Home Evaluation of Exit Barriers in Wandering (HEEBW)
|Study Design:||Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||Home Evaluation of Visual Exit Barriers in Dementia-related Wandering|
- Number and Means of Exit Seeking (Door Approach Behaviors) and Exit Door Pass Through Behaviors (Eloping) [ Time Frame: eight weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]Door and floor cover interventions were compared for efficacy in reducing wandering behavior defined as patient approaching or passing through the equipped exit door. Counts of each behavior were collected on each patient for each intervention period. Mean values of counts were compared.
|Study Start Date:||October 2009|
|Study Completion Date:||December 2012|
|Primary Completion Date:||October 2010 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Experimental: Door Cover/Floor Cover
Baseline One (14 days), First Intervention (14 days), Baseline Two (14 days), Second Intervention (14 days)
Device: Door cover/Floor cover
Door cover - a neutral-colored canvas cloth covering the entire interior surface of the monitored door and attached to the door using a combination of Velcro and double-faced tape.
Floor cover - a 4'X 4' black, rubberized mat with an overlay of very thin strips of 2" white duct tape placed at 2" intervals, nonskid and fastened securely to the floor immediately in front of the interior face of a main exit door.
Other Name: subjective exit barriers
Introduction: Wandering behavior is manifested in ways that include lingering near exit doors and/or mimicking or "shadowing" the exiting behavior of others who depart through this door. Referenced as "exit-seeking," such behavior is a common mobility pattern that places persons with dementia who wander (PDW) at high risk of wandering away or eloping. PDW who wander away from a care setting unattended are at risk of death from exposure or accidents if lost and not quickly found, and those that do not wander away but persist in such behaviors are at risk for falls, fractures and other injuries, weight loss, fatigue and sleep disturbances. Traditional methods to manage PDW exit-seeking and wandering away include physical restraints and pharmacology, but these can be harmful. Subjective or "visual exit barriers" to deter exit-seeking offer an attractive alternative because these interventions are non-invasive, low-cost and simple to use. Nursing home tests of visual exit barriers such as plain cloth door covers and stripped floor covers have demonstrated positive results in reducing or completely exit-seeking behaviors. Confirmation of these results in a well designed, home-based trial is warranted.
Research Questions/Hypotheses: The research questions and hypotheses of this 2-year, cross-over assignment with randomized allocation design with two intervention and two no-intervention periods (at baseline and after the first intervention) are: Q1. Will installation of visual barrier interventions change exit-seeking wandering patters, controlling for cognitive impairment? H1. Compared to baseline, installation of a visual exit barrier will lower the frequency and duration of exit-seeking behaviors. Q2. Of the two visual barriers (door and floor), which will result in the greater reduction of wandering (frequency and duration of lingering and shadowing)? H2. Door covers will reduce exit seeking more than floor covers.
Five secondary questions are proposed for descriptive purposes and to generate hypotheses for future studies on wandering management interventions. These include: Q3. What are the baseline characteristics of exit-seeking (predominant loci, durations and variability of durations during waking hours)? Q4. Will the introduction of a visual barrier on one exit doorway alter exit-seeking behaviors occurring in proximity to other potential exit doors and windows within the same area? Q5. Will the introduction of visual exit barriers reduce CG (caregiver) burden? Q6. Will the introduction of visual exit barriers increase PDW agitation? and Q7. How do CG rate visual barrier effectiveness and acceptability for in-home use?
Methods: A crossover assignment with randomized order of allocation design was used. One main exit doorway was sequentially protected with the two types (door, floor) of visual barriers. Data related to exit-seeking of subjects was collected via ultrawide radio frequency identification devices on a continuous basis for four 14-day periods: Entry into a monitored zone 6-feet in front of exit doorways will be considered exit-seeking behavior; PDW locomotion in tandem with CG locomotion will be considered shadowing. Caregiver-reported PDW agitation and CG burden will be collected at baseline and immediate post-interventions. Prior to all statistical analysis, all variables will be reviewed for valid data points and normalcy for continuous data. Should erroneous data points exist, data will be verified to ensure accuracy. Should data not be normally distributed, processes such as transformations or truncations will be completed. Prior to conducting formal hypothesis testing, an order of allocation analysis will be completed to determine if carry-over effects occurred in the study. Analysis (Pocock) will be completed, which in essence examines the mean of differences by use of t-statistics. In addition, intent to treat analysis will be completed. Given we have incorporated a second baseline phase into the study, frequency and duration will be compared between the two baseline phases to ensure consistency. Descriptive statistics (frequency distributions for categorical variables, means and standard deviations for continuous variables) will be calculated for all baseline variables including the covariates.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00997425
|United States, Florida|
|James A Haley Veterans' Hospital|
|Tampa, Florida, United States, 33637-1022|
|Principal Investigator:||Dorothy H Moore, PhD MA BSW||James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital|