Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two approaches: multicomponent interventions that focus on working with the carer and dyadic interventions that work with both the carer and the person with dementia. Method: A systematic review involving a search of Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO in October 2015 was performed. Randomized controlled trials involving carers of people with dementia and comparing multicomponent interventions with usual care were included. Results: Pooling of all studies demonstrated that multicomponent interventions can reduce depressive symptoms, improve quality of life, reduce carer impact, and reduce behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia as well as caregiver upset with these symptoms. We were unable to find a significant difference in the effects of dyadic interventions in comparison with carer focused interventions for these outcomes. Discussion: Although effect sizes associated with intervention are small, multicomponent interventions are relatively inexpensive to deliver, acceptable, and widely applicable.

Providing quality care for people with dementia to meet the growing demand for services is a significant challenge to Australia and globally. When it comes to planning for current and future care needs, limited information is available on what people living with dementia and their family members consider the meaning of "quality" in residential care services. To describe the meaning of quality residential care from the perspective of people with cognitive impairment and their family members. Qualitative data collection via in-depth interviews and focus groups was undertaken with people with dementia or cognitive impairment living in residential care or the community (n=15), and family members of people with dementia (n=26). Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify key themes. The theme of supporting personhood was identified as the overarching concept of importance to both people with dementia and their family members and as the foundation for quality care. There were subtle differences in how this concept was expressed by people with dementia themselves and their family members. However, for both groups, access to meaningful activities and opportunities to feel useful and valued were identified as important ways to support personhood in residential care. Separate to this theme of personhood, family members also talked about the importance of a supportive physical environment in the care home, while for the people with dementia themselves maintaining a connection with family was an important contributor to their experience of good quality residential care. Supporting personhood was identified as a critical key concept underpinning quality residential aged care, from the perspective of both people with cognitive impairment and their family members. This highlights the important contribution that the psychological and social characteristics of care make to providing a good quality residential care experience from the perspective of consumers with dementia.

The potential harms of some medications may outweigh their potential benefits (inappropriate medication use). Despite recommendations to avoid the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older adults, the prevalence of PIM use is high in different settings including residential aged care. However, it remains unclear what the costs of these medications are in this setting. The main objective of this study was to determine the costs of PIMs in older adults living in residential care. A secondary objective was to examine if there was a difference in costs of PIMs in a home-like model of residential care compared to an Australian standard model of care. Participants included 541 participants from the Investigation Services Provided in the Residential Environment for Dementia (INSPIRED) Study. The INSPIRED study is a cross-sectional study of 17 residential aged care facilities in Australia. 12 month medication costs were determined for the participants and PIMs were identified using the 2015 updated Beers Criteria for older adults. Of all of the medications dispensed in 1 year, 15.9% were PIMs and 81.4% of the participants had been exposed to a PIM. Log-linear models showed exposure to a PIM was associated with higher total medication costs (Adjusted β = 0.307, 95% CI 0.235 to 0.379, p < 0.001). The mean proportion (±SD) of medication costs that were spent on PIMs in 1 year was 17.5% (±17.8) (AUD$410.89 ± 479.45 per participant exposed to a PIM). The largest PIM costs arose from proton-pump inhibitors (34.4%), antipsychotics (21.0%) and benzodiazepines (18.7%). The odds of incurring costs from PIMs were 52% lower for those residing in a home-like model of care compared to a standard model of care. The use of PIMs for older adults in residential care facilities is high and these medications represent a substantial cost which has the potential to be lowered. Further research should investigate whether medication reviews in this population could lead to potential cost savings and improvement in clinical outcomes. Adopting a home-like model of residential care may be associated with reduced prevalence and costs of PIMs.