Care Planning for Community-Dwelling People with Dementia: A Systematic Scoping Review

Low, Lee-Fay; Duckworth, Tanya J.; King, Lauren; Gresham, Meredith; Phillipson, Lyn; Jeon, Yun-Hee; Brodaty, Henry

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4674120

Health & Social Care in the Community

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Additional Points Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 4674120 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4674120

Care Planning for Community-Dwelling People with Dementia: A Systematic Scoping Review

Lee-Fay Low,¹Tanya J. Duckworth,^1,2Lauren King,^3,4Meredith Gresham,³Lyn Phillipson,⁵Yun-Hee Jeon,¹and Henry Brodaty³

Academic Editor: Alex Hall

Received05 Sept 2022

Revised26 Oct 2022

Accepted28 Oct 2022

Published10 Feb 2023

Abstract

People with dementia and their care partners report a lack of support, treatment, and information, fragmented services, and a lack of inclusion in decisions about their care. Care planning may address these issues; however, there is scarce literature on the process or benefits of care planning for people with dementia. This review describes the literature on care planning for community-dwelling people with dementia and their care partners. A systematic scoping methodology was followed to identify the research questions, identify relevant documents, select relevant documents, chart the data, and collate, summarise, and report the results. 31 full-text documents published between 2010 and May 2020 were identified and reviewed. Seven were guidelines, seven were expert opinion pieces, 11 were intervention studies, and six were descriptive studies. The topics and process of care planning varied depending on the service context (e.g., memory clinic, home care, and primary care). Care planning was presented as a component of case management in 15 papers. Six of the 11 intervention studies reported positive outcomes, one showed no improvement, and one did not evaluate outcomes for people with dementia or their care partners. Of the six with positive outcomes, four evaluated care planning in the context of care management. There is limited evidence that care planning alone improves outcomes for people with dementia and their care partners. It is unclear whether it may have benefits when combined with care management.

1. Introduction

Care planning is the process by which professionals and care recipients discuss, agree, and review an action plan to achieve the goals or behaviour change of most relevance and concern to the recipient, and a care plan is the written document produced through the care planning process [1]. The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on supporting people with dementia and their care partners in health and social care (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health [2], Australian Clinical Dementia Guidelines [3], Scotland’s National Dementia Strategy 2017–2020 [4], and the Dementia Strategy for Canada all recommend that a care or support plan be developed for every person with dementia [5]. Care planning is intended to improve outcomes for patients/care recipients in health and social care by facilitating participation and shared decision-making, supporting self-management, behaviour change, and coordinating treatments [1].

The care planning process should be a multidisciplinary, solution and action-focused collaboration, including goal setting discussion with the person at the centre of the care plan and, if relevant, their care partner, based on their current and/or future needs and wishes [6]. Care planning is an integral part of case management and care coordination [7, 8] as well as chronic disease management [9]. Crucial components of care planning are defining and aligning medical care and treatment with patient goals, optimising the management of chronic disease, and a centralised single record of care [10].

There is mixed evidence for the benefits of care planning in different populations. A Cochrane systematic review of 19 studies (pooled n = 10,856) found that personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions results in small improvements in physical and psychological health along with people’s capability to self-manage their condition compared to usual care and that the impact is greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care [6]. However, this review did not include people living with dementia. Reviews in other patient groups reported less positive results. A systematic review and meta-analysis of survivorship care plans for people in cancer remission suggests that care plans do not improve survivors’ patient-reported outcomes [11]. A systematic review of integrated care interventions for frail older people, of which shared care plans were a key component in combination with case management, reported that most studies did not improve daily function, health, or quality of life [12]. We did not identify any literature reviews on whether there are benefits to care planning for people with dementia.

People with dementia and care partners have reported that they do not receive sufficient support, treatment, and information around diagnosis [13, 14] and find service systems fragmented and difficult to navigate [15]. These issues partly arise from the lack of integration and coordination between health and social care services [16, 17]. In addition, people with dementia often feel they are not included in decision-making about their own care [18].

There is substantial literature around advance care planning for people with dementia, which documents goals and preferences for future care, particularly end-of-life [19]. A recent umbrella review of 19 reviews (163 unique studies) of the effectiveness of advance care planning for people living with dementia found overall improved outcomes [20]. However, there is less literature about care planning earlier in the course of dementia, including the information that should be in care plans, the care planning process, and barriers and facilitators to care planning.

Care planning might contribute to improving the experiences of care and support for people with dementia, as care planning involves setting person-centred goals, provision of information and discussion of options, promotion of self-management, and having a single, written coordinated plan.

This scoping review aims to explore and synthesise the literature on care planning for people with dementia living in the community. A scan of the literature indicated few high-quality studies; therefore, a scoping methodology was employed to give a broad overview of relevant literature with less focus on the evaluation of quality [21, 22]. Specific review questions were as follows:(1)What is included in a dementia care plan, and how is care planning for people with dementia currently undertaken?(2)What evidence is there that care planning improves health and/or social outcomes for people with dementia and/or care partners?(3)What are barriers and facilitators to care planning for people with dementia?

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic scoping review of the care planning literature for community-dwelling people with dementia was performed using the methodology defined by Arksey and O’Malley [21] and revised by Levac et al. [22]. A five-stage scoping study framework was used; stage one: identifying the research question; stage two: identifying relevant documents; stage three: selecting relevant documents; stage four: charting (or extracting) the data; stage five: collating, summarising, and reporting the results [21]. An optional sixth stage, consultation with key stakeholders, was not undertaken [21].

2.1. Literature Search

2.1.1. Search Strategy Development

An initial limited search of Scopus was undertaken using the search terms “dementia or Alzheimer” and “care plan.” The title, abstract, and index terms of eligible studies were examined to inform the main search. An academic librarian was consulted to improve search strategies.

2.1.2. Search Strategy

(1) Academic Literature. In May 2020, we searched Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases using the title, abstract, and keywords searches. Search limiters were set to obtain articles published within the last ten years to obtain the most recent results and written in English. An updated database and grey literature search was conducted in June 2022. See Table 1 for search details.

(2) Terms Used for Database Search. (“dementia OR Alzheimer”) AND (“care plan” “care-plan” “action plan” “action-plan” “management plan” “management-plan” “management program” “management-program” “personal health plan” “personal-health-plan”).

(3) Grey Literature. We used the Google and Google Advance search engines to search using the terms “dementia or Alzheimer” “care plan” (Table 1). Google search settings were adjusted, so we could search our local regions (Australia), USA, and UK. The Duck Duck Go search engine was also searched to minimize geographic search biases as this does not track Internet protocol (IP) addresses and yields global search results. The first 100 hits from Google Australia, USA, UK, and from Duck Duck Go were downloaded. PsycEXTRA (https://www.apa.org/psycextra/), NICE (https://www.nice.org.uk/), WHO Iris (https://apps.who.int/iris/), Trove (https://www.trove.nla.gov.au/), APO (https://www.apo.org.au/), World Wide Science (https://www.worldwidescience.org/), and GreySource Index (https://www.greynet.org/greysourceindex.html) were also searched (Table 1). The first 100 hits from both PsychEXTRA, NICE, and World Wide Science were downloaded.

2.1.3. Hand Search

The reference lists of included articles were hand searched.

2.1.4. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows:(i)A community or primary care setting(ii)That the content, process, or outcomes must relate to current care planning for dementia(iii)Full papers including reviews, opinion pieces, or original research; English language; published between 2010 and June 2022 (inclusive) to capture contemporary care planning practices. Dates were selected to straddle major Australian Government policy changes enacted in 2015 to a consumer directed care focus for all aged care services in Australia [23] and to limit excessive search results, which can be problematic in scoping studies [21].

Exclusion criteria were as follows:(i)Care planning was conducted in a nursing home or hospital setting(ii)Related to future care planning such as advance care planning or directives(iii)Care plans for delivery by one discipline, e.g., nursing or occupational therapy care(iv)Non-English language(v)Case studies with five or fewer cases(vi)Outside our inclusion years

2.1.5. Screening of Search Results

All search results from academic databases were exported into EndNote citation software [24]. Duplicates for academic articles were removed using EndNote’s comparison function and manually checked (LK). Two independent reviewers (LK and LFL) performed title and abstract screening, and ineligible articles were removed. Full texts were then obtained and read by two reviewers (LK and LFL) for eligibility. Where there was an initial disagreement between the two reviewers, a third reviewer (TJD) participated in the discussion to reach an agreement.

All grey literature results were combined in MS Excel, and duplicates were removed before being exported to EndNote. Grey literature results were screened by reading the URL and article title, and the full text of possibly eligible web pages or documents was downloaded and considered against inclusion criteria.

Methodological quality assessment was not undertaken as this scoping review is intended to provide an overview of all published records, regardless of quality [21, 22, 25].

2.2. Data Extraction and Synthesis

Quantitative data were extracted from papers using a standardized data extraction tool created for this review by one reviewer (TJD) and checked by a second reviewer (LFL). The extracted data were the author, date, geographic location, aims, design, sample characteristics, and findings.

Results pertaining to aims, methodology, efficacy or effectiveness, care planning techniques, facilitators, and barriers to care planning were summarized in tables and text. Thematic synthesis of facilitators and barriers was undertaken by two researchers (LFL and TJD).

3. Results

Our search of academic databases resulted in a combined total of 18,487 papers, from which 12,564 duplicates were removed, leaving 5,923 unique papers. From these, we excluded further 5,868 papers based on title and abstract screening, and 32 papers based on full-text screening, leaving 23 eligible papers from the academic search. The grey literature search yielded 1,960 unique papers, of which 23 full-text articles were screened and four were identified as eligible. Hand searching produced four additional eligible papers. A total of 31 papers were included in this review (Figure 1): 7 guidelines, 11 intervention studies, 6 descriptive studies, and 7 expert opinion pieces.

Seven guidelines were identified [2, 26–31]. Eleven intervention papers were identified, three of which studied care planning specifically [32–34], and eight where the intervention was case management including a substantial component of care planning [35–42]. Four of these intervention papers report on one study, Partners in Dementia Care (PDC) [35, 36, 39, 40].

There were six descriptive studies which predominantly used qualitative methods: a mixed methods study on the involvement of people with dementia in care planning that used surveys and interviews with social workers [18], a qualitative study on the experiences and views of staff on care planning for people with dementia [43], a qualitative study that reviewed care plans of people with dementia and observed home care worker delivery of the actual care [44], a qualitative study that interviewed home care workers about what they need in care plans [45], a qualitative study of the perceptions of nurse practitioners on their role in dementia care and care planning in general practice [46], and a paper describing a care pathway program that included care planning [47]. There were seven expert opinion pieces [48–54]. The main characteristics of these papers are included in Table 2.

3.1. What Are Current Care Planning Processes and What Is Included in Care Plans for People Living with Dementia in the Community?

3.1.1. Involvement of People with Dementia and Care Partners in Care Planning

Viewpoints varied concerning the involvement of people with dementia and care partners in care planning. Two papers described the minimal involvement of people with dementia and care partners in developing the care plan [42, 53]. Three studies discussed the involvement of care partners but had minimal focus on involving people with dementia [32, 37, 38]. The Partners in Dementia Care (PDC) study mentioned involving the person with dementia and their care partner in the development of the plan, yet they were unclear about how much involvement either person had [35, 36, 39]. Six papers suggested involving people with dementia when possible, depending on the level of cognition, understanding, and acceptance of the diagnosis, as well as care partners [2, 18, 30, 31, 49, 50], and one paper highlighted the importance of the involvement of people with dementia in constructing the care plan [34]. One challenge described was balancing the different values and preferences of the person with dementia and their care partner [29, 34, 54].

3.1.2. Beliefs about Dementia Underpinned Care Planning

There was variability in how dementia was conceptualised, and this underpinned how care planning was undertaken. Some papers have conceptualised dementia as an incurable disease against what fluctuations in health, medical, and service-oriented care planning decisions were set [49, 50]. Other care planning processes placed greater emphasis on personhood, emphasising person-centred care planning, and discussion on maintaining personal identity, empowerment, and self-efficacy and creating therapeutic optimism and hope [27, 30, 34]. This style of care planning focused on the maintenance of function, independence, and enhancing the quality of life [2, 27, 47].

3.1.3. Care Planning Often Occurs in the Context of Case Management and Care Coordination

The process of care planning depended on the setting and context. Fourteen papers described care planning in the context of case management or care coordination, and the health professionals in these roles (often a nurse or social worker) were seen as integral in care planning [2, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35–39, 41, 42]. When care plans were developed after a multidisciplinary assessment, it was suggested that a multidisciplinary team should be involved in that care planning [31, 47]. When care planning is for home care, it was suggested that home care workers have input [44, 45]. Comprehensive assessment as part of care planning was suggested in multiple papers [2, 26, 27, 29–31, 33, 35–39, 42, 47, 48, 52].

3.1.4. Care Plans Should be Reviewed Regularly

Reassessment and updating of care plans were recommended every 6–12 months with flexibility to review more often if changes in behaviour, cognition, or function occurred [2, 27, 42]. An advisory paper for general practitioners suggested that care plans should be reviewed every 3–6 months [48]. A protocol for a case management and care planning intervention included 6 monthly reviews [38]. When reviewing progress, this should be evaluated and recorded against the objectives in the original care plan [2]. Two papers described that suboptimal home care occurs when care plans are not up-to-date [44, 45].

3.2. Does Care Planning Improve Outcomes for People with Dementia or Care Partners?

In this scoping review, we found limited evidence that care planning improves outcomes for people with dementia. In three intervention studies, care planning was evaluated independently of other interventions such as case management. A feasibility study of an online care planning tool facilitated by a counsellor found that it was acceptable and useful for care partners (n = 40); however, the study did not evaluate outcomes for people with dementia or care partners [32]. A French cluster randomised clinical trial of 1,131 community-dwelling older people living with Alzheimer’s disease implemented care planning through memory clinics. The trial found that compared to usual care, twice-yearly care planning did not improve activities of daily living, risk of nursing home admission or mortality [33]. Schneider [51] suggested that this might have been due to challenges around implementation of the care plan but did not specify what these challenges were. The third study in this series reports on prepost interview outcomes for people with dementia and their care partners (n = 40 dyads) after seven sessions of care planning with a counsellor. The program was acceptable to people with dementia and care partners with reported improvements in communication, education, resources and services, support, satisfaction, and care planning. Drawbacks for the program were program/session length (too long or too short), time constraints, stressful conversations, program irrelevance, the level of involvement of the person with dementia, and dissatisfaction with the program [34].

In four intervention studies, planning was included as a substantial component of health and social care case management. The secondary analysis of the intervention arm of an 18-month case management trial of Alzheimer’s disease Coordinated Care for San Diego Seniors (ACCESS) program (n = 238 dyads) reported increased interactions with healthcare organisation care managers, as well as care managers from community agency and primary care, increased quality of dementia care but did not present information specifically around the value of care planning [38]. The paper reporting the main findings of the study [55] was published outside our inclusion years and was not reviewed.

Another study of the same case management program (i.e., ACCESS) compared the delivery mode of care planning (home visits and phone calls or phone calls and mailouts) for the Latino community (n = 151 dyads). This study found that care quality improved significantly over time in both in-person and remote delivery conditions. In-person delivery was more expensive and did not produce additional improvements in care partner burden and behaviour of a person with dementia, retention, and healthcare utilization [37]. Another care management program modelled on the ACCESS program, the UCLA Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care Program, involved a case manager partnered with the referring physician to create a care plan covering medical, behavioural, and psychosocial interventions with the aim of preventing unnecessary emergency department visits and hospitalisations. Evaluation of the first 519 participants with dementia found greater levels of satisfaction among care partners (52% response rate to the survey) and referring physicians (37% response rate). Satisfaction of a person with dementia was not reported [42]. It was unclear if every participant with dementia had a care partner, as only percentage response rates for care partners were reported.

The telephone-based Partners in Dementia Care (PDC) involved care coordination using a computerised tool for record sharing, care planning, and fidelity monitoring [39]. Veterans with dementia (n = 93) and care partners (n = 90) completed a 12-month study exploring a broad range of personal goals, identifying actions to get/give information, and access services and programs. Most actions were completed by care partners. Goals were written by the care coordinators, based on the priorities of the veterans with dementia and their care partners. Two follow-up papers from the same study reported significant improvements for care partners’ (n = 486 at the baseline; n = 394 at 6 months; n = 324 at 12 months) unmet needs, depression, role captivity, physical health strain, support service use, and the number of informal helpers after 6 months [35]; significant improvements for veterans with dementia (n = 333 at the baseline; n = 263 at 6 months; n = 194 at 12 months) unmet needs, relationship strain, and depression after 6 months, with some nonsignificant improvements in embarrassment about memory problems [36]. Improvements were maintained after 12 months. It was unclear whether these improvements were the result of care planning specifically as this was not assessed independently of the care management program. An attrition analysis was conducted for Bass et al. [36] but not for Bass et al. [35]. The analysis revealed that attrition was more prevalent in those participants from a minority group who were more impaired in personal care and more isolated from others at baseline; therefore, the results may not be representative of the most vulnerable people living with dementia [36].

3.3. Design, Structure, and Suggested Content of Care Plans

We reviewed all papers for topics that were or should be included in a care plan. Topics recommended for inclusion varied by the context and purpose of the care plan. For instance, if the purpose of the healthcare plan was to prevent hospitalisations, then topics tended to be more around medical management, whereas if the purpose of the social care plan was to support access to services, then more psychosocial topics tended to be included. The program through which care planning was undertaken also impacted the included topics. For instance, care plans for caregiver support services included topics relevant to care support and stress, and care plans for social services included topics relating to supporting people with dementia at home. The previously mentioned philosophical underpinnings of the program also impacted the topics covered (e.g., whether the person’s values or goals were included). A summary of topics identified for potential inclusion in care plans for people with dementia and care partners is shown in Table 3. There was variability regarding the areas of care planning included or emphasized across the papers.

Healthcare professionals preferred care plans that were easy to use in terms of content and functionality [32]. Healthcare professionals were reluctant to complete care plans that they viewed as repetitive in terms of content and as pointless paperwork [43].

Care plans need to be easily transferred between different care settings, such as home, community, and residential care, and consent for this should be requested when they are produced [2]. One study suggested that care plans be short as medical practitioners were unlikely to read lengthy plans, and long plans were also considered problematic for people living with dementia and care partners due to complexity [43]. One study used a web-based case management program [38]. While electronic records potentially save time by allowing teams to share information across locations, staff members were frustrated when electronic records were time-consuming to access and did not have the desired functionality (Drummond and Simpson).

Only two papers described care plan materials developed specifically for care partners [32, 33], and we identified no care plan materials specifically for people with dementia.

3.4. What Are Barriers and Facilitators to Care Planning for People with Dementia?

Few papers included results concerning barriers and facilitators to care planning. Of those that did, barriers for healthcare professionals included difficulty in sharing client information between organisations [39] and a lack of system-level supports and incentives such as financial reimbursement for the time required to complete care planning and case management processes [18, 27, 32, 42, 52]. Other barriers to care planning included the acceptance of involving people with dementia in care planning due to risk aversion by family members and health and social care professionals and the time involved in creating and managing care plans [18, 46]. The need for additional video training features for care partners when using the online program Care to Plan was a barrier for care partners within this specific program [32].

People with dementia and care partners described barriers including planning being a source of emotional stress, being dissatisfied with the experience, irrelevant items in plans, and inflexible time frames allowed (too short, too long), and for some people with dementia, recalling previous planning sessions was difficult [34]. Training for healthcare professionals in care planning specifically with people with dementia was suggested to improve outcomes for people with dementia and their care partners, though we found no data to support this [56].

One paper from the Partners in Dementia Care study examined whether the program reduced healthcare costs compared with usual care and found that the program neither reduced nor increased direct Veterans Health Administration costs [40].

4. Discussion

National dementia strategies and clinical guidelines recommend care planning for people with dementia [2–5]. This review showed that there is limited evidence from intervention studies to support these recommendations, although expert opinion pieces suggest that a process of care planning and delivery of care using that plan is beneficial. This could be for several reasons. First, the process of care planning alone may be insufficient to change longer-term outcomes (i.e., treatment, health behaviour, or use of services), and care plans need to be implemented and potentially refined (e.g., through case management) for benefits to be experienced. Second, no studies have been conducted or used the appropriate methodology and outcome measures to demonstrate the benefits of care planning.

The review showed that care planning processes and topics were influenced by service undertaking care planning and what they provide (e.g., medical and psychosocial focus) and the broader health and social care context (i.e., the services available impacted the areas covered in the plan). This suggests that care planning can be highly contextual, and care plans have different goals (e.g., holistic medical management in a primary care plan, postdiagnostic referrals in a memory clinic plan, and planning and delivery of social services in a home care plan). Based on the current literature, it is unclear whether there are universal core topics that should be included in care plans for people with dementia, though arguably both health and psychosocial wellbeing should be considered irrespective of the service context.

National dementia clinical guidelines on care planning suggested that a range of healthcare professionals plan care, such as primary care physicians and general practitioners, nurse practitioners, organisation specific assessors, specialists, and physician’s assistants [2, 26–30]. Only two papers clearly involved care planning by a multidisciplinary team [33, 47], and five papers explicitly involved a primary care physician or general practitioner in the writing of the care plan [26, 28, 30, 42, 52]. Most studies found in this review evaluated care planning that was conducted by a case manager or care coordinator, typically a nurse or social worker. Heterogeneity in the context, purpose, practitioners involved, structure, and implementation of care plans makes it difficult to determine which factors might contribute to positive outcomes. It is plausible that an important active ingredient in care planning in combination with case management is the close ongoing relationship the person with dementia and care has with a dementia care expert [57].

The development of an individualised care plan has been suggested as a process indicator of care quality [58]. Based on this review, the existence of a care plan alone may not be an ideal quality indicator, and the contributions of the nature of care planning processes and implementation of the care plan remain unclear.

This review scopes the broad literature on care planning for people living with dementia in the community. Limitations of the study are the search strategy and inclusion criteria due to the heterogeneity in terminology related to care planning across the literature; it is possible that relevant studies with a substantial element of care planning were overlooked because care planning was not mentioned in the abstract or key words. Future work could further broaden search terms to include support plans, which may be used in place of the care plan. Two reviewers independently decided whether the paper was related to care planning for people with dementia; however, this was a subjective judgment in papers when care planning is briefly mentioned. Only the first 100 hits were reviewed from the general Internet searches.

Rather than trying to evaluate care planning alone, future research might consider evaluating care planning and implementation together in different settings (e.g., primary or specialist care). The context of the care planning should be clearly described. Research might investigate what the optimal content and procedure for care planning and care plan implementation in different service contexts might be, and further research is also needed on how to include and support people with dementia in making decisions about their own care. Considerations of the context and goals of care planning should also inform the selection of outcomes in future research, including outcomes that are important to people with dementia and care. Future studies might also explore challenging aspects of care planning; for instance, goal setting can be difficult for people with dementia [59], as is balancing the goals of care partners and people with dementia [60].

5. Conclusion

While international guidelines recommend care planning for people with dementia, evidence from intervention studies that care planning alone improves outcomes is limited, though care planning in combination with case managing has promise. Guidelines may need to specify that care planning needs to be combined with case management or other implementation strategies. Future research should make a distinction between health, social care, and integrated care planning, test multidisciplinary involvement in care planning, and how to support people with dementia in care planning [61].

Data Availability

The quantitative and qualitative data supporting this review are from previously reported studies and datasets, which have been cited.

Additional Points

What is known about this topic?(i)Guidelines suggest that care plans should be developed for people with dementia(ii)Care plans are a core part of dementia case management and care coordination, particularly in home care services

What this paper adds?(i)There was limited evidence relating to outcomes to support recommendations in national dementia guidelines that care plans should be developed for people with dementia(ii)Heterogeneity in the context, purpose, practitioners involved, structure, and implementation of care plans makes it difficult to determine which factors might contribute to positive outcomes from care planning(iii)A small number of studies suggest that care planning in combination with case management may increase access to services, decrease unmet needs of person with dementia and caretaker, increase satisfaction with services, and improve outcomes such as depression in person with dementia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

COGNISANCE was funded by a Joint Program Neurodegenerative Disease (JPND) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grant “Multinational Research Projects on Health and Social Care for Neurodegenerative Diseases” (GNT1169452). Lee-Fay Low was funded through a NHMRC Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Development Fellowship. The authors thank Dr Amy Tan for her work in updating the grey literature search, as well as formatting and proofing the document.

Supplementary Materials

S1: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. (Supplementary Materials)

References

J. Burt, J. Rick, T. Blakeman, J. Protheroe, M. Roland, and P. Bower, “Care plans and care planning in long-term conditions: a conceptual model,” Primary Health Care Research & Development, vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 342–354, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH), “Dementia: a NICE-SCIE guideline on supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care,” National Clinical Practice Guideline Number 42, The British Psychological Society, The Royal College of Psychiatrists and Gaskell, London, UK, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
Guideline Adaptation Committee, Clinical Practice Guidelines and Principles of Care for People with Dementia, NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, Sydney, Australia, 2016.
The Scottish Government, “Scotland’s national dementia strategy 2017-2020,” 2017, https://www.alzscot.org/sites/default/files/images/0002/6035/Third_Dementia_Strategy.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
Public Health Agency of Canada, “A dementia strategy for Canada,” 2019, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/images/services/publications/diseases-conditions/dementia-strategy/National%20Dementia%20Strategy_ENG.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Coulter, V. A. Entwistle, A. Eccles, S. Ryan, S. Shepperd, and R. Perera, “Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long‐term health conditions,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2015, no. 3, Article ID CD010523, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Coffey, B. Hannigan, and A. Simpson, “Care planning and co-ordination: imperfect solutions in a complex world,” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 333-334, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Pink, J. O’Brien, L. Robinson, D. Longson, and Guideline Committee, “Dementia: assessment, management and support: summary of updated NICE guidance,” BMJ, vol. 361, Article ID k2438, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council, National Strategic Framework for Chronic Conditions, Australian Government, Canberra, Australia, 2017.
S. T. Edwards, D. A. Dorr, and B. E. Landon, “Can personalized care planning improve primary care?” JAMA, vol. 318, no. 1, pp. 25-26, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. E. Hill, C. E. Wakefield, R. J. Cohn et al., “Survivorship care plans in cancer: a meta‐analysis and systematic review of care plan outcomes,” The Oncologist, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. e351–e372, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Berntsen, F. Strisland, K. Malm-Nicolaisen, B. Smaradottir, R. Fensli, and M. Røhne, “The evidence base for an ideal care pathway for frail multimorbid elderly: combined scoping and systematic intervention review,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 21, no. 4, Article ID e12517, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Francis and P. Hanna, “Informal carer experiences of UK dementia services—a systematic review,” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 116–129, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. F. Low, K. Swaffer, M. McGrath, and H. Brodaty, “Do people with early stage dementia experience Prescribed Disengagement®? A systematic review of qualitative studies,” International Psychogeriatrics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 807–831, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Martin, S. O’Connor, and C. Jackson, “A scoping review of gaps and priorities in dementia care in Europe,” Dementia, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 2135–2151, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. F. Low, K. Laver, K. Lawler et al., “We need a model of health and aged care services that adequately supports Australians with dementia,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 214, no. 2, pp. 66–74, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. N. Minkman, S. A. Ligthart, and R. Huijsman, “Integrated dementia care in The Netherlands: a multiple case study of case management programmes,” Health and Social Care in the Community, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 485–494, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Donnelly, E. Begley, and M. O’Brien, “How are people with dementia involved in care-planning and decision-making? An irish social work perspective,” Dementia, vol. 18, no. 7-8, pp. 2985–3003, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Robinson, C. Dickinson, N. Rousseau et al., “A systematic review of the effectiveness of advance care planning interventions for people with cognitive impairment and dementia,” Age and Ageing, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 263–269, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Wendrich-van Dael, F. Bunn, J. Lynch, L. Pivodic, L. Van den Block, and C. Goodman, “Advance care planning for people living with dementia: an umbrella review of effectiveness and experiences,” International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 107, Article ID 103576, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Arksey and L. O’Malley, “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19–32, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Levac, H. Colquhoun, and K. K. O’Brien, “Scoping studies: advancing the methodology,” Implementation Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 69–9, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia, “Aged care: a quick guide,” 2016, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/Aged_Care_a_quick_guide.
View at: Google Scholar
The Endnote Team, Endnote (Version EndNote X9, 64 bit) [Computer Software], Clarivate, London, UK, 2013.
M. D. J. Peters, “Managing and coding references for systematic reviews and scoping reviews in endnote,” Medical Reference Services Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 19–31, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Alzheimer’s Association, “Cognitive impairment care planning toolkit,” 2018, https://www.alz.org/careplanning/downloads/care-planning-toolkit.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
S. L. Molony, A. Kolanowski, K. Van Haitsma, and K. E. Rooney, “Person-centered assessment and care planning,” The Gerontologist, vol. 58, no. suppl_1, pp. S32–S47, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
National Health Service, “NHS England dementia: good personalised care and support planning: information for primary care providers and commissioners,” 2017, https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/dementia-good-care-planning-information-for-primary-care-and-commissioners/.
View at: Google Scholar
M. E. Pierce, “Case management considerations of progressive dementia in a home setting,” Professional Case Management, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 70–76, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Victorian Department of Health, Strengthening Assessment and Care Planning Dementia Practice Guidelines for HACC Assessment Services, State of Victoria, Department of Health, Melbourne, Australia, 2012.
Victorian Department of Health, Cognitive Dementia and Memory Service Best Practice Guidelines, State of Victoria, Department of Health, Melbourne, Australia, 2013.
J. E. Gaugler, M. Reese, and R. Tanler, “Care to plan: an online tool that offers tailored support to dementia caregivers,” The Gerontologist, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1161–1174, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Nourhashemi, S. Andrieu, S. Gillette-Guyonnet et al., “Effectiveness of a specific care plan in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: cluster randomised trial (PLASA study),” BMJ, vol. 340, no. jun03 1, Article ID c2466, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Orsulic-Jeras, C. J. Whitlatch, S. M. Szabo, E. G. Shelton, and J. Johnson, “The SHARE program for dementia: implementation of an early-stage dyadic care-planning intervention,” Dementia, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 360–379, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Bass, K. S. Judge, A. Lynn Snow et al., “Caregiver outcomes of partners in dementia care: effect of a care coordination program for veterans with dementia and their family members and friends,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 1377–1386, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Bass, K. S. Judge, A. L. Snow et al., “A controlled trial of Partners in Dementia Care: veteran outcomes after six and twelve months,” Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–12, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chodosh, B. A. Colaiaco, K. I. Connor et al., “Dementia care management in an underserved community: the comparative effectiveness of two different approaches,” Journal of Aging and Health, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 864–893, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chodosh, M. L. Pearson, K. I. Connor et al., “A dementia care management intervention: which components improve quality?” American Journal of Managed Care, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 85–94, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
K. S. Judge, D. M. Bass, A. L. Snow et al., “Partners in dementia care: a care coordination intervention for individuals with dementia and their family caregivers,” The Gerontologist, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 261–272, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. O. Morgan, D. M. Bass, K. S. Judge et al., “A break-even analysis for dementia care collaboration: partners in dementia care,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 804–809, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. B. Reuben, L. C. Evertson, N. S. Wenger et al., “The University of California at Los Angeles Alzheimer’s and Dementia care program for comprehensive, coordinated, patient‐centered care: preliminary data,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 2214–2218, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. S. Tan, L. Jennings, and D. Reuben, “Coordinated care management for dementia in a large academic health system,” Health Affairs, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 619–625, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Drummond and A. Simpson, “‘Who’s actually gonna read this?’ an evaluation of staff experiences of the value of information contained in written care plans in supporting care in three different dementia care settings,” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 377–386, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Brown, M. Leverton, A. Burton, K. Harrison‐Dening, J. Beresford‐Dent, and C. Cooper, “How does the delivery of paid home care compare to the care plan for clients living with dementia?” Health and Social Care in the Community, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. e3158–e3170, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Toteh Osakwe, E. N. Madu, A. Céspedes, M. Atairu, J. C. Osborne, and A. Stefancic, “Home health aide perceived information needs for dementia-specific care plans,” Geriatric Nursing, vol. 43, pp. 1–6, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Gibson, D. Goeman, A. Hutchinson, M. Yates, and D. Pond, “The provision of dementia care in general practice: practice nurse perceptions of their role,” BMC Family Practice, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 110, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Morhardt, S. Weintraub, B. Khayum et al., “The CARE pathway model for dementia: psychosocial and rehabilitative strategies for care in young-onset dementias,” Psychiatric Clinics of North America, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 333–352, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Brodaty, M. Connors, D. Pond, A. Cumming, and H. Creasey, “Dementia 14 essentials of assessment and care planning,” Medicine Today, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 18–27, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Cheffey, L. Hill, G. Roberts, and R. Marlow, “Supporting self-management in early dementia: a contribution towards ‘living well’?” Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 344–350, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Moorhouse, “Care planning in dementia: tips for clinicians,” Neurodegenerative Disease Management, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 57–66, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. S. Schneider, “Care plans for people with Alzheimer’s disease,” BMJ British Medical Journal, vol. 340, no. jun03 1, Article ID c2626, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. K. Unwin, N. Loskutova, P. Knicely, and C. D. Wood, “Tools for better dementia care,” Family Practice Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 11–16, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Walker and S. Manterfield, “A little help with care planning,” Journal of Dementia Care, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 16-17, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Whitlatch, “Centered-person care in the early stages of dementia: honoring individuals and their choices,” Generations, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 30–36, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
B. G. Vickrey, B. S. Mittman, K. I. Connor et al., “The effect of a disease management intervention on quality and outcomes of dementia care: a randomized, controlled trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 145, no. 10, pp. 713–726, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Øksnebjerg, B. Woods, C. R. Vilsen et al., “Self-management and cognitive rehabilitation in early stage dementia–merging methods to promote coping and adoption of assistive technology. A pilot study,” Aging & Mental Health, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1894–1903, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. C. Evertson, L. A. Jennings, D. B. Reuben et al., “Caregiver outcomes of a dementia care program,” Geriatric Nursing, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 447–459, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Joling, L. Van Eenoo, D. L. Vetrano et al., “Quality indicators for community care for older people: a systematic review,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 1, Article ID e0190298, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Jennings, K. D. Ramirez, R. D. Hays, N. S. Wenger, and D. B. Reuben, “Personalized goal attainment in dementia care: measuring what persons with dementia and their caregivers want,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 2120–2127, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Jennings, A. Palimaru, M. G. Corona et al., “Patient and caregiver goals for dementia care,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 685–693, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Corporation, “Microsoft excel version 16.45,” 2020, https://office.microsoft.com/excel.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Lee-Fay Low et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

792

Downloads

419

Citations