Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T22:22:02.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical Audit of the Quality of Care Delivered by Community Mental Health Services for Older People to People Living With Dementia and Their Carers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Karyn Vovwero Ohioma*
Affiliation:
Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, Stockton, United Kingdom
Sarah Pearce
Affiliation:
Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, Stockton, 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

This clinical audit aimed to assess how well the local Community Mental health services for Older people (MHSOP) was implementing the latest NICE and Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys (TEWV) guidelines in dementia service delivery, and to identify what impact (if any), the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown had on their service delivery. In the UK, there are over 800,000 people living with Dementia; providing sustainable individualised care for them has significant cost implications for health and social care services. In 2018, NICE published evidence-based guidelines on delivery of dementia care by professional services within a person-centred and supportive framework. These guidelines together with the TEWV guidelines on Person-centred Dementia care pathway published in 2019, set the standards for this audit.

Methods

The first cycle was performed between 7th Nov 2020 and 15th Jan 2021; we included patients who had received an initial and diagnostic assessment from the team by 12/2020.

Second cycle was done from 7th Nov 2021 and 31st March 2022; inclusion criteria were patients who had initial and diagnostic assessments by Jan 2022.

In each cycle, data from 20 patient records were collected using a tool designed from NICE guidelines and Trust policy on Dementia care standards.

Results

In the first audit patients' consents for assessment and information sharing purposes was recorded in 80% of cases; this fell to 65% in the re-audit.

In the first audit at diagnostic assessments, 47% of patients were given relevant information regarding their prognosis and 26% about dementia and driving; these appreciated to 80% and 53% respectively. 16% of patients were given information in readily accessible formats as leaflets, increasing to 50% in the re-audit.

In both audits a carer's assessment was not offered up to the recommended standard, being (26% and 18% respectively).

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated a measurable improvement in the conduct of diagnostic assessments when local and national standards guiding dementia assessments are followed, and when identified action plans on areas needing improvement are implemented. It however shows that for such improvements to be sustained, the Trust and national guidelines and all identified action plans need to be consistently applied in practice. The findings also suggest that the COVID-19 lockdown restricted opportunities for sharing readily accessible information leaflets to patients, as borne out by the relatively poorer compliance of 16% in the first audit.

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.