G. W. Martin & D. Younger
he is sleeping has dropped from 75 units to 33 units and
category ‘B’ (Borderline) has increased from just 1 unit to
difficult to assess. However, a further mapping completed
the following January demonstrated that the improvements
were maintained at that time. This will form part of an
ongoing study to include larger samples in a variety of care
settings. The DCM process, including the feedback sessions
to the care staff, may have helped to bring about a refo-
cusing of practice from one of mainly physical care to one
which values the broader concept of ‘person centred’ care.
The examples highlighted have served to link this change
of emphasis to the level of communication and choice.
This, it is argued, relates to resident empowerment by
allowing a greater degree of participation in decision
making, even if it means that the resident chooses not to
participate. An understanding by the care staff of the ways
that residents are able to make such choices has to take
into account both verbal and nonverbal means of commu-
nicating. It can never be right to use the excuse of an
oppressive culture of care to justify non participation by
residents. Neither is it right to argue that people with
dementia are unable to become involved in decision
making because of their poor cognitive function alone.
Careful assessment of need, involving the resident, utiliz-
ing such skills as empathy, advocacy and patience, can, if
the result of this study are to be accepted, bring about an
anti oppressive environment which is also, potentially an
empowering one and this exercise could be seen to be the
catalyst which brought about these improvements. Once
the concept of change had been grasped by the care givers
then a paradigm shift can occur in which carers, almost
overnight, begin to see their practice differently (Moyes &
Christie 1998). The important task now is to maintain the
momentum for change by ongoing mapping exercises and
staff education programmes to ensure that change is not
only reinforced but also advanced. Oppressive practice will
then, hopefully, become a thing of the past and empower-
ment of people with dementia enhanced as a result.
31. Some of the improvement may be as a result of the
extra time spent during the lunch period (up from 9 to 24
units). He is no longer fed quickly by the care staff in his
chair in the day room but is now brought to the table, given
special utensils and allowed to feed himself. Even though
he tends to drop food and use his hands, the care staff
monitor his progress and encourage him to use a spoon or
to place food so that he can reach it. When he spilt his
pudding during the observation period, the care staff
remarked that he was having a ‘custard day’, tidied him up
and gave him more to replace the spilt food. On both Ted
and Hatty’s chart – 5 and – 3 no longer appear (Figs. 3, 4
–
July). These were due, in January, to the ‘degeneration
rule’ where behavior which lasts for a given length of time
is classified at a lower level. The improvement in the July
results show that interaction is now more regular and well
being is, as a result enhanced. The three July graphs (Figs.
1–3) make it clear that + 1 remains the predominant WIB
state but to a higher degree. This does not mean that there
is no room for further improvement, but it gives a clear
indication that there have been moves in the right direc-
tion by careers in this care setting. It is significant to note
that no personal detractors were observed during this
second set of observations.
Use of this observation tool and subsequent feedback
session after each period of observation, may have high-
lighted the need to change the culture of care towards a
more person centred approach. The ‘Hawthorne effect’
(Bradford Dementia Group 1997) cannot be ignored
however, but as stated in the DCM manual this can be seen
as a positive effect, ‘the experience may provoke a care
team to discover something of its hidden capabilities’
(Bradford Dementia Group 1997). During the second
period of observation residents were much more involved
in the decision making, being offered a choice at lunch time
or being allowed to opt out of activities if they wished.
These small moves toward autonomy are signs that the
practice is becoming less oppressive and the residents are
empowered despite problems they may have with under-
standing and memory.
References
Beavis D. (1998) Personal detractions – a personal account. The
Journal of Dementia Care 6, 24–25.
Bradford Dementia Group (1997) 7th edn. The DCM Method.
University of Bradford, Bradford.
Brooker D. (1995) Looking at them, looking at me. A review of
observational studies into the quality of institutional care for
elderly people with dementia. Journal of Mental Health 4,
145–156.
Brooker D. & Payne M. (1995) Auditing outcomes of care in in-
patient and day patient settings using Dementia Care Mapping.
Can it be done? PSIGE Newsletter 51, 18–22.
Bytheway B. (1995) Ageism. Open University Press, Buckingham.
Chapman A. (1993) Empowerment. In: Dementia: new skills
for social workers (eds Chapman, A. & Marshall, M.), pp.
110–124. Kingsley, London and Bristol.
Conclusion
It is not possible to arrive at a conclusion which applies to
diverse care settings given the sample size, however, it is
clear from the results that a change of culture is underway
in this care environment. If one compares the results from
the July observation to those obtained in January a number
of differences are evident, giving weight to this conclusion.
To what extent this can be said to be lasting change is more
6
6
© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 7, 59–67