Objective: to measure general practitioners' knowledge of, confidence with and attitudes to the diagnosis and management of dementia in primary care. Setting: 20 general practices of varying size and prior research experience in Central Scotland, and 16 similarly varied practices in north London. Participants: 127 general practitioners who had volunteered to join a randomised controlled trial of educational interventions about dementia diagnosis and management. Methods: self-completion questionnaires covering knowledge, confidence and attitudes were retrieved from practitioners prior to the educational interventions. Results: general practitioners' knowledge of dementia diagnosis and management is good, but poor awareness of its epidemiology leads to an over-estimate of caseload. Knowledge of local diagnostic and support services is less good, and one third of general practitioners expressed limited confidence in their diagnostic skills, whilst two-thirds lacked confidence in management of behaviour and other problems in dementia. The main difficulties identified by general practitioners were talking with patients about the diagnosis, responding to behaviour problems and coordinating support services. General practitioners perceived lack of time and lack of social services support as the major obstacles to good quality care more often than they identified their own unfamiliarity with current management or with local resources. Attitudes to the disclosure of the diagnosis, and to the potential for improving the quality of life of patients and carers varied, but a third of general practitioners believed that dementia care is within a specialist's domain, not that of general practice. More experienced and male general practitioners were more pessimistic about dementia care, as were general practitioners with lower knowledge about dementia. Those reporting greater difficulty with dementia diagnosis and management and those with lower knowledge scores were also less likely to express attitudes endorsing open communication with patient and carer. Conclusion: educational support for general practitioners should concentrate on epidemiological knowledge, disclosure of the diagnosis and management of behaviour problems in dementia. The availability and profile of support services, particularly social care, need to be enhanced, if earlier diagnosis is to be pursued as a policy objective in primary care.

Objective To test the effectiveness of educational interventions in improving detection rates and management of dementia in primary care. Design Unblinded, cluster randomised, before and after controlled study. Setting General practices in the United Kingdom (central Scotland and London) between 1999 and 2002. Interventions Three educational interventions: an electronic tutorial carried on a CD Rom; decision support software built into the electronic medical record; and practice based workshops. Participants 36 practices participated in the study. Eight practices were randomly assigned to the electronic tutorial; eight to decision support software; 10 to practice based workshops; and 10 to control. Electronic and manual searches yielded 450 valid and usable medical records. Main outcome measures Rates of detection of dementia and the extent to which medical records showed evidence of improved concordance with guidelines regarding diagnosis and management. Results Decision support software (P = 0.01) and practice based workshops (P = 0.01) both significantly improved rates of detection compared with control. There were no significant differences by intervention in the measures of concordance with guidelines. Conclusions Decision support systems and practice based workshops are effective educational approaches in improving detection rates in dementia.

Objective: The aims of the study were to report on the development and evaluation of a staff training intervention in dementia care designed for use in the general hospital setting: the ‘Getting to Know Me’ training programme. The study also aimed to undertake initial psychometric analysis on two new outcome scales designed to measure knowledge and confidence in dementia care.Methods: The study comprised two phases. The first phase comprised the design of two questionnaires which are shared within this paper: Confidence in Dementia (CODE) Scale and Knowledge in Dementia (KIDE) Scale. In phase two, staff undertook the ‘Getting to Know Me’ training programme (n = 71). The impact of the programme was evaluated using a pre–post design which explored: (1) changes in confidence in dementia; (2) changes in knowledge in dementia; and (3) changes in beliefs about challenging behaviour.Results: The psychometric properties of the CODE and KIDE scales are reported. Statistically significant change was identified pre–post training on all outcome measures. Clinically meaningful change was demonstrated on the CODE scale.Conclusions: The ‘Getting to Know Me’ programme was well received and had a significant impact on staff knowledge and confidence. Our findings add to a growing evidence base which will be strengthened by further robust studies, the exploration of the impact of staff training on direct patient outcomes, and further identification of ways in which to transfer principles of care from specialist dementia environments into general hospital settings.

Objectives The aim of the REMiniscence groups for people with dementia and their family CAREgivers (REMCARE) study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers as compared with usual care. Design A multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with two parallel arms – an intervention group and a usual-care control group – was carried out. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used with an overall allocation ratio of 1 : 1, restricted to ensure intervention groups of a viable size. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, 3 months and 10 months (primary end point). Setting Most participants were recruited through NHS Memory Clinics and Community Mental Health Teams for older people. Assessments were usually carried out in the person’s home, and treatment groups were held in a variety of community settings. Participants A total of 488 individuals (mean age 77.5 years) with mild to moderate dementia (meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria), who were initially living in the community, and who had a relative or other caregiver maintaining regular contact, who could act as an informant and was willing and able to participate in the intervention, were recruited to the study. Most carers were spouses (71%). A total of 350 dyads completed the study. Interventions The intervention consisted of joint reminiscence groups held weekly for 12 consecutive weeks, followed by monthly maintenance sessions for a further 7 months. The sessions followed a treatment manual, and were led by two trained facilitators in each centre, supported by a number of volunteers. Up to 12 dyads were invited to attend each group. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia and psychological distress for the carer [General Health Questionnaire-28 item version (GHQ-28)]. Secondary outcome measures included autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia, carer stress for the carer and mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both parties. Results The intention-to-treat analysis identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes [self-reported quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: mean difference 0.07, standard error (SE) 0.65; F = 0.48; p = 0.53]. Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a subscale of the GHQ-28 at the 10-month end point (mean difference 1.25, SE 0.5; F = 8.28; p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested some benefits for people with dementia who attended more reminiscence sessions; however, carers attending more groups showed increased caregiving stress. Use of health- and social-care services was modest, with no significant difference in service use between conditions. Owing to negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-year gains (derived from European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) between the conditions the planned full economic analysis was curtailed. Conclusions This trial does not provide support for the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their carers. Although there may be some beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned, this must be viewed in the context of raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42430123. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 48. See the HTA programme website for further project information.