Background: The wishes and preferences of people with dementia should inform decisions on future care. However, such decisions are often left to family carers and may not reflect those the person with dementia would have made for themselves. We know little about what influences agreement between people with dementia and their carers. Aim: To explore whether people with dementia and their carers were able to generate and prioritise preferences for end-of-life care. We examined whether carers influenced the choices made by the persons with dementia. Design: Nominal group technique. Setting/participants: People with dementia ( n = 6), carers ( n = 5) and dyads of people with dementia and carers ( n = 6) attending memory assessment services. Methods: Three modified nominal group technique groups were conducted in five stages: (1) silent generation of ideas, (2) discussion, (3) further generation of ideas, (4) discussion and themeing and (5) ranking. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed for thematic content using NVIVO8. Results: Quality of care, family contact, dignity and respect were ranked as significant themes by all groups. The analysis of transcripts revealed three main themes: quality of care, independence and control and carer burden. People with dementia had difficulty considering their future selves. Carers wanted much control at the end of life, raising issues of assisted dying and euthanasia. Conclusions: Wishes and preferences of people with dementia and their family carers may differ. To ensure the wishes of people with dementia are respected, their views should be ascertained early in the disease before their ability to consider the future is compromised.

Few people with dementia have made advance plans for their health care. Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of discussion between an individual and their care providers that takes account of wishes and preferences for future care. We aimed to examine the facilitators and inhibitors to ACP in people with dementia. We also aimed to identify key themes in the literature and critically review the methodologies used. We systematically searched the English language literature including PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, PsychINFO, EMBASE and BNI. We included empirical studies which reported the characteristics of the patient population, the type of advance care planning used and the study setting, and which involved people with dementia, family members or professional carers. We identified 17 studies (11 quantitative methods, one qualitative and five mixed methods). We found one ACP intervention which changed outcomes for people with dementia. Key themes were identified: there is a point at which cognition decreases critically so that an advanced care plan can no longer be made; factors present in family carers and professionals can influence decision-making and the ACP process; ACPs are affected by preferences for life sustaining treatments; ACP in dementia may differ from other illness groups; and there is a need for education relating to ACP. The current evidence base for ACP in dementia is limited. Since UK government policy recommends that all people should engage in ACP, more evidence is needed to understand the feasibility and acceptability of advanced care plans for people with dementia.

When a person with dementia (PWD) has lost the ability to make treatment decisions, clinicians often rely on family carers to know and articulate these preferences with assumed accuracy. This study used the Life Support Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ) to explore whether family carers’ choices show agreement with the end of life care preferences of the person with dementia for whom they care and what factors influence this. A cross-sectional study interviewing 60 dyads (a person with early dementia and preserved capacity and their family carer) each completing a modified LSPQ. We assessed how closely carers’ choices resembled the PWD’s preferences for treatment in three proposed health states: the here and now; severe stroke with coma; terminal cancer. Agreement between the PWD and their family carer responses was assessed using Kappa and Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) statistics. We examined whether carer burden and distress, and relationship quality, influenced agreement. In interviews PWD were able to indicate their treatment preferences across all three scenarios. In the here-and-now most wanted antibiotics (98%), fewer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (50%) and tube feeding (47%). In severe stroke and coma antibiotics remained the more preferred treatment (88%), followed by CPR (57%) and tube feeding (30%). In advanced cancer PWD expressed lower preferences for all treatments (antibiotics 68%; CPR 50%; tube feeding 37%). Carers’ choices were similar to the PWDs’ preferences in the here-and-now (71% (k = 0.03; PABAK = 0.4) with less agreement for future hypothetical health states. In severe stroke and coma carers tended wrongly to suggest that the PWD preferred more intervention (antibiotic, 67%; k = -0.022; PABAK = -0.60; CPR, 73%; k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.20, tube feeding, 66%; k = 0.25; PABAK = -0.12). In advanced cancer the agreement between PWD and carers was low (antibiotics; k = -0.03; PABAK = -0.52; CPR, k = -0.07; PABAK = -0.45; tube feeding; k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.22). However, both PWD and carers showed marked uncertainty about their preferences for end of life treatment choices. Relationship quality, carer distress and burden had no influence on agreement. This study is the first to have used the LSPQ with PWD in the UK to consider treatment options in hypothetical illness scenarios. Key finding are that family carers had a low to moderate agreement with PWD on preferences for end of life treatment. This underscores how planning for care at the end of life is beset with uncertainty, even when the carer and PWD perceive the care-giving/receiving relationship is good. Families affected by dementia may benefit from early and ongoing practical and emotional support to prepare for potential changes and aid decision making in the context of the realities of care towards the end of life.

INTRODUCTION: Existing advance care planning (ACP) definitional frameworks apply to individuals with decision‐making capacity. We aimed to conceptualize ACP for dementia in terms of its definition and issues that deserve particular attention.METHODS: Delphi study with phases: (A) adaptation of a generic ACP framework by a task force of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC); (B) four online surveys by 107 experts from 33 countries, September 2021 to June 2022; (C) approval by the EAPC board.RESULTS: ACP in dementia was defined as a communication process adapted to the person's capacity, which includes, and is continued with, family if available. We identified pragmatic boundaries regarding participation and time (i.e., current or end‐of‐life care). Three interrelated issues that deserve particular attention were capacity, family, and engagement and communication.DISCUSSION: A communication and relationship‐centered definitional framework of ACP in dementia evolved through international consensus supporting inclusiveness of persons with dementia and their family.Highlights: This article offers a consensus definitional framework of advance care planning in dementia. The definition covers all stages of capacity and includes family caregivers. Particularly important are (1) capacity, (2) family, (3) engagement, and communication. Fluctuating capacity was visualized in relation to roles and engaging stakeholders.

The process of advance care planning in dementia is far from straightforward; as dementia progresses, the ability to consider future thoughts and actions becomes compromised, thus affecting decision-making abilities. Family carers find themselves increasingly in a position where they need to inform, or directly make, decisions on behalf of the person with dementia. This article discusses the context and importance of a palliative care approach and recommends rationales and strategies for healthcare professionals to support families affected by dementia to better plan for their future care.

Dementia is the most common neurological disorder worldwide and is a life-limiting condition, but very often is not recognised as such. People with dementia, and their carers, have been shown to have palliative care needs equal in extent to those of cancer patients. However, many people with advanced dementia are not routinely being assessed to determine their palliative care needs, and it is not clear why this is so. An interdisciplinary workshop on “Palliative Care in Neurodegeneration, with a focus on Dementia”, was held in Cork, Ireland, in May 2016. The key aim of this workshop was to discuss the evidence base for palliative care for people with dementia, to identify ‘gaps’ for clinical research, and to make recommendations for interdisciplinary research practice. To lead the discussion throughout the day a multidisciplinary panel of expert speakers were brought together, including both researchers and clinicians from across Ireland and the UK. Targeted invitations were sent to attendees ensuring all key stakeholders were present to contribute to discussions. In total, 49 experts representing 17 different academic and practice settings, attended. Key topics for discussion were pre-selected based on previously identified research priorities (e.g. James Lind Alliance) and stakeholder input. Key discussion topics included: i. Advance Care Planning for people with Dementia; ii. Personhood in End-of-life Dementia care; iii. Topics in the care of advanced dementia at home. These topics were used as a starting point, and the ethos of the workshop was that the attendees could stimulate discussion and debate in any relevant area, not just the key topics, summarised under iv. Other priorities. The care experienced by people with dementia and their families has the potential to be improved; palliative care frameworks may have much to offer in this endeavour. However, a solid evidence base is required to translate palliative care into practice in the context of dementia. This paper presents suggested research priorities as a starting point to build this evidence base. An interdisciplinary approach to research and priority setting is essential to develop actionable knowledge in this area.