An audit of dementia education and training in UK health and social care: a comparison with national benchmark standards.
Audit
Dementia
Education
Training
Workforce development
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Oct 2019
21 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
15
04
2019
accepted:
03
09
2019
entrez:
23
10
2019
pubmed:
23
10
2019
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite people living with dementia representing a significant proportion of health and social care users, until recently in the United Kingdom (UK) there were no prescribed standards for dementia education and training. This audit sought to review the extent and nature of dementia education and training offered to health and social care staff in the UK against the standards described in the 2015 Dementia Training Standards Framework, which describes the knowledge and skills required of the UK dementia workforce. This audit presents national data concerning the design, delivery, target audience, length, level, content, format of training, number of staff trained and frequency of delivery within existing dementia training programmes offered to health and social care staff. The Dementia Training Standards Framework was used as a reference for respondents to describe the subjects and learning outcomes associated with their training. The findings are presented from 614 respondents offering 386 training packages, which indicated variations in the extent and quality of training. Many training packages addressed the subjects of 'person-centred care', 'communication', 'interaction and behaviour in dementia care', and 'dementia awareness'. Few training packages addressed subjects concerning 'pharmacological interventions in dementia care', 'leadership' and 'end of life care'. Fewer than 40% of The Dementia Training Standards Framework learning outcomes targeted to staff with regular contact with people with dementia or in leadership roles were covered by the reported packages. However, for training targeted at increasing dementia awareness more than 70% of the learning outcomes identified in The Dementia Training Standards Framework were addressed. Many training packages are not of sufficient duration to derive impact; although the majority employed delivery methods likely to be effective. The development of new and existing training and education should take account of subjects that are currently underrepresented and ensure that training reflects the Training Standard Framework and evidence regarding best practice for delivery. Lessons regarding the limitations of training in the UK serve as a useful illustration of the challenge of implementing national dementia training standards; particularly for countries who are developing or have recently implemented national dementia strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite people living with dementia representing a significant proportion of health and social care users, until recently in the United Kingdom (UK) there were no prescribed standards for dementia education and training. This audit sought to review the extent and nature of dementia education and training offered to health and social care staff in the UK against the standards described in the 2015 Dementia Training Standards Framework, which describes the knowledge and skills required of the UK dementia workforce.
METHODS
METHODS
This audit presents national data concerning the design, delivery, target audience, length, level, content, format of training, number of staff trained and frequency of delivery within existing dementia training programmes offered to health and social care staff. The Dementia Training Standards Framework was used as a reference for respondents to describe the subjects and learning outcomes associated with their training.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The findings are presented from 614 respondents offering 386 training packages, which indicated variations in the extent and quality of training. Many training packages addressed the subjects of 'person-centred care', 'communication', 'interaction and behaviour in dementia care', and 'dementia awareness'. Few training packages addressed subjects concerning 'pharmacological interventions in dementia care', 'leadership' and 'end of life care'. Fewer than 40% of The Dementia Training Standards Framework learning outcomes targeted to staff with regular contact with people with dementia or in leadership roles were covered by the reported packages. However, for training targeted at increasing dementia awareness more than 70% of the learning outcomes identified in The Dementia Training Standards Framework were addressed. Many training packages are not of sufficient duration to derive impact; although the majority employed delivery methods likely to be effective.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The development of new and existing training and education should take account of subjects that are currently underrepresented and ensure that training reflects the Training Standard Framework and evidence regarding best practice for delivery. Lessons regarding the limitations of training in the UK serve as a useful illustration of the challenge of implementing national dementia training standards; particularly for countries who are developing or have recently implemented national dementia strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31638974
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4510-6
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-4510-6
pmc: PMC6802111
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
711Subventions
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : PR-R10-0514-12006
Références
Rev Educ Res. 2017 Oct;87(5):966-1002
pubmed: 28989194
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017 Jan;32(1):68-75
pubmed: 27723124
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005 Apr;20(4):330-43
pubmed: 15799079
Clin Interv Aging. 2016 Nov 25;11:1733-1740
pubmed: 27932869
Int Psychogeriatr. 2016 Jul;28(7):1079-89
pubmed: 26796655