Aim and objectives. To establish whether the problems and issues experienced by people with dementia living at home and their carers were addressed in the clinical guidance for continence management for community nursing services in England. Background. Internationally, the numbers of people with dementia are rising. Managing incontinence is a significant issue as the presence of incontinence is one of the triggers for people with dementia to move their residence to a care home. People with dementia living at home and their family carers report difficulties in accessing knowledgeable professionals and acceptable continence products. Design. A review by documentary analysis of clinical policies and guidance from a sample of community nursing services in all Strategic Health Authority regions of England. Methods. A sample of clinical policy and guidance documents for continence assessment and management from up to four community nursing services in each of the ten Strategic Health Authority regions in England was sought. Documentary analysis was undertaken on the relevance of the documents identified for people with dementia living at home. Findings. Ninety-eight documents from 38 local community nursing services spread across ten Strategic Health Authority areas were obtained and analysed. Only in the documents of three services were nurses offered detailed guidance about the management of incontinence for people with dementia at home. In the documentation of only one service were people with dementia identified as a special case which warranted the provision of additional continence products. Conclusion. Clinical guidance on continence assessment and management for community nurses in many parts of England does not address the specific needs of people with dementia living at home or their carers. Relevance for clinical practice. Nurses working in community settings and those providing clinical leadership in continence care should review their clinical guidance and policies to ensure relevance for people with dementia living at home and their family carers.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Introduction:
Faecal incontinence (FI) is the involuntary loss of liquid or solid stool that is a social or hygienic problem. The prevalence of FI in residents of care homes is high, but it is not an inevitable consequence of old age or dementia. There is good evidence on risk factors, but few studies provide evidence about effective interventions. There is a need to understand how, why, and in what circumstances particular programmes to reduce and manage FI are effective (or not) for people with dementia. The purpose of this review is to identify which (elements of the) interventions could potentially be effective, and examine the barriers and facilitators to the acceptability, uptake and implementation of interventions designed to address FI in people with dementia who are resident in care homes.
Methods and analysis:
A realist synthesis approach to review the evidence will be used which will include studies on continence, person-centred care, implementation research in care homes, workforce and research on care home culture. An iterative four-stage approach is planned. Phase 1: development of an initial programme theory or theories that will be 'tested' through a first scoping of the literature and consultation with five stakeholder groups (care home providers, user representatives, academics and practice educators, clinicians with a special interest in FI and continence specialists). Phase 2: a systematic search and analysis of published and unpublished evidence to test and develop the programme theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation of programme theory/ies with a purposive sample of participants from phase 1.
Ethics and dissemination:
The overall protocol does not require ethical review. The University research ethics committee will review interviews conducted as part of phase 1 and 3. The final fourth phase will synthesise and develop recommendations for practice and develop testable hypotheses for further research.
BMJ Open 07/2015; 5(7):e007728. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007728 · 2.27 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.