Reducing delayed transfer of care in older people: A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to shorter hospital stays.

INTRODUCTION: Growing numbers of older patients occupy hospital beds despite being 'medically fit' for discharge. These Delayed Transfers of Care amplify inefficiencies in care and can cause harm. Delayed transfer because of family or patient choice is common; yet, research on patient and family perspectives is scarce. To identify barriers to, and facilitators of, shorter hospital stays, we sought to understand older people's and caregivers' thoughts and feelings about the benefits and harms of being in hospital and the decisions made at discharge. METHODS: A multimethod qualitative study was carried out. Content analysis was carried out of older people's experiences of health or care services submitted to the Care Opinion online website, followed by telephone and video interviews with older people and family members of older people experiencing a hospital stay in the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Online accounts provide insight into how care was organized for older people in the hospital, including deficiencies in care organization, the discharge process and communication, as well as how care was experienced by older people and family members. Interview-generated themes included shared meanings of hospitalization and discharge experiences and the context of discharge decisions including failure in communication systems, unwarranted variation and lack of confidence in care and lack of preparation for ongoing care. CONCLUSION: Poor quality and availability of information, and poor communication, inhibit effective transfer of care. Communication is fundamental to patient-centred care and even more important in discharge models characterized by limited assessments and quicker discharge. Interventions at the service level and targeted patient information about what to expect in discharge assessments and after discharge could help to address poor communication and support for improving discharge of older people from hospital. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Frailty Oversight Group, a small group of older people providing oversight of the Community Aging Research 75+ study, provided feedback on the research topic and level of interest, the draft data collection tools and the feasibility of collecting data with older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The group also reviewed preliminary findings and provided feedback on our interpretation.

Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) REMOTE study: a remote model of recruitment and assessment of the health, well-being and social circumstances of older people.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care. DATA COLLECTION: Assessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124.

Life in lockdown: a telephone survey to investigate the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on the lives of older people (≥75 years).

BACKGROUND: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government introduced social distancing measures and identified specific populations at high risk from the virus. People ≥70 were deemed 'Clinically Vulnerable'. Distancing measures were introduced to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. However, these may have a negative impact on older people who are vulnerable to social isolation and may have challenges accessing services and provisions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on the lives of older people. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older people, 76-97 years. OUTCOMES: Health anxiety; General health (RAND Short-form 36 Survey); Physical activity; Depression (PHQ-8); Anxiety (GAD-2); Loneliness; Access to services; Challenges, concerns and positive experiences. DATA ANALYSIS: Counts (%), means (SDs). Thematic analysis was used to identify themes from open questions. RESULTS: n = 142. 52% did not worry about their health; 76% rated their health as 'good', 'very good' or 'excellent'; <10% met the criteria indicative of depression (PHQ-8), or anxiety (GAD-2); 42% were less active than before lockdown; and 27% were lonely at least some of the time. Over half of participants identified positive aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported good health with low levels of health anxiety, anxiety and depression. Many were able to identify positive aspects to lockdown and may be better equipped to deal with lockdown than anticipated. Strategies may be required to ameliorate the negative impact of loneliness for a minority of older people, and help some resume previous activity levels and pursuits.