Objective To review policies and research on the effectiveness of healthcare professionals’ dementia training

Design Policy and systematic review

Setting Healthcare services

Participants Healthcare professionals

Measurements We reviewed relevant English policies and searched electronic databases for primary research studies (between 2015-2024) evaluating dementia training for healthcare professionals. We assessed risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, prioritising studies scoring 4+, of interventions supported by Randomised Controlled Trial evidence, and reported outcomes using Kirkpatrick’s framework. We consulted professional stakeholders in a focus group regarding how findings might inform practice.

Results Sixteen policies and related documents highlighted concerns about the limited implementation of the Dementia Core Skills Education and Training Framework (DCSETF). We reviewed 63 primary research studies. Only one study met priority criteria; it evaluated a Train-the-Trainer (TTT), team-based reflective practice model, which improved primary care nurses’ and doctors’ learning, and self-reported practice over ≥3 months. Higher quality, controlled studies evaluated a TTT programme for hospital staff, improving client outcomes (agitation) over ≤5 days; an expert-led two-day interactive training for inpatient nurses that reduced role strain; and an expert-led, nine-week, occupational therapy-derived training programme that improved retirement community staff strategies for client activity engagement. Eight focus group attendees considered time a limiting factor to evidence implementation, but valued group training to share experiences; and TTT models to enable tailoring to local contexts.

Conclusions By increasing reach of dementia training and embedding learning in practice, Train-the-Trainer models could increase care quality and DCSETF implementation.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This research is funded through the NIHR Policy Research Unit in Dementia and Neurodegeneration- Queen Mary University of London (reference NIHR206110). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

No data was produced in the present study