Proctor 1999.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial. Study duration: 6 months.
Participants	105 subjects, 12 nursing and residential homes. Residents had a mean age of 83.1. Staff selected 10 residents in each home whose behavioural problems made them difficult to care for.
Interventions	Staff training and Education Intervention including psychosocial management of resident's behavioural problems. Control Primary aim of intervention: To assess quality of care, resident depression and organic symptoms and resident behavioural characteristics. (See Table 2)
Outcomes	Crichton Royal Behavioural Rating Scale (CRBRS) Automatic Geriatric Examination for Assisted Taxonomy (AGECAT) (depression & organic symptoms) (See Table 3)
Notes	Country of origin: Manchester, UK Seven 1 hour seminars plus individual visits from a member of the hospital outreach team. An experienced psychiatric nurse then visited each residential home every week to provide support to individual staff in development of care planning skills.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	'Residential homes were randomised to the control or intervention group'
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	10 residential homes and 2 nursing homes were paired according to size and accreditation status. Computer generated random numbers used independently of the researchers to assign one of each pair of homes to intervention or control. Ten residents in each home were selected by staff independently of the researchers.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Residents were unaware of carer allocation. However, 'Staff that received the training were aware of the intervention'.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The paper does not report who conducted the outcome assessments and whether they were blind to allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All reported (11 died, 2 transferred and 3 withdrew consent).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All results reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Staff who received training were aware of intervention and may have had expectations about the effects of the programme.