Skip to content

Partners in Dementia Care: A Telephone Care Consultation Intervention Provided to Veterans in Partnership With Local Alzheimer's Association Chapters

Partners in Dementia Care

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00291161
Acronym
PDC
Enrollment
994
Registered
2006-02-13
Start date
2006-12-31
Completion date
2011-02-28
Last updated
2016-05-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Alzheimer Disease, Dementia

Keywords

Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Dementia, Patient Care Management

Brief summary

Background: Partners in Dementia Care (PDC) is a care coordination and support service intervention for veterans with dementia and their family caregivers, delivered through partnerships between VA medical centers and local Alzheimer's Association Chapters. PDC was designed to be a feasible and practical intervention to integrate health, community, and support services. PDC has a standardized protocol for care coordination and support services, including guidelines for care plan assessment, care plan development and implementation, ongoing monitoring, and reassessment. It also offers a structured training curriculum for providers and an operations manual for uniform implementation. Objectives: The primary objective was to test the impact of PDC on outcomes for veterans with dementia and family caregivers. Two specific research objectives and corresponding hypotheses were addressed: 1. To test the impact of PDC on three categories of outcomes: psychosocial well-being outcomes (patient and caregiver effects); health care service use (patient effects only); and health care cost (patient effects only). HI:PDC, compared to usual care, will improve psychosocial well-being for patients with dementia and their caregivers. H2:PDC, compared to usual care, will reduce health care service use for patients with dementia. H3:PDC is preferred to usual care based on cost-benefit analyses. H4:The PDC intervention will be more effective in improving psychosocial well-being and reducing health care service use for patients and caregivers dealing with more severe patient impairment (e.g., cognitive status, functional status, and level of problem behaviors). 2. To evaluate the impact of PDC on role and intra-psychic strains caused by dementia and its care (patient and caregiver effects). H5a:PDC, compared to usual care, will decrease patient role and intra-psychic strain. H5b:PDC, compared to usual care, will decrease caregiver role and intra-psychic strain. H6:The PDC intervention will be more effective in decreasing role and intra-psychic strains for patients and caregivers dealing with more severe patient impairment (e.g., cognitive status, functional status, and level of problem behaviors).

Detailed description

Background: Dementia affects the entire family by negatively impacting multiple domains including physical health, emotional health, social relationships, and legal and financial issues (Gurland, 1980; Kunik, Snow, Molinari, Menke, Souchek, Sullivan et al, 2003; Schulz, Visintainer, & Williamson, 1990; Wright, Clipp, & George, 1993). Particularly challenging is accessing the range of services needed to address the care needs of both the individual with dementia and the primary family caregiver. Common issues include: obtaining adequate diagnostic testing; understanding treatment options and medications; difficulties with memory and behavioral symptoms; and care- and illness-related strain (Mitnick, Leffler, & Hood, 2010). Additionally, many unmet care needs are the result of service fragmentation and inadequate communication among different medical providers, medical providers and consumers, and medical providers and community services (Reuben, Levin, Frank, 2009). Built upon two prior studies: the Cleveland Alzheimer's Managed Care Demonstration (Bass, Clark, Looman, McCarthy, & Eckert, 2003) and the Chronic Care Networks for Alzheimer's Disease (CCN/AD) (Maslow & Bass, 2003; Maslow & Selstad, 2001), PDC was a 5-year research investigation that tested the effectiveness of a telephone-based, innovative care-coordination intervention designed to address the unmet care needs of Veterans with dementia and their family caregivers across all dementia stages. PDC was implemented through formal partnerships between the VA medical centers and local Alzheimer's Association (AA) chapters. Essential features of PDC included: 1) formal partnerships between VA medical centers and Alzheimer's Association Chapters; 2) a multidimensional assessment and treatment approach, 3) ongoing monitoring and long-term relationships with families; and 4) a computerized information system to guide service delivery and fidelity monitoring. For a complete description of the PDC intervention protocol please see Judge, Bass, Snow, Wilson, Morgan, Looman, McCarthy, and Kunik (2010). Objectives: The primary objective of this investigation is to rigorously test the impact of PDC on a number of outcomes for Veterans with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare providers. Within VA Medical Centers, the focus will be on improving dementia care in primary care clinics, including geriatrics. Two specific research objectives and corresponding hypotheses will be addressed: 1. To test the impact of PDC on three categories of outcomes: psychosocial well-being outcomes (patient and caregiver effects); healthcare service use (patient effects only); and health care cost (patient effects only). Hypothesis 1: PDC, compared with usual care, will improve psychosocial well-being, including depression, health status, adequacy of care, and quality of care for patients with dementia and their caregivers. Hypothesis 2: PDC, compared with usual care, will reduce healthcare service use for patients with dementia, including hospital admissions, emergency department visits, nursing home admissions, and physician visits. Hypothesis 3: PDC is preferred to usual care, based on cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Hypothesis 4: The PDC intervention will be more effective than usual care in improving psychosocial well-being and reducing health care service use for patients and caregivers dealing with more severe patient impairment (e.g., cognitive status, functional status, and level of problem behaviors). 2. To evaluate the impact of PDC on role and intra-psychic strains caused by dementia and its care (patient and caregiver effects). Hypothesis 5a: PDC, compared with usual care, will decrease patient role and intra-psychic strain, including embarrassment about the illness, emotional strain, relationship strain, and social isolation. Hypothesis 5b: PDC, compared with usual care, will decrease caregiver role and intra-psychic strain, including role captivity, work care-related strain, relationship strain, emotional and physical health deterioration, and caregiving efficacy. Hypothesis 6: The PDC intervention will be more effective than usual care in decreasing role and intra-psychic strains for patients and caregivers dealing with more severe patient impairment (e.g., cognitive status, functional status, and level of problem behaviors). Methods: The proposed study was a 55-month, controlled trial of PDC. The project was conducted at two intervention sites and three comparison sites matched on organizational, provider, and patient characteristics. Partners in Dementia Care was compared to usual care. Both groups received educational materials about dementia at the start. PDC Intervention The Chronic Care Model (Bodenheimer, Wagner, & Grumbach, 2002; Bodenheimer, Wagner, & Grumbach, 2002) was used as an overarching framework to implement PDC and included the following components: 1) Formal linkages between medical centers (the VA) and community agencies (the Alzheimer's Association); 2) Organizational support from key leaders and broad-based training about PDC; 3) Delivery system redesign and decision support systems; 4) Self-management of dementia as outlined by the PDC intervention protocol; 5) The development of the PDC Care Coordination Information System (CCIS) as the clinical information system. PDC had four primary ways of assisting families: 1) providing disease-related education and information; 2) offering emotional support and coaching; 3) linking families to medical and non-medical services and resources; and 4) mobilizing and organizing the informal care network. Two key staff members implemented the intervention: a VA Dementia Care Coordinator (VA DCC) in VA medical centers and an Alzheimer's Association Care Consultant (AA CC) in Alzheimer's Association Chapters. VA DCCs primarily focused on veterans' medical and non-medical needs and assisted families with effectively using VA resources; AA CCs primarily focused on needs of informal caregivers such as care-related strain and accessing non-VA resources. The intervention protocol consisted of: 1) Assessment of Care Needs across medical and non-medical care issues that addressed 23 domains for Veterans and 14 domains for caregivers; 2) Development of Care Goals that matched the priorities of Veterans and caregivers; 3) Development of Action Steps which were concrete behavioral tasks intended to help families move toward goal achievement (e.g., individual responsible for completing each task, expected completion date); 4) On-going Monitoring of Action Steps on a regular basis to ensure timely completion of tasks, address potential barriers, modify or add action steps, and identify new goals. Analytic Plan With one exception, measures of objective characteristics, including community and support-service use, service knowledge, number of informal helpers, and Veterans' impairments, were based on information reported by caregivers. The one exception was a measure of impairment based on scores from a standardized mental status test that was administered to Veterans over the telephone (i.e., the Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test; Katzman et al., 1983). Additionally, a small number of Veterans (approximately 5%) with mild dementia did not have a caregiver; objective characteristics for these individuals were self-reported by the Veteran. Information used to construct measures of subjective characteristics, such as feelings about or perceptions of the quality of care and care-related strain, came directly from the individual whose feelings or perceptions were being represented.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALPartners in Dementia Care

Partners in Dementia Care is facilitated by the VA Dementia care coordinator (VA DCC) that is with the study. The role of the VA DCC includes conducting initial assessments with the subject and caregiver that leads to: Arranging for further assessment or attention from VA health care system/providers about dementia related concerns or about co-morbid health issues; for example: VA driving evaluation, congestive heart failure medication adherence; Ensuring education is provided about particular health, safety issues; Following up with patient/caregiver on health promoting activities he/she is committed to do; and Sharing care plan actions/outcomes with other VA providers as agreed upon by patient.

Sponsors

Benjamin Rose Institute
CollaboratorOTHER
Alzheimer's Association
CollaboratorOTHER
VA Office of Research and Development
Lead SponsorFED

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Dementia Diagnosis * veteran * reside outside of a long-term care facility * live within local Alzheimer Association chapter service of Houston, Oklahoma City, Boston, or Providence

Exclusion criteria

* Live in long-term care

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Caregiver OutcomesBaseline and at six monthsThe following outcomes were measured in Caregivers via scales administered to each caregiver: Unmet need (range=0 to 39, higher meaning more unmet needs); Role captivity (range=0-9, higher indicating greater role captivity); Physical health strain (range=0-9, higher indicating greater health strain); Relationship strain (range=0-18, higher indicating greater relationship strain); Depression (range=0-22, higher indicating greater depression); Caregiver support service use (the number of support services utilized, 0-2); Number of informal helpers (range=0-50, higher indicating more informal helpers)
Veteran OutcomesBaseline - six monthsThe following outcomes were measured for veterans via scales administered to each veteran: Unmet need (range=0 to 24, higher meaning more unmet needs); Embarrassment about memory problems (range=0-3, higher indicating greater embarrassment); Isolation (range=0-4, higher indicating greater isolation); Relationship strain (range=0-4, higher indicating greater relationship strain); Depression (range=0-11, higher indicating greater depression).

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Veterans-PDC Group
Veterans with diagnosed dementia receiving the PDC Intervention
316
Veterans-Usual Care Comparison Group
Veterans with diagnosed dementia receiving educational materials and usual care
192
Caregivers-PDC Group
Caregivers to veterans with diagnosed dementia receiving the PDC Intervention
299
Caregivers-Usual Care Comparison Group
Caregivers to veterans with diagnosed dementia receiving educational materials and usual care
187
Total994

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicVeterans-PDC GroupVeterans-Usual Care Comparison GroupCaregivers-PDC GroupCaregivers-Usual Care Comparison GroupTotal
Age, Continuous
Age of Caregivers
NA yearsNA years68.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.6
70.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.4
69.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.2
Age, Continuous
Age of Veterans
79.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.2
80.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.2
NA yearsNA years79.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.6
Number of Caregivers Who were Spouses
Caregivers who were not spouses
NA participantsNA participants95 participants38 participantsNA participants
Number of Caregivers Who were Spouses
Caregivers who were spouses
NA participantsNA participants204 participants149 participantsNA participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black nonhispanic
64 participants11 participants56 participants14 participants145 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic
12 participants0 participants16 participants0 participants28 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
6 participants3 participants5 participants3 participants17 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White nonhispanic
234 participants178 participants222 participants170 participants804 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
11 Participants3 Participants283 Participants178 Participants475 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
305 Participants189 Participants16 Participants9 Participants519 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 3160 / 192
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 3160 / 192

Outcome results

Primary

Caregiver Outcomes

The following outcomes were measured in Caregivers via scales administered to each caregiver: Unmet need (range=0 to 39, higher meaning more unmet needs); Role captivity (range=0-9, higher indicating greater role captivity); Physical health strain (range=0-9, higher indicating greater health strain); Relationship strain (range=0-18, higher indicating greater relationship strain); Depression (range=0-22, higher indicating greater depression); Caregiver support service use (the number of support services utilized, 0-2); Number of informal helpers (range=0-50, higher indicating more informal helpers)

Time frame: Baseline and at six months

Population: Data were collected for caregivers only

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesUnmet need at Baseline18.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.8
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesUnmet need at Six months10.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.9
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesRole Captivity at baseline3.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesRole Captivity at 6 months3.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesPhysical Health Strain at Baseline3.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesPhysical Health Strain at 6 months3.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesRelationship Strain at Baseline7.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesRelationship Strain at 6 months7.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.6
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesCaregiver Support Service use at baseline.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesCaregiver support service at 6 months.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesDepression at baseline4.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.9
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesDepression at 6 months4.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.9
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesNumber of informal helpers at baseline4.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.8
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionCaregiver OutcomesNumber of informal helpers at 6 month4.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.8
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesDepression at baseline4.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.9
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesUnmet need at Baseline14.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.2
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesRelationship Strain at 6 months6.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.3
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesUnmet need at Six months10.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesNumber of informal helpers at baseline4.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.1
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesRole Captivity at baseline3.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesCaregiver Support Service use at baseline.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesRole Captivity at 6 months3.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesDepression at 6 months5.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.1
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesPhysical Health Strain at Baseline3.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesCaregiver support service at 6 months.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesPhysical Health Strain at 6 months3.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesNumber of informal helpers at 6 month4.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.1
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonCaregiver OutcomesRelationship Strain at Baseline6.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.1
Primary

Veteran Outcomes

The following outcomes were measured for veterans via scales administered to each veteran: Unmet need (range=0 to 24, higher meaning more unmet needs); Embarrassment about memory problems (range=0-3, higher indicating greater embarrassment); Isolation (range=0-4, higher indicating greater isolation); Relationship strain (range=0-4, higher indicating greater relationship strain); Depression (range=0-11, higher indicating greater depression).

Time frame: Baseline - six months

Population: Data were collected for veterans who could be interviewed only.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesEmbarrassment about memory problems at baseline1.02 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.19
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesEmbarrassment about memory problems at 6 months.82 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.09
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesDepression at baseline2.68 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.44
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesDepression at 6 months2.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.59
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesUnmet need at baseline7.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.93
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesUnmet need at 6 months5.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.14
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesIsolation at baseline1.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.49
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesIsolation at 6 months1.13 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.39
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesRelationship strain at baseline.46 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.04
Caregivers: Partners in Dementia Care InterventionVeteran OutcomesRelationship strain at 6 months.49 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.02
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesIsolation at 6 months1.09 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.37
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesEmbarrassment about memory problems at baseline.89 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.08
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesUnmet need at 6 months4.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.58
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesEmbarrassment about memory problems at 6 months.91 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesRelationship strain at 6 months.32 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.79
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesDepression at baseline2.19 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.1
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesIsolation at baseline1.06 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesDepression at 6 months2.37 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.34
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesRelationship strain at baseline.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.87
Caregivers: Usual Care ComparisonVeteran OutcomesUnmet need at baseline5.44 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 8, 2026