Managing the wandering behaviour of people living in a residential aged care facility

Abstract

Background Wandering behaviour is frequently seen in older people with cognitive impairment. The prevalence of patients exhibiting wandering behaviour has been estimated to be 11.6% on traditional units and 52.7% on Alzheimer's units. Wandering is one of the core behavioural characteristics that impact on familial carers and is likely to influence the decision to place a family member in an aged care environment. Considering the possible risks associated with wandering behaviour, the successful identification and management of wandering is essential. Wandering is also a problem for caregivers in the institutionalised setting, in terms of containment, usually being addressed by securing the environment. There has been some research conducted to assist in the understanding and management of wandering behaviour; however, the findings have been diverse resulting in a level of confusion about the best approaches to take. Objectives This review aims to present the best available evidence on the management of wandering in older adults who reside in an aged care facility (both high and low care). Search strategy An extensive search of keywords contained in the title and abstract, and relevant MeSH headings and descriptor terms was performed on the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, AGELINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, APAIS Health, Current Contents, Dare, Dissertation Abstracts, Personal Communication, Social Science Index. Selection criteria Papers were selected if they focused on the treatment of wandering in an institutional setting. Some studies were not specifically examining wanderers over the age of 65 years as per the protocol requirements, but were included as it was felt that their findings could be applied to this age group. Data collection and analysis Study design and quality were tabulated and relative risks, odds ratios, mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated from individual comparative studies containing count data where possible. All other data were presented in a narrative summary. Results Searches identified one care protocol, two systematic reviews and 24 other studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The following recommendations are divided into four categories of interventions (environmental, technology and safety, physical/psychosocial, and caregiving support and education) with only Level 1, 2 or 3 evidence presented. Environmental modifications Gridlines placed in front of doors or covering exit door doorknobs or panic bars may be effective at reducing exit-seeking behaviour (Level 3b). Technology and safety Mobile locator devices may be effective at enabling quick location of wandering residents (Level 3c). Physical/psychosocial interventions Implementation of a walking group or an exercise program may reduce the incidence of disruptive wandering behaviour (Level 3b). Use of air mat therapy may reduce wandering behaviour for at least 15 min post therapy (Level 2). Providing music sessions (and reading sessions) may keep residents from...

Effectiveness of Interventions for Preventing People With Dementia Exiting or Getting Lost

“…However, it is possible that our bespoke assessment of risk of bias for these studies led to conservative conclusions. Indeed, other systematic reviews Hodgkinson et al, 2007;Letts et al, 2007;Padilla et al, 2007) have concluded moderate evidence for the effectiveness of environmental modification strategies on reducing exiting based on several of the same included studies as this review. However, these reviews included the results of other systematic reviews (i.e., each other) as the highest 'levels of evidence', often without methodological appraisal of primary research.…”

Education on physical restraint reduction in dementia care: A review of the literature

“…However, this review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide definitive guidelines. Assessment should focus on underlying causes of behaviours and include consideration of the physical, social, psychological and environmental, and the benefits of physical restraint should also outweigh the risks (Hodgkinson, Koch, Nay, & Lewis, 2007). Hantikainen and Kappeli (2000) acknowledged that clinical decision-making was related to the understanding of restraint and the rights and responsibilities of nurses and residents, whereby the decision to use restraint was often unique to a nurse rather than based on policy or evidence.…”