Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:04:58.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Audit on the Uptake of Psychosocial Interventions in a Nationally Accredited Memory Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Sarah Winfield*
Affiliation:
Jocelyn Solly Resource Centre, Macclesfield, United Kingdom
Faria Zafar
Affiliation:
Jocelyn Solly Resource Centre, Macclesfield, United Kingdom
Tracey Williamson
Affiliation:
Jocelyn Solly Resource Centre, Macclesfield, United Kingdom
Michelle Cooper-Hunt
Affiliation:
Jocelyn Solly Resource Centre, Macclesfield, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

The impaired functioning of patients with dementia has economic, social and quality of life implications for individuals, carers and wider society. We audited the provision & uptake of psychosocial interventions to promote the cognition, independence and well-being of Later life Adults under Macclesfield Memory services, supported by Service and Involvement, Recovery and Wellness Centre at Jocelyn Solly Resource Centre, United Kingdom. Compliance with National guidance on psychosocial care for patients with dementia was assessed: 1. NICE guideline [NG97] “Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers.” 2. “Memory Services National Accreditation Programme Standards for Memory Services”

Methods

Electronic patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Clerical staff identified all patients with dementia reviewed at Jocelyn Solly Resource Centre from 1/4/22 – 31/07/22 (n=140) and data of referrals to, and engagement with, the Recovery College collected.

Results

23/140 patients (16.4%) were referred to the Involvement, Recovery and Wellness Centre by a single referrer; 12 booked onto workshops, 4 declined, 1 was unable to attend due to lack of transport & 6 were not successfully contacted. 11.4% (n=16) of clinic letters documented referral and nil stated referral rationale. n=1 patient attended tai-chi and booked workshops included: Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) (n=8), Living well with dementia (n=1), Living well with a long term condition (n=1), Anxiety Management (n=1). Compliance was 100% for: trained staff delivering workshops, patients and carers having access to psychosocial interventions for challenging behaviour and assessment and interventions for the emotional, psychological and social needs of carers. 99.3% of patients (n=139) were offered pharmacological intervention (or the exception documented). There was no access to individual/maintenance CST, art or creative therapies nor input from psychology or occupational therapy due to vacancies. No patients <65 were signposted to work, education or volunteering.

Conclusion

Though the Recovery college adequately trains and supervises staff and documents patient outcomes, there is capacity to improve the quantity of referrers, referrals & attendances to maximize existing resource utilisation. Implementing strategies to reduce access barriers and hiring a psychologist & occupational therapist would improve service quality. Documenting patient-defined goals and using multiple outcome measures would better enable staff to review progress and could heighten patients’ motivation to engage with services.

Recommendations to improve compliance include: amending clinic letter proformas to include patient-defined goals, psychological and social interventions; educating team members about services offered and referring to the Recovery college and implementing multidisciplinary review of recovery college referrals.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.