Dataset Information

'The Jigsaw Culture of Care': A qualitative analysis of Montessori-Based programming for dementia care in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Montessori-Based Programming (MBP) in dementia care refers to a growing body of research and practice that has developed Montessori methods to facilitate self-paced learning, independence and engagement for people living with dementia. A number of research gaps have been identified in the existing literature such as a lack of cross-cultural studies and well-powered, robustly designed outcome studies. The current study investigated the use of MBP with a focus on provision in the United Kingdom. It aimed to identify MBP implementation approaches, challenges and barriers, and research gaps.

Design and methods

A qualitative design was implemented to analyse data from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (N = 8) with experience of MBP in the UK. Participants included care home management and staff, MBP trainers and independent dementia experts with a background in Montessori methods. Thematic analysis identified 4 main themes and 12 sub-themes. The study took place between April 2019 and October 2019.

Findings

A framework describing knowledge and understanding of MBP in the UK, implementation considerations, challenges and barriers, evidence of outcomes and research gaps was developed to provide guidance for researchers and practitioners. Implementation considerations included using a whole-home approach and changing the culture of care through management support. Barriers to implementation included conservative attitudes to care, perceived lack of time and resources, health and safety issues, and issues of sustainability.

Conclusion

The benefits of MBP in dementia care are promising but require further empirical investigation. There is a need to design, execute and publish evidence to secure the support of key stakeholders in dementia care research, policy and commissioning in the UK.

SUBMITTER: Raghuraman S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8678648 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThere is an ongoing challenge of effective integration between primary and social care in the United Kingdom; current systems have led to fragmentation of services preventing holistic patient-centred care for vulnerable populations. To improve clinical outcomes and achieve financial efficiencies, the barriers to integration need to be identified and addressed. This study aims to explore the unique perspectives of frontline staff (general practitioners and practice managers) towards these barriers to integration.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis to obtain results.SettingGeneral practices within London.Participants18 general practitioners (GPs) and 7 practice managers (PMs) based in London with experience of working with social care.ResultsThe study identified three overarching themes where frontline staff believed problems exist: accessing social services, interprofessional relationships and infrastructure. Issues with contacting staff from other sectors creates delays in referrals for patient care and perpetuates existing logistical challenges. Likewise, professionals noted a hostile working culture between sectors that has resulted in silo working mentalities. In addition to staff being overworked as well as often inefficient multidisciplinary team meetings, poor relationships across sectors cause a diffusion of responsibility, impacting the speed with which patient requests are responded to. Furthermore, participants identified that a lack of interoperability between information systems, lack of pooled budgets and misaligned incentives between managerial staff compound the infrastructural divide between both sectors.ConclusionIn this study, primary care staff identify intangible barriers to integration such as poor interprofessional relationships, in addition to more well-described structural issues such as insufficient funding and difficulty accessing social care. Participants believe that educating the next generation of medical professionals may lead to the development of collaborative, instead of siloed, working cultures and that change is needed at both an interpersonal and institutional level to successfully integrate care.

Project description:Rationale & Objective:Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home-based kidney replacement therapy used by a growing number of patients with kidney failure. This qualitative study explores the impact of remote management technologies on PD treatment priorities of patients, their care partners, and clinicians. Study Design:Qualitative study, designed and conducted in collaboration with a stakeholder panel that included patients, patient advocates, care partners, and health care professionals. Setting & Participants:13 health care providers, 13 patients, and 4 care partners with at least 3 months experience with PD were recruited from the United States and United Kingdom through postings in PD clinics, websites, and social media. Methodology:Semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of participants. Analytical Approach:Inductive thematic development adapted from a grounded theory approach through analysis of interview transcripts by 3 independent coders. Results:4 main themes about PD treatments emerged that enabled evaluation of remote management: (1) impact of PD on everyday life, (2) simplifying treatment processes, (3) awareness and visibility of at-home treatments, and (4) support for managing treatments. The relative importance of these themes differed between patients/care partners and health care providers and by use of remote management cyclers. Limitations:Remote management is new to PD, mirrored in the limited penetration of use in the study sample, suggestive of findings reflecting early adoption. Conclusions:Participants welcomed technological advances such as remote management for PD, although priorities differed by stakeholder group. Remote management could potentially influence health care provider decisions about patient suitability for PD, while patients/care partners prioritized pre-emptive and early treatment adjustments. Currently, decisions about access to remote management are outside the control of patients and families, but this may change with more widespread use.