Eating and drinking difficulties are recognised sources of ill health in people with dementia. In the EDWINA (Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA) systematic review we aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions to directly improve, maintain or facilitate oral food and drink intake, nutrition and hydration status, in people with cognitive impairment or dementia (across all settings, levels of care and support, types and degrees of dementia). Interventions included oral nutrition supplementation, food modification, dysphagia management, eating assistance and supporting the social element of eating and drinking. We comprehensively searched 13 databases for relevant intervention studies. The review was conducted with service user input in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration’s guidelines. We duplicated assessment of inclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment, tabulating data, carrying out random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Forty-three controlled interventions were included, disappointingly none were judged at low risk of bias. Oral nutritional supplementation studies suggested small positive short term but unclear long term effects on nutritional status. Food modification or dysphagia management studies were smaller and of low quality, providing little evidence of an improved nutritional status. Eating assistance studies provided inconsistent evidence, but studies with a strong social element around eating/drinking, although small and of low quality provided consistent suggestion of improvements in aspects of quality of life. There were few data to address stakeholders’ questions. We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. People with cognitive impairment and their carers have to tackle eating problems despite this lack of evidence, so promising interventions are listed. The need remains for high quality trials tailored for people with cognitive impairment assessing robust outcomes. The systematic review protocol was registered (CRD42014007611) and is published, with the full MEDLINE search strategy, on Prospero [1].

Risks and prevalence of malnutrition and dehydration are high in older people but even higher in older people with dementia. In the EDWINA (Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA) systematic review we aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve, maintain or facilitate food/drink intake indirectly, through food service or dining environment modification, education, exercise or behavioural interventions in people with cognitive impairment or dementia (across all settings, levels of care and support, types and degrees of dementia). We comprehensively searched Medline and twelve further databases, plus bibliographies, for intervention studies with ≥3 cognitively impaired adult participants (any type/stage). The review was conducted with service user input in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration’s guidelines. We duplicated assessment of inclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment, tabulating data. Meta-analysis (statistical pooling) was not appropriate so data were tabulated and synthesised narratively. We included 56 interventions (reported in 51 studies). Studies were small and there were no clearly effective, or clearly ineffective, interventions. Promising interventions included: eating meals with care-givers, family style meals, soothing mealtime music, constantly accessible snacks and longer mealtimes, education and support for formal and informal care-givers, spaced retrieval and Montessori activities, facilitated breakfast clubs, multisensory exercise and multicomponent interventions. We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. A variety of promising indirect interventions need to be tested in large, high-quality RCTs, and may be approaches that people with dementia and their formal or informal care-givers would wish to try. The systematic review protocol was registered (CRD42014007611) and is published, with the full MEDLINE search strategy, on Prospero (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014007611).

Purpose: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is highly common across the world. It is reported that over 90% of CAP in older adults may be due to aspiration. However, the diagnostic criteria for aspiration pneumonia (AP) have not been widely agreed. Is there a consensus on how to diagnose AP? What are the clinical features of patients being diagnosed with AP? We conducted a systematic review to answer these questions. Methods: We performed a literature search in MEDLINE^®, EMBASE, CINHAL, and Cochrane to review the steps taken toward diagnosing AP. Search terms for “aspiration pneumonia” and “aged” were used. Inclusion criteria were: original research, community-acquired AP, age ≥ 75 years old, acute hospital admission. Results: A total of 10,716 reports were found. Following the removal of duplicates, 7601 were screened, 95 underwent full-text review, and 9 reports were included in the final analysis. Pneumonia was diagnosed using a combination of symptoms, inflammatory markers, and chest imaging findings in most studies. AP was defined as pneumonia with some relation to aspiration or dysphagia. Aspiration was inferred if there was witnessed or prior presumed aspiration, episodes of coughing on food or liquids, relevant underlying conditions, abnormalities on videofluoroscopy or water swallow test, and gravity-dependent distribution of shadows on chest imaging. Patients with AP were older, more frailer, and had more comorbidities than in non-AP. Conclusion: There is a broad consensus on the clinical criteria to diagnose AP. It is a presumptive diagnosis with regards to patients’ general frailty rather than in relation to swallowing function itself.

Restraint in modern non-psychiatric-based healthcare is often regarded as a rare occurrence. It is deemed to be used as a last resort to prevent patients from directly harming themselves. However, techniques are used in modern day practice which are considered direct and indirect restraints with the justification of maintaining patient safety, but they are often not classified as “restraints”. Examples of these include the use of bed rails or tables to prevent patients from “wandering” and to reduce the risk of falls and injuries. More indirect techniques would involve passive interactions with patients or leaving mobility aids out of reach. Staff subconsciously restrain patients and reduce their liberties despite agreeing that patient autonomy should be upheld—a necessary evil to maintain a duty of care. Whilst the use of restraints is often justified to ensure patient care and prevent injury, it is not without consequence. There are physical and psychological health risks such as pressure sores from the inability to mobilise, or the brewing of anger and frustration when denied access to everyday actions. The reasons why restraints are used, whilst stemming from maintaining patient safety, are often due to low staffing levels and the inability to constantly watch at-risk patients due to a large workload. Inadequate training is another factor; by improving education in direct and indirect restraint and providing alternative methods, more ethical decisions and positive outcomes can be implemented. Healthcare professionals are reluctant to use restraint but often conduct it without realising it; assessing their understanding of restraint and providing education to raise awareness of the consequences of direct and indirect methods would result in positive steps toward reducing their use at the same time as looking to provide alternatives to uphold patient care whilst maintaining their dignity and liberty.

With increasing age there are changes to the physiology of all aspects of swallowing. Despite these changes, the majority of older people will swallow safely. With increasing frailty the number of people presenting with dysphagia increases either in the presence of acute illness or with co morbidity; with significant number living in institutions. The aetiology of dysphagia is multiple and is associated with increased dependency and mortality and as such dysphagia meets the criteria to be classified as a geriatric syndrome or giant. This paper presents the case for dysphagia to be recognised as a geriatric giant.