDs across England were randomised 1:1 To receive the RK plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control) (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN42855694). The primary outcome was the number of psychiatric hospital admissions for people with dementia at the primary endpoint of six months. Secondary outcomes included TMCD staff mental health (GHQ-12), psychological flexibility (WAAQ), and work engagement (UWES); and for people with dementia and carers, service satisfaction (CSQ-8) and mental wellbeing (GHQ-12). There was no significant difference in number of psychiatric admissions between groups (incident rate ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.37-1.48; <i>p</i> = 0.397) and the primary endpoint was met. No significant differences were found for the secondary outcomes across staff or service user groups. Fidelity to the intervention varied; five TMCDs met or exceeded implementation criteria, while others reported structural barriers. Limited engagement was attributed to the absence of a learning collaborative and pandemic-related service pressures. Although the RK was valued by staff for guiding quality improvement, it did not significantly reduce hospital admissions or improve secondary outcomes. Future studies should prioritise implementation support and explore systemic barriers to service improvement in dementia crisis care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Communications\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-61537-z\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Communications","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-61537-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

痴呆症患者经常经历精神健康危机,需要住院治疗。在英国,由于缺乏标准化模型,痴呆症危机管理团队(tmcd)在结构和实践上各不相同。设计了一项实用的随机对照试验(RCT)来评估AQUEDUCT最佳实践工具和在线资源工具包(RK)。全英格兰23名tmcd按1:1随机分组,接受RK加常规护理(干预)或单独常规护理(对照)(www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN42855694)。主要结局是痴呆患者在6个月的主要终点入院精神病院的数量。次要结局包括TMCD员工心理健康(GHQ-12)、心理灵活性(WAAQ)和工作投入(UWES);对于痴呆症患者和护理人员,服务满意度(CSQ-8)和心理健康(GHQ-12)。两组间精神科入院人数无显著差异(事故率比:0.74;95% ci: 0.37-1.48;P = 0.397),达到主要终点。在工作人员或服务用户群体中,次要结果没有发现显著差异。对干预的忠实度各不相同;5个tmcd达到或超过了实施标准,而其他tmcd报告存在结构性障碍。参与有限的原因是缺乏学习协作和与大流行病有关的服务压力。虽然RK在指导质量改进方面受到工作人员的重视,但它并没有显著减少住院率或改善次要结果。未来的研究应优先考虑实施支持,并探索痴呆症危机护理服务改善的系统性障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Achieving Quality and Effectiveness in Dementia Using Crisis Teams (AQUEDUCT): a randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of a best practice Resource Kit used by teams managing crisis in dementia

Achieving Quality and Effectiveness in Dementia Using Crisis Teams (AQUEDUCT): a randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of a best practice Resource Kit used by teams managing crisis in dementia

People with dementia frequently experience mental health crisis requiring psychiatric hospital admission. In the UK, Teams Managing Crisis in Dementia (TMCDs) vary in structure and practice due to the absence of a standardized model. A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the AQUEDUCT Best Practice Tool and online Resource Kit (RK). Twenty-three TMCDs across England were randomised 1:1 To receive the RK plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control) (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN42855694). The primary outcome was the number of psychiatric hospital admissions for people with dementia at the primary endpoint of six months. Secondary outcomes included TMCD staff mental health (GHQ-12), psychological flexibility (WAAQ), and work engagement (UWES); and for people with dementia and carers, service satisfaction (CSQ-8) and mental wellbeing (GHQ-12). There was no significant difference in number of psychiatric admissions between groups (incident rate ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.37-1.48; p = 0.397) and the primary endpoint was met. No significant differences were found for the secondary outcomes across staff or service user groups. Fidelity to the intervention varied; five TMCDs met or exceeded implementation criteria, while others reported structural barriers. Limited engagement was attributed to the absence of a learning collaborative and pandemic-related service pressures. Although the RK was valued by staff for guiding quality improvement, it did not significantly reduce hospital admissions or improve secondary outcomes. Future studies should prioritise implementation support and explore systemic barriers to service improvement in dementia crisis care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Communications
Nature Communications Biological Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
24.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
6928
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: Nature Communications, an open-access journal, publishes high-quality research spanning all areas of the natural sciences. Papers featured in the journal showcase significant advances relevant to specialists in each respective field. With a 2-year impact factor of 16.6 (2022) and a median time of 8 days from submission to the first editorial decision, Nature Communications is committed to rapid dissemination of research findings. As a multidisciplinary journal, it welcomes contributions from biological, health, physical, chemical, Earth, social, mathematical, applied, and engineering sciences, aiming to highlight important breakthroughs within each domain.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信