Dementia Care Mapping (dementia + care_mapping)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Dementia Care Mapping (DCM): initial validation of DCM 8 in UK field trials

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, Issue 11 2006
Dawn J. Brooker
Abstract Objectives This paper describes DCM 8 and reports on the initial validation study of DCM 8. Methods Between 2001,2003, a series of international expert working groups were established to examine various aspects of DCM with the intention of revising and refining it. During 2004,2005 the revised tool (DCM 8) was piloted in seven service settings in the UK and validated against DCM 7th edition. Results At a group score level, WIB scores and spread of Behavioural Category Codes were very similar, suggesting that group scores are comparable between DCM 7 and 8. Interviews with mappers and focus groups with staff teams suggested that DCM 8 was preferable to DCM 7th edition because of the clarification and simplification of codes; the addition of new codes relevant to person-centred care; and the replacement of Positive Events with a more structured recording of Personal Enhancers. Conclusions DCM 8 appears comparable with DCM 7th edition in terms of data produced and is well received by mappers and dementia care staff. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


Dementia Care Mapping reconsidered: exploring the reliability and validity of the observational tool

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, Issue 8 2004
A. Thornton
Abstract Background Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) is a widely used observational method for evaluating the service quality provided to people with dementia. However, there is little evidence concerning its reliability and validity when used by routine care staff for whom it was designed. Method The study evaluated levels of inter-observer agreement; The ability of the five-minute time frame to reflect the ,actual passing of time'; And the nature of the relationship between individual Well/Ill-Being values (WIB) and dependency levels. Data collected using DCM and continuous time sampling (CTS) were compared. The methods were used in parallel where the CTS coder and the DCM mapper(s) observed the same participants. Observations were carried out with 64 people with dementia within a day hospital and a continuing care ward. Inter-observer agreement was calculated across 20 participants. Dependency levels were measured using the Clifton Assessment Procedure for the Elderly (CAPE) (Pattie and Gilleard, 1979). Results Low levels of inter-observer agreement were found where 11 of the 25 Behaviour Category codes and all six Well/Ill-being Codes produced unacceptable kappas (<0.6). The Behaviour coding frame provided a meaningful picture of activities participants engaged in, but significantly underestimated participant levels of inactivity. A strong relationship was demonstrated between participants' WIB score and levels of dependency, thus DCM was unable to measure well-/ill-being as a separate construct from participants' levels of dependency. Conclusions Questions were raised regarding the reliability and validity of DCM as used by routine care staff. Possible reasons for this, and suggestions for amendments are made. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


A literature review of dementia care mapping: methodological considerations and efficacy

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC & MENTAL HEALTH NURSING, Issue 6 2002
D. BEAVIS BSc(Hons) RGN RMN
Dementia care mapping (DCM) is a popular method for evaluating the quality of care and well-being of people with dementia in formal care settings. Keywords and thesaurus searches were conducted between 1992 and June 2001 using a range of bibliographic databases. Studies that had specifically examined the efficacy of DCM or, had used DCM as the main outcome measure, were included in the review. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated in this review. The review highlights some methodological limitations in the DCM studies to date, including sampling bias, inadequate sample size, short evaluation periods and a lack of consideration of the confounding variables commonly associated with dementia. The evidence presented for DCM suggests that it has good face validity and reliability. However, other aspects of validity remain less convincing and it can only be regarded as a moderately valid instrument. Whilst its theoretical background makes DCM particularly appealing to nurses wishing to improve the quality of their care, it is a very time-consuming method and requires considerable investment in terms of nursing resources. Consequently, it is essential that more scientifically based studies are conducted to enable other aspects of validity to be developed, thus enhancing the value of DCM as an outcome measure of nursing care. [source]