Dataset Information

Evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in care home residents (the Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) study): protocol for a pilot cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Acute hospital admission is distressing for care home residents. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions, such as respiratory and urinary tract infections, are conditions that can cause unplanned hospital admission but may have been avoidable with timely detection and intervention in the community. The Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) programme has feasibility tested and will pilot a multicomponent intervention to reduce these avoidable hospital admissions. The BHiRCH intervention comprises an early warning tool for noting changes in resident health, a care pathway (clinical guidance and decision support system) and a structured method for communicating with primary care, adapted for use in the care home. We use practice development champions to support implementation and embed changes in care.

Methods and analysis

Cluster randomised pilot trial to test study procedures and indicate whether a further definitive trial is warranted. Fourteen care homes with nursing (nursing homes) will be randomly allocated to intervention (delivered at nursing home level) or control groups. Two nurses from each home become Practice Development Champions trained to implement the intervention, supported by a practice development support group. Data will be collected for 3 months preintervention, monthly during the 12-month intervention and 1?month after. Individual-level data includes resident, care partner and staff demographics, resident functional status, service use and quality of life (for health economic analysis) and the extent to which staff perceive the organisation supports person centred care. System-level data includes primary and secondary health services contacts (ie, general practitioner and hospital admissions). Process evaluation assesses intervention acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, ease of implementation in practice and study procedures (ie, consent and recruitment rates).

Ethics and dissemination

Approved by Research Ethics Committee and the UK Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated via academic and policy conferences, peer-reviewed publications and social media (eg, Twitter).

Trial registration number

ISRCTN74109734; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Sampson EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6538003 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo pilot a complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment for common health conditions experienced by nursing home (NH) residents.DesignPilot cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting14 NHs (7 intervention, 7 control) in London and West Yorkshire.ParticipantsNH residents, their family carers and staff.InterventionComplex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment of urinary tract and respiratory infections, chronic heart failure and dehydration, comprising: (1) 'Stop and Watch (S&W)' early warning tool for changes in physical health, (2) condition-specific care pathway and (3) Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation tool to enhance communication with primary care. Implementation was supported by Practice Development Champions, a Practice Development Support Group and regular telephone coaching with external facilitators.Outcome measuresData on NH (quality ratings, size, ownership), residents, family carers and staff demographics during the month prior to intervention and subsequently, numbers of admissions, accident and emergency visits, and unscheduled general practitioner visits monthly for 6 months during intervention. We collected data on how the intervention was used, healthcare resource use and quality of life data for economic evaluation. We assessed recruitment and retention, and whether a full trial was warranted.ResultsWe recruited 14 NHs, 148 staff, 95 family carers and 245 residents. We retained the majority of participants recruited (95%). 15% of residents had an unplanned hospital admission for one of the four study conditions. We were able to collect sufficient questionnaire data (all over 96% complete). No NH implemented intervention tools as planned. Only 16 S&W forms and 8 care pathways were completed. There was no evidence of harm.ConclusionsRecruitment, retention and data collection processes were effective but the intervention not implemented. A full trial is not warranted.Trial registration numberISRCTN74109734 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74109734). ORIGINAL PROTOCOL: BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026510. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026510.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is common and is associated with poor outcomes among elderly care-home residents. Exercise is a promising low-risk intervention for depression in this population. We tested the hypothesis that a moderate intensity exercise programme would reduce the burden of depressive symptoms in residents of care homes.MethodsWe did a cluster-randomised controlled trial in care homes in two regions in England; northeast London, and Coventry and Warwickshire. Residents aged 65 years or older were eligible for inclusion. A statistician independent of the study randomised each home (1 to 1·5 ratio, stratified by location, minimised by type of home provider [local authority, voluntary, private and care home, private and nursing home] and size of home [<32 or ?32 residents]) into intervention and control groups. The intervention package included depression awareness training for care-home staff, 45 min physiotherapist-led group exercise sessions for residents (delivered twice weekly), and a whole home component designed to encourage more physical activity in daily life. The control consisted of only the depression awareness training. Researchers collecting follow-up data from individual participants and the participants themselves were inevitably aware of home randomisation because of the physiotherapists' activities within the home. A researcher masked to study allocation coded NHS routine data. The primary outcome was number of depressive symptoms on the geriatric depression scale-15 (GDS-15). Follow-up was for 12 months. This trial is registered with ISRCTN Register, number ISRCTN43769277.FindingsCare homes were randomised between Dec 15, 2008, and April 9, 2010. At randomisation, 891 individuals in 78 care homes (35 intervention, 43 control) had provided baseline data. We delivered 3191 group exercise sessions attended on average by five study participants and five non-study residents. Of residents with a GDS-15 score, 374 of 765 (49%) were depressed at baseline; 484 of 765 (63%) provided 12 month follow-up scores. Overall the GDS-15 score was 0·13 (95% CI -0·33 to 0·60) points higher (worse) at 12 months for the intervention group compared with the control group. Among residents depressed at baseline, GDS-15 score was 0·22 (95% CI -0·52 to 0·95) points higher at 6 months in the intervention group than in the control group. In an end of study cross-sectional analysis, including 132 additional residents joining after randomisation, the odds of being depressed were 0·76 (95% CI 0·53 to 1·09) for the intervention group compared with the control group.InterpretationThis moderately intense exercise programme did not reduce depressive symptoms in residents of care homes. In this frail population, alternative strategies to manage psychological symptoms are required.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:ImportanceHigh health care costs encourage initiatives that avoid overuse of resources and identify opportunities to promote appropriate care.ObjectiveTo investigate the causes of potentially avoidable surgical intensive care unit (SICU) admissions and disposition delays to determine whether targeted interventions could decrease these stays.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, observational study focused on potentially avoidable SICU days, as determined by observers with input from the rounding intensivists at a 24-bed open SICU at an urban, academic hospital. The preintervention phase occurred from April 6 through June 21, 2015; after implementation of targeted interventions, the postintervention phase occurred from April 4 through June 28, 2016. Data collected included demographic characteristics, reason for admission, and length of stay. All patients admitted to the SICU during the preintervention and postintervention phases were included in the analysis.InterventionsBased on results collected in the preintervention phase, targeted interventions were designed and implemented from July 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016, including (1) reducing SICU care for minor traumatic brain injury, (2) optimizing postoperative airway management, (3) enhancing communication between services regarding transfers to the SICU, (4) identifying and facilitating more timely end-of-life conversations and supportive care consultations, and (5) encouraging early disposition of patients to floor beds.Main outcomes and measuresChanges in the proportion of potentially avoidable SICU days owing to potentially avoidable admissions and/or disposition delays.ResultsA total of 459 patients (253 men [55.1%] and 206 women [44.9%]; median age, 62 years [interquartile range, 46-75 years]) were admitted during the preintervention and postintervention phases. Of 261 patients admitted during the preintervention period and 245 during the postintervention period, median SICU and hospital length of stay remained unchanged. A reduction was noted in the percentage of postintervention SICU days owing to potentially avoidable admissions (152 of 1168 days [13%] vs 118 of 1338 days [8.8%]; P?=?.001) and disposition delays (138 of 1168 days [11.8%] vs 97 of 1338 days [7.2%]; P?<?.001). During the postintervention period, decreases were noted in the SICU days related to the most common sources of potentially avoidable admissions (SICU stay ?24 hours, airway concerns, and somnolence) and disposition delays (end-of-life decisions and floor bed unavailable) as well as in the overall rate of potentially avoidable days (269 of 1168 days [23%] vs 205 of 1338 days [15.3%]; P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceNearly one-fourth of SICU days could be categorized as potentially avoidable. Targeted interventions resulted in a significant reduction of potentially avoidable SICU days.

Project description:IntroductionInternationally there is pressure to contain costs due to rising numbers of hospital admissions. Alongside age, socioeconomic disadvantage is the strongest risk factor for avoidable hospital admission. This equity-focussed systematic review is required for policymakers to understand what has been shown to work to reduce inequalities in hospital admissions, what does not work and where the current gaps in the evidence-base are.Methods and analysisAn initial framework shows how interventions are hypothesised to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in avoidable hospital admissions. Studies will be included if the intervention focusses exclusively on socioeconomically disadvantaged populations or if the study reports differential effects by socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation, social class, deprivation, poverty or an area-based proxy for deprivation derived from place of residence) with respect to hospital admission or readmission (overall or condition-specific for those classified as ambulatory care sensitive). Studies involving individuals of any age, undertaken in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, published from 2000 to 29th February 2020 in any language will be included. Electronic searches will include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and the Web of Knowledge platform. Electronic searches will be supplemented with full citation searches of included studies, website searches and retrieval of relevant unpublished information. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality appraisal will be conducted by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis will be conducted and also meta-analysis where possible. The main analysis will examine the effectiveness of interventions at reducing socioeconomic inequalities in hospital admissions. Interventions will be characterised by their domain of action and approach to addressing inequalities. For included studies, contextual information on where, for whom and how these interventions are organised, implemented and delivered will be examined where possible.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was not required for this protocol. The research will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, conferences and an open-access policy-orientated paper.Prospero registration numberCRD42019153666.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether a systematic approach to the treatment of pain can reduce agitation in people with moderate to severe dementia living in nursing homes.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.Setting60 clusters (single independent nursing home units) in 18 nursing homes within five municipalities of western Norway.Participants352 residents with moderate to severe dementia and clinically significant behavioural disturbances randomised to a stepwise protocol for the treatment of pain for eight weeks with additional follow-up four weeks after the end of treatment (33 clusters; n = 175) or to usual treatment (control, 27 clusters; n = 177).InterventionParticipants in the intervention group received individual daily treatment of pain for eight weeks according to the stepwise protocol, with paracetamol (acetaminophen), morphine, buprenorphine transdermal patch, or pregabaline. The control group received usual treatment and care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was agitation (scores on Cohen-Mansfield agitation inventory). Secondary outcome measures were aggression (scores on neuropsychiatric inventory-nursing home version), pain (scores on mobilisation-observation-behaviour-intensity-dementia-2), activities of daily living, and cognition (mini-mental state examination).ResultsAgitation was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared with control group after eight weeks (repeated measures analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline score, P < 0.001): the average reduction in scores for agitation was 17% (treatment effect estimate -7.0, 95% confidence interval -3.7 to -10.3). Treatment of pain was also significantly beneficial for the overall severity of neuropsychiatric symptoms (-9.0, -5.5 to -12.6) and pain (-1.3, -0.8 to -1.7), but the groups did not differ significantly for activities of daily living or cognition.ConclusionA systematic approach to the management of pain significantly reduced agitation in residents of nursing homes with moderate to severe dementia. Effective management of pain can play an important part in the treatment of agitation and could reduce the number of unnecessary prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in this population. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01021696 and Norwegian Medicines Agency EudraCTnr 2008-007490-20.