To co-design a core outcome set with people living with dementia and other stakeholders that can be used to measure the quality of dementia care in home care and residential settings.

Multilevel modified Delphi consensus study. A priori consensus threshold of 70% was used to include or exclude outcomes.

Routine dementia care provided through home care and residential aged care facilities in Australia.

A stakeholder panel comprising people living with dementia, formal and family/informal carers of people living with dementia, advocates, policy experts, allied-health professionals, nurses and professionals working in the aged care industry. Round 1 included 10 panellists; subsequent rounds extended the number of participants to 24.

Seven outcome domains (Death, Physiological and clinical, Functional, Life impact, Resources, Adverse events and Education), encompassing 105 individual outcomes were considered by the panel over four rounds.

The 105 outcomes were distilled to 16 outcomes identified as important in home care and 15 in residential aged care. In both settings, nine outcomes (Dignity, Advanced care planning, Meaningful activities, Feeling safe and secure, Emotional wellbeing, Quality of Life, Resource utilisation, Safety incidents and Dementia-specific qualifications for care staff) were considered important.

Additionally, seven outcomes in the home care setting (Behavioural symptoms of dementia, Diagnosis of dementia, Hygiene, Importance of Relationships, Quality of carer and family lives, Dementia care navigation and Opportunities for unpaid carers) and six outcomes in the residential aged care setting (Neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia, Pain, Hygiene and comfort, Medication safety, Staff carer morale and Adverse effects) were classified as important.

The outcomes identified during this modified Delphi consensus study provide a promising basis for the development of a meaningful, practical and measurable core outcome set that could be used in dementia care settings to improve the quality of routine care provided to people living with dementia.

To determine if carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for common breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home is feasible and acceptable in the UK, and if it would be feasible to test this intervention in a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised, open pilot trial of the intervention versus usual care, with a 1:1 allocation ratio, using convergent mixed methods.

Home-based care without 24/7 paid care provision, in three UK sites.

Participants were dyads of adult patients and carers: patients in the last weeks of their life who wished to die at home and lay carers who were willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Strict risk assessment criteria needed to be met before the approach, including a known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency.

Intervention-group carers received training by local nurses using a manualised training package.

Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 6–8 weeks post-bereavement and via carer diaries. Interviews with carers and healthcare professionals explored attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The main outcomes of interest were feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures.

The secondary outcome measure was time to symptom relief, calculated using data items from the carer diary, after the patient had died.

In total, 40 out of 101 eligible dyads were recruited (39.6%), which met the feasibility criterion of recruiting >30% of eligible dyads. The expected recruitment target (50 dyads) was not reached, as fewer than expected participants were identified. Although the overall retention rate was 55% (22/40), this was substantially unbalanced (30% (6/20) usual care and 80% (16/20) intervention). The feasibility criterion of >40% retention was, therefore, considered not met. A total of 12 carers (intervention, n=10; usual care, n=2) and 20 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The intervention was considered acceptable, feasible and safe in the small study population. The intervention group had a considerably shorter time to medication administration than the usual-care group (median time to administer medication in intervention=5 min, usual-care=105 min). Intervention group carers felt confident in administering medication. Healthcare professional support was sought by intervention group carers in 24 out of 147 (16.3%) medication administration entries. The context of the feasibility study was not ideal, as district nurses were overstretched, unfamiliar with research methods and possibly not in equipoise. A disparity in readiness to consider the intervention was demonstrated between carers, who were uniformly enthusiastic, and healthcare professionals who were not. Findings confirmed methodological and ethics issues pertaining to researching the last days of life care.

The success of a future definitive trial is uncertain because of equivocal results in the progression criteria, particularly poor recruitment overall and a low retention rate in the usual-care group. Future work regarding the intervention should include understanding the context of UK areas where this has been adopted, ascertaining wider public views and exploring healthcare professional views on burden and risk in the NHS context. There should be consideration of the need for national policy and the most appropriate quantitative outcome measures to use. This will help to ascertain if there are unanswered questions to be studied in a trial.

ISRCTN11211024.