COVID-19 has caused the sudden closure of care homes to the outside world, to stem the virus from infecting some of the most vulnerable groups of people – older adults residing in care homes. With very little knowledge to date, we aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 on care provision and visits in care homes from staff and family members’ perspectives.

Care home staff and family carers of people living with dementia (PLWD) across the UK were recruited via convenience sampling and participated via telephone or Zoom. Participants took part in a semi-structured remote interview. Baseline data were collected between October and November 2020, and follow-up interviews were collected throughout March 2021. Anonymised transcripts were analysed separately by two research team members using thematic analysis, with codes discussed and themes generated jointly, supported by research team input.

42 participants (26 family carers and 16 care home staff) took part in the baseline interviews, and 20 purposefully sampled participants (11 family carers and 9 care home staff) were followed up. Prior to vaccination roll out in the UK, at baseline, family carers expressed concern about a lack of clear guidance throughout the pandemic, with care homes delivering care differently and disparities noted in the levels and types of visiting allowed for family members. Lack of communication between care homes and family members, but also government and care homes, led to family carers feeling excluded and concerned about the well-being of their relative. Data on follow-up interviews are still being analysed.

This is the first empirical evidence to show how the pandemic has caused severe difficulties in providing adequate care for care home residents, with not only residents, but also care home staff and family carers being negatively affected. Follow-up data will shed light onto the impact of vaccination and eased visitation rights put in place since March 2021 on care delivery and connections between family carers and residents.

The objective of this paper was to examine the implementation and effectiveness of a community-based intervention for hoarding disorder (HD) using Cognitive Rehabilitation and Exposure/Sorting Therapy (CREST).

This was a mixed-method, pre-post quasi-experimental study informed by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model for implementation science.

Program activities took place in San Diego County, mainly within clients’ homes or community, with some activities in-office.

Participants were aged 60 years or older, met eligibility for Medi-Cal or were uninsured, and met criteria for HD.

A manualized, mobile protocol that incorporated CREST was utilized.

The Clutter Image Rating and Hoarding Rating Scale were used as effectiveness outcomes. An investigator-created staff questionnaire was used to evaluate implementation.

Thirty-seven clients were reached and enrolled in treatment and 15 completed treatment during the initial 2 years of the program. There were significant changes in hoarding severity and clutter volume. Based on the initial 2 years of the program, funding was provided for expansion to cover additional San Diego County regions and hire more staff clinicians in year three.

Preliminary data suggest that the CREST intervention can be successfully implemented in a community setting with positive results for older adults with HD.

To determine the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of family caregivers to learn care strategies for persons living with dementia (PLwD).

Randomized clinical trial.

Community-dwelling PLwD and their caregivers (dyads) in Maryland and Washington, DC.

250 dyads.

Tailored Activity Program (TAP) compared to attention control. TAP provides activities tailored to the PLwD and instructs caregivers in their use.

At baseline, 3 and 6 months, caregivers were asked their WTP per session for an 8-session 3-month in-home nonpharmacologic intervention to address behavioral symptoms and functional dependence.

At baseline, 3 and 6 months, caregivers assigned to TAP were willing to pay $26.10/session (95%CI:$20.42, $33.00), $28.70 (95%CI:$19.73, $39.30), and $22.79 (95%CI: $16.64, $30.09), respectively; attention control caregivers were willing to pay $37.90/session (95%CI: $27.10, $52.02), $30.92 (95%CI: $23.44, $40.94), $27.44 (95%CI: $20.82, $35.34), respectively. The difference in baseline to 3 and 6 months change in WTP between TAP and the attention control was $9.58 (95%CI: −$5.00, $25.47) and $7.15 (95%CI: −$5.72, $21.81). The difference between TAP and attention control in change in the proportion of caregivers willing to pay something from baseline to 3 and 6 months was −12% (95%CI: −28%, −5%) and −7% (95%CI:−25%, −11%), respectively. The difference in change in WTP, among caregivers willing to pay something, between TAP and attention control from baseline to 3 and 6 months was $17.93 (95%CI: $0.22, $38.30) and $11.81 (95%CI: −$2.57, $28.17).

Family caregivers are willing to pay more for an intervention immediately following participation in a program similar to which they were asked to value.

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated widespread change across health and social care in England and Wales. A series of lockdowns and UK Government guidance designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19 which emphasised social distancing and increased use of personal protective equipment led to changes such as increased use of remote consultation technologies and the closure of services deemed non-essential. This included many services for people with dementia and their families, such as day centres and dementia cafes.

To explore the changes made to services during the pandemic and the impact of these changes on the delivery of good post-diagnostic dementia support.

Professionals who had previously been recruited to the ongoing PriDem qualitative study were approached for follow up interview. Eighteen interviews with a total of 21 professionals working in health, social care and the third sector were conducted using telephone or video conferencing.

Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and checked prior to thematic analysis.

Key themes emerging from preliminary analysis of the data include: uncertainty about the future and the need to adapt quickly to shifting guidance; changing job roles and ways of working; the emotional and physical impact of the pandemic on staff working with people with dementia and their families; and the impact of changes made (e.g. increased PPE, remote working) on the ability to deliver post-diagnostic support. However, there were also some unintended positive outcomes of the changes. These included the ability to include family members living at a distance in remote consultations, allowing for more robust history-taking, as well as the uptake of technology to facilitate cross-sector and multidisciplinary working between professionals.

Delivering post-diagnostic dementia support during COVID-19 was challenging and forced dementia services to make adaptations. Participants expected that some of these changes would be incorporated into post-pandemic work, for example increased use of technology for multidisciplinary team meetings or blended approaches to patient-facing services involving both virtual and face to face work as appropriate. However, most participants agreed that it was not appropriate nor desirable to provide fully remote post-diagnostic support on a full time basis.