Nurses' strategies for overcoming barriers to fundamental nursing care in patients with COVID-19 caused by infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus: Results from the 'COVID-NURSE' survey.

AIMS: To identify strategies used by registered nurses and non-registered nursing care staff in overcoming barriers when providing fundamental nursing care for non-invasively ventilated inpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data. METHODS: In August 2020, we asked UK-based nursing staff to describe any strategies they employed to overcome barriers to delivering care in 15 fundamental nursing care categories when providing care to non-invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We analysed data using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1062 nurses consented to participate in our survey. We derived four themes. 1) Communication behaviours included adapting verbal and non-verbal communication with patients, using information technology to enable patients' significant others to communicate with staff and patients, and establishing clear information-sharing methods with other staff. 2) Organizing care required clustering interventions, carefully managing supplies, encouraging patient self-care and using 'runners' and interdisciplinary input. 3) Addressing patients' well-being and values required spending time with patients, acting in loco familiae, providing access to psychological and spiritual support, obtaining information about patients' wishes early on and providing privacy and comforting/meaningful items. 4) Management and leadership behaviours included training, timely provision of pandemic information, psychological support, team huddles and facilitating regular breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified multiple strategies in four main areas of clinical practice. Management and leadership are crucial to both fundamental care delivery and the well-being of nurses during pandemics. Grouping strategies into these areas of action may assist nurses and leaders to prepare for pandemic nursing. IMPACT: As these strategies are unlikely to be exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, their global dissemination may improve patient experience and help nurses deliver fundamental care when planning pandemic nursing. However, their effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we are currently evaluating these strategies in a cluster randomized controlled trial.

A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and difficult to prevent. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme. DESIGN: A multicentre, cluster, parallel, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Care homes were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the GtACH programme or usual care using a secure web-based randomisation service. Research assistants, participating residents and staff informants were blind to allocation at recruitment; research assistants were blind to allocation at follow-up. NHS Digital data were extracted blindly. SETTING: Older people's care homes from 10 UK sites. PARTICIPANTS: Older care home residents. INTERVENTION: The GtACH programme, which includes care home staff training, systematic use of a multidomain decision support tool and implementation of falls prevention actions, compared to usual falls prevention care. OUTCOMES: The primary trial outcome was the rate of falls per participating resident occurring during the 90-day period between 91 and 180 days post randomisation. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was the cost per fall averted, and the primary outcome for the cost-utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year. Secondary outcomes included the rate of falls over days 0-90 and 181-360 post randomisation, activity levels, dependency and fractures. The number of falls per resident was compared between arms using a negative binomial regression model (generalised estimating equation). RESULTS: A total of 84 care homes were randomised: 39 to the GtACH arm and 45 to the control arm. A total of 1657 residents consented and provided baseline measures (mean age 85 years, 32% men). GtACH programme training was delivered to 1051 staff (71% of eligible staff) over 146 group sessions. Primary outcome data were available for 630 GtACH participants and 712 control participants. The primary outcome result showed an unadjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; p < 0.01) in favour of the GtACH programme. Falls rates were lower in the GtACH arm in the period 0-90 days. There were no other differences between arms in the secondary outcomes. Care home staff valued the training, systematic strategies and specialist peer support, but the incorporation of the GtACH programme documentation into routine care home practice was limited. No adverse events were recorded. The incremental cost was £20,889.42 per Dementia Specific Quality of Life-based quality-adjusted life-year and £4543.69 per quality-adjusted life-year based on the EuroQol-5 dimensions, five-level version. The mean number of falls was 1.889 (standard deviation 3.662) in the GtACH arm and 2.747 (standard deviation 7.414) in the control arm. Therefore, 0.858 falls were averted. The base-case incremental cost per fall averted was £190.62. CONCLUSION: The GtACH programme significantly reduced the falls rate in the study care homes without restricting residents' activity levels or increasing their dependency, and was cost-effective at current thresholds in the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Future work should include a broad implementation programme, focusing on scale and sustainability of the GtACH programme. LIMITATIONS: A key limitation was the fact that care home staff were not blinded, although risk was small because of the UK statutory requirement to record falls in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN34353836. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and hard to prevent. We tested whether or not the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme was effective in preventing falls. In this programme, care home staff were systematically trained and supported in the assessment of residents' risk of falling and the generation of a falls reduction care plan. We undertook a randomised controlled trial comparing the GtACH programme with usual care, which does not involve this systematic attention to falls prevention. We also undertook a process evaluation, observing organisational and care processes, and an economic study to evaluate value for money. A total of 39 care homes were randomly allocated to the GtACH programme and 45 care homes were randomly allocated to usual care, involving a total of 1657 residents. The main comparison between the two arms was the rate of falls during months 4­6 after randomisation, when we expected any effect to be at its peak. We also assessed the falls rates before and 6 months after this period. We measured activity and dependency levels, as it was important to be sure that any reduction in the rate of falls was not achieved through restrictive care practices. We saw a 43% reduction in the falls rates of the GtACH programme participants during months 4­6, without observing any reduction in residents' activity or dependency. Care home staff and relatives were positive about the GtACH programme. The GtACH programme was good value for money, as it was likely to be cost-effective. The effect of the programme waned over months 6­12, which may be because some staff did not embed the GtACH programme in their usual practice routines, and awareness levels may have dropped.

Fundamental nursing care in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 virus: results from the 'COVID-NURSE' mixed methods survey into nurses' experiences of missed care and barriers to care.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients' fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. METHODS: We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. RESULTS: Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients' conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.

How quality improvement collaboratives work to improve healthcare in care homes: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together multidisciplinary teams in a structured process to improve care quality. How QICs can be used to support healthcare improvement in care homes is not fully understood. METHODS: A realist evaluation to develop and test a programme theory of how QICs work to improve healthcare in care homes. A multiple case study design considered implementation across 4 sites and 29 care homes. Observations, interviews and focus groups captured contexts and mechanisms operating within QICs. Data analysis classified emerging themes using context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how NHS and care home staff work together to design and implement improvement. RESULTS: QICs will be able to implement and iterate improvements in care homes where they have a broad and easily understandable remit; recruit staff with established partnership working between the NHS and care homes; use strategies to build relationships and minimise hierarchy; protect and pay for staff time; enable staff to implement improvements aligned with existing work; help members develop plans in manageable chunks through QI coaching; encourage QIC members to recruit multidisciplinary support through existing networks; facilitate meetings in care homes and use shared learning events to build multidisciplinary interventions stepwise. Teams did not use measurement for change, citing difficulties integrating this into pre-existing and QI-related workload. CONCLUSIONS: These findings outline what needs to be in place for health and social care staff to work together to effect change. Further research needs to consider ways to work alongside staff to incorporate measurement for change into QI.

'Real world' effectiveness of the Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme: an implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Falls incidence increases with age alongside declines in strength and balance. Clinical trials show that the Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme improves strength and balance, which can reduce falls and improve physical functioning. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the clinical trial efficacy of FaME translates into effectiveness in non-research settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: An implementation study of FaME in 10 local authorities across the East Midlands region of England. SUBJECTS: Adults aged 65 and over enrolled on a FaME programme. METHOD: Anonymised outcome data collected by the FaME providers were compared at baseline, end of programme and 6 months follow-up using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: For 348 adults enrolled in programmes and analysed, the mean age was 76.8, 73% were female and 143 (41%) completed ≥75% of classes. Overall confidence in balance, fear of falling, functional reach and timed-up-and-go (all P < 0.001), and turn 180° (P = 0.008) improved significantly at programme completion versus baseline, but improvements were not maintained 6 months later. Falls risk (FRAT score) and total minutes of physical activity did not change significantly though minutes of strength and balance activity increased by 55% at programme completion and was maintained at 6 months. The falls incidence rate ratio (IRR) was non-significantly lower at programme completion (IRR 0.76, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.48,1.21) and follow-up (IRR 0.82 95% CI 0.48,1.39) versus baseline. CONCLUSIONS: There is modest translation of FaME efficacy into effectiveness, but not all effects persist after completion. Strategies to aid adherence and exercise maintenance are important to maximise benefits.

Factors affecting the delivery of complex rehabilitation interventions in research with neurologically impaired adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation research does not always improve patient outcomes because of difficulties implementing complex health interventions. Identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation fidelity is critical. Not reporting implementation issues wastes research resources and risks erroneously attributing effectiveness when interventions are not implemented as planned, particularly progressing from single to multicentre trials. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF) facilitate identification of barriers and facilitators. This review sought to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) affecting implementation in trials of complex rehabilitation interventions for adults with long-term neurological conditions (LTNC) and describe implementation issues. METHODS: Implementation, complex health interventions and LTNC search terms were developed. Studies of all designs were eligible. Searches involved 11 databases, trial registries and citations. After screening titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently shortlisted studies. A third resolved discrepancies. One reviewer extracted data in two stages; 1) descriptive study data, 2) units of text describing determinants. Data were synthesised by (1) mapping determinants to CFIF and CFIR and (2) thematic analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three studies, from 7434 records, reported implementation determinants; 41 reported both barriers and facilitators. Most implied determinants but five used implementation theory to inform recording. More barriers than facilitators were mapped onto CFIF and CFIR constructs. "Patient needs and resources", "readiness for implementation", "knowledge and beliefs about the intervention", "facilitation strategies", "participant responsiveness" were the most frequently mapped constructs. Constructs relating to the quality of intervention delivery, organisational/contextual aspects and trial-related issues were rarely tapped. Thematic analysis revealed the most frequently reported determinants related to adherence, intervention perceptions and attrition. CONCLUSIONS: This review has described the barriers and facilitators identified in studies implementing complex interventions for people with LTNCs. Early adoption of implementation frameworks by trialists can simplify identification and reporting of factors affecting delivery of new complex rehabilitation interventions. It is vital to learn from previous experiences to prevent unnecessary repetitions of implementation failure at both trial and service provision levels. Reported facilitators can provide strategies for overcoming implementation issues. Reporting gaps may be due to the lack of standardised reporting methods, researcher ignorance and historical reporting requirements. SYSTEMIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015020423.

PHysical activity Implementation Study In Community-dwelling AduLts (PHISICAL): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Falls in older people are a leading causes of unintentional injury. Due to an ageing population, injuries are likely to increase unless more is done to reduce older people's falls risk. In clinical trials, the Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme has reduced the rate of falls and falls-related injuries in community-dwelling older adults. However, the commissioning of FaME is inconsistent across England, potentially due to a lack of evidence that FaME can be delivered effectively in a 'real world' setting. The PHysical activity Implementation Study In Community-dwelling AduLts (PHISICAL) study is designed to study the implementation of FaME in a range of different settings in England. METHODS: The PHISICAL study will use a mixed-methods, triangulation, multilevel design to explore the implementation of FaME. Framework analysis of semistructured interviews with up to 90 stakeholders (exercise programme users, service providers, referrers and commissioners) and observational data from locally led communities of practice will identify the factors that influence FaME's implementation. Quantitative, anonymised, routine service data from up to 650 exercise programme users, including measures of falls and physical activity, will allow assessment of whether the benefits of FaME reported in clinical trials translate to the 'real world' setting. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study will be used to develop a toolkit of resources and guidance to inform the commissioning and delivery of future FaME programmes. This study has the potential to inform public health prevention strategies, and in doing so may reduce the number of falls in the older population while delivering cost savings to health and social care services.

Developing the React to Falls resources to support care home staff in managing falls.

OBJECTIVES: Care home residents are falling three times more often than elderly frail people living in their own homes and as such, the management of falls is an important area for care home staff to consider. This paper outlines the development of the 'React to Falls' training resources to support care home staff in the management of falls. METHODS: The 'React to Falls' resources were developed in collaboration with falls prevention researchers, expert clinicians working in the field of falls management in care homes and care home staff and residents. RESULTS: A freely accessible online and paper based resource was developed to meet the needs of different care home settings. Expert clinicians and care homes emphasised the importance of promoting activity and quality life and ensuring the resources were a learning tool that supported positive risk taking. Expert clinicians highlighted the need to convey the importance of continually reacting to reducing risk in the management of falls. CONCLUSIONS: This study has developed a set of training resources on falls management to support care home staff to continually react and consider the risks and management of falls. An evaluation of the impact of the resource on care staff behaviour and organisational changes is recommended.

Understanding the theoretical underpinning of the exercise component in a fall prevention programme for older adults with mild dementia: a realist review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with mild dementia are at an increased risk of falls. Preventing those at risk from falling requires complex interventions involving patient-tailored strength- and balance-challenging exercises, home hazard assessment, visual impairment correction, medical assessment and multifactorial combinations. Evidence for these interventions in older adults with mild cognitive problems is sparse and not as conclusive as the evidence for the general community-dwelling older population. The objectives of this realist review are (i) to identify the underlying programme theory of strength and balance exercise interventions targeted at those individuals that have been identified as falling and who have a mild dementia and (ii) to explore how and why that intervention reduces falls in that population, particularly in the context of a community setting. This protocol will explain the rationale for using a realist review approach and outline the method. METHODS: A realist review is a methodology that extends the scope of a traditional narrative or systematic evidence review. Increasingly used in the evaluation of complex interventions, a realist enquiry can look at the wider context of the intervention, seeking more to explain than judge if the intervention is effective by investigating why, what the underlying mechanism is and the necessary conditions for success. In this review, key rough programme theories were articulated and defined through discussion with a stakeholder group. The six rough programme theories outlined within this protocol will be tested against the literature found using the described comprehensive search strategy. The process of data extraction, appraisal and synthesis is outlined and will lead to the production of an explanatory programme theory. DISCUSSION: As far as the authors are aware, this is the first realist literature review within fall prevention research and adds to the growing use of this methodology within healthcare. This synthesis of evidence will provide a valuable addition to the evidence base surrounding the exercise component of a fall intervention programme for older adults with mild dementia and will ultimately provide clinically relevant recommendations for improving the care of people with dementia. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015030169.

The Association of Specific Executive Functions and Falls Risk in People with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Early-Stage Dementia.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Impairment in executive function is associated with a heightened risk for falls in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. The purpose of this study was to determine which aspects of executive function are associated with falls risk. METHODS: Forty-two participants with a mean age of 81.6 years and a diagnosis of MCI or mild dementia completed five different executive function tests from the computerised CANTAB test battery and a comprehensive falls risk assessment. RESULTS: A hierarchical regression analysis showed that falls risk was significantly associated with spatial memory abilities and inhibition of a pre-potent response. CONCLUSION: The concept of executive function may be too general to provide meaningful results in a research or clinical context, which should focus on spatial memory and inhibition of a pre-potent response.

The Community In-Reach and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older people represent a significant proportion of patients admitted to hospital. Their care compared to younger patients is more challenging, length of stay is longer, risk of hospital-acquired problems higher and the risk of being re-admitted within 28 days greater. This study aims to compare a Community In-Reach and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with Traditional Hospital Based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) provided to the older person. The CIRACT service differs from the THB-rehab service in that they are able to provide more intensive hospital rehabilitation, visiting patients daily, and are able to continue with the patient's rehabilitation following discharge allowing a seamless, integrated discharge working alongside community providers. A pilot comparing the two services showed that the CIRACT service demonstrated reduced length of stay and reduced re-admission rates when analysed over a four-month period. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the CIRACT service, conducted as a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an integral qualitative mechanism and action study designed to provide the explanatory and theoretical components on how the CIRACT service compares to current practice. The RCT element consists of 240 patients over 70 years of age, being randomised to either the THB therapy group or the CIRACT service following an unplanned hospital admission. The primary outcome will be hospital length of stay from admission to discharge from the general medical elderly care ward. Additional outcome measures including the Barthel Index, Charlson Co-morbidity Scale, EuroQoL-5D and the modified Client Service Receipt Inventory will be assessed at the time of recruitment and repeated at 91 days post-discharge. The qualitative mechanism and action study will involve a systematic programme of organisational profiling, observations of work processes, interviews with key informants and care providers and tracking of participants. In addition, a within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken comparing the CIRACT and THB-rehab services to determine cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The outcome of the study will inform clinical decision-making, with respect to allocation of resources linked to hospital discharge planning and re-admissions, in a resource intensive and growing group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with the ISRCTN registry ( ISCRCTN94393315 ) on 25 April 2013 (version 3.1, 11 September 2014).

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1): cluster randomised trial of computerised clinical decision support for paramedics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of Computerised Clinical Decision Support (CCDS) for paramedics attending older people who fall. DESIGN: Cluster trial randomised by paramedic; modelling. SETTING: 13 ambulance stations in two UK emergency ambulance services. PARTICIPANTS: 42 of 409 eligible paramedics, who attended 779 older patients for a reported fall. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention paramedics received CCDS on Tablet computers to guide patient care. Control paramedics provided care as usual. One service had already installed electronic data capture. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness: patients referred to falls service, patient reported quality of life and satisfaction, processes of care. SAFETY: Further emergency contacts or death within one month. COST-EFFECTIVENESS: Costs and quality of life. We used findings from published Community Falls Prevention Trial to model cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: 17 intervention paramedics used CCDS for 54 (12.4%) of 436 participants. They referred 42 (9.6%) to falls services, compared with 17 (5.0%) of 343 participants seen by 19 control paramedics [Odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72]. No adverse events were related to the intervention. Non-significant differences between groups included: subsequent emergency contacts (34.6% versus 29.1%; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.72); quality of life (mean SF12 differences: MCS -0.74, 95% CI -2.83 to +1.28; PCS -0.13, 95% CI -1.65 to +1.39) and non-conveyance (42.0% versus 36.7%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). However ambulance job cycle time was 8.9 minutes longer for intervention patients (95% CI 2.3 to 15.3). Average net cost of implementing CCDS was £208 per patient with existing electronic data capture, and £308 without. Modelling estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year at £15,000 with existing electronic data capture; and £22,200 without. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention paramedics referred twice as many participants to falls services with no difference in safety. CCDS is potentially cost-effective, especially with existing electronic data capture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register ISRCTN10538608.

Developing the principles of chair based exercise for older people: a modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Chair based exercise (CBE) is suggested to engage older people with compromised health and mobility in an accessible form of exercise. A systematic review looking at the benefits of CBE for older people identified a lack of clarity regarding a definition, delivery, purpose and benefits. This study aimed to utilise expert consensus to define CBE for older people and develop a core set of principles to guide practice and future research. METHODS: The framework for consensus was constructed through a team workshop identifying 42 statements within 7 domains. A four round electronic Delphi study with multi-disciplinary health care experts was undertaken. Statements were rated using a 5 point Likert scale of agreement and free text responses. A threshold of 70% agreement was used to determine consensus. Free text responses were analysed thematically. Between rounds a number of strategies (e.g., amended wording of statements, generation and removal of statements) were used to move towards consensus. RESULTS: 16 experts agreed on 46 statements over four rounds of consultation (Round 1: 22 accepted, 3 removed, 5 new and 17 modified; Round 2: 16 accepted, 0 removed, 4 new and 6 modified; Round 3: 4 accepted, 2 removed, 0 new and 4 modified; Round 4: 4 accepted, 0 removed, 0 new, 0 modified).Statements were accepted in all seven domains: the definition of CBE (5), intended users (3), potential benefits (8), structure (12), format (8), risk management (7) and evaluation (3).The agreed definition of CBE had five components: 1. CBE is primarily a seated exercise programme; 2. The purpose of using a chair is to promote stability in both sitting and standing; 3. CBE should be considered as part of a continuum of exercise for frail older people where progression is encouraged; 4. CBE should be used flexibly to respond to the changing needs of frail older people; and 5. Where possible CBE should be used as a starting point to progress to standing programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus has been reached on a definition and a set of principles governing CBE for older people; this provides clarity for implementation and future research about CBE.

Rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled study (the Getting out of the House Study).

BACKGROUND: One-third of stroke patients are dependent on others to get outside their homes. This can cause people to become housebound, leading to increased immobility, poor health, isolation and misery. There is some evidence that outdoor mobility rehabilitation can reduce these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention for stroke patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with two groups allocated at a 1 : 1 ratio plus qualitative participant interviews. SETTING: Fifteen UK NHS stroke services throughout England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 568 stroke patients who wished to get out of the house more often, mean age of 71 years: 508 reached the 6-month follow-up and 10 were interviewed. INTERVENTION: Control was delivered prior to randomisation to all participants, and consisted of verbal advice and transport and outdoor mobility leaflets. Intervention was a targeted outdoor mobility rehabilitation programme delivered by 29 NHS therapists to 287 randomly chosen participants for up to 12 sessions over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was participant health-related quality of life, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (Social Function domain), 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mobility, number of journeys (from monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility (SWOM), psychological well-being and resource use [health care and Personal Social Services (PSS)] 6 months after baseline. Carer well-being was recorded. All outcome measures were collected by post and repeated 12 months after baseline. Outcomes for the groups were compared using statistical significance testing and adjusted for multiple membership to account for the effect of multiple therapists at different sites. Interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenology to explore confidence. RESULTS: A median of seven intervention sessions [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7 sessions], median duration of 369 minutes (IQR 170-691.5 minutes) per participant was delivered. There was no significant difference between the groups on health-related quality of life (social function). There were no significant differences between groups in functional ability, psychological well-being or SWOM at 6- or 12-month follow-ups. There was a significant difference observed for travel journeys with the intervention group being 42% more likely to make a journey compared with the control group [rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.67] at 6 months and 76% more likely (rate ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.95) at 12 months. The number of journeys was affected by the therapist effect. The mean incremental cost (total NHS and PSS cost) of the intervention was £3413.75 (95% CI -£448.43 to £7121.00), with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of -0.027 (95% CI -0.060 to 0.007) according to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and -0.003 (95% CI -0.016 to 0.006) according to the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions. At baseline, 259 out of 281 (92.2%) participants in the control group were dissatisfied with outdoor mobility but at the 6-month assessment this had reduced to 77.7% (181/233), a 15% reduction. The corresponding reduction in the intervention group was slightly greater (21%) than 268 out of 287 (93.4%) participants dissatisfied with outdoor mobility at baseline to 189 out of 261 (72.4%) at 6 months. Participants described losing confidence after stroke as being detrimental to outdoor mobility. Recruitment and retention rates were high. The intervention was deliverable by the NHS but had a neutral effect in all areas apart from potentially increasing the number of journeys. This was dependent on the therapist effect, meaning that some therapists were more successful than others. The control appeared to affect change. CONCLUSIONS: The outdoor mobility intervention provided in this study to these stroke patients was not clinically effective or cost-effective. However, the provision of personalised information and monthly diaries should be considered for all people who wish to get out more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58683841. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Chair-based exercises for frail older people: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Frail older people are often unable to undertake high-intensity exercise programmes. Chair-based exercises (CBEs) are used as an alternative, for which health benefits are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of CBE programmes for frail older people through a systematic review of existing literature. METHOD: A systematic search was performed for CBE-controlled trials in frail populations aged ≥65 years published between 1990 and February 2011 in electronic databases. Quality was assessed using the Jadad method. RESULTS: The search identified 164 references: with 42 duplicates removed, 122 reviewed, 116 excluded, and 6 analysed. 26 outcome measures were reported measuring 3 domains: mobility and function, cardiorespiratory fitness, mental health. All studies were of low methodological quality (Jadad score ≤2; possible range 0-5). Two studies showed no benefit, and four reported some evidence of benefit in all three domains. No harmful effects were reported; compliance was generally good. CONCLUSION: The quality of the evidence base for CBEs is low with inconclusive findings to clearly inform practice. A consensus is required on the definition and purpose of CBEs. Large well-designed randomised controlled trials to test the effectiveness of CBE are justified.

Explaining the barriers to and tensions in delivering effective healthcare in UK care homes: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explain the current delivery of healthcare to residents living in UK care homes. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using a grounded theory approach. SETTING: 6 UK care homes and primary care professionals serving the homes. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 32 participants, there were 7 care home managers, 2 care home nurses, 9 care home assistants, 6 general practitioners (GPs), 3 dementia outreach nurses, 2 district nurses, 2 advanced nurse practitioners and 1 occupational therapist. RESULTS: 5 themes were identified: complex health needs and the intrinsic nature of residents' illness trajectories; a mismatch between healthcare requirements and GP time; reactive or anticipatory healthcare?; a dissonance in healthcare knowledge and ethos; and tensions in the responsibility for the healthcare of residents. Care home managers and staff were pivotal to healthcare delivery for residents despite their perceived role in social care provision. Formal healthcare for residents was primarily provided via one or more GPs, often organised to provide a reactive service that did not meet residents' complex needs. Deficiencies were identified in training required to meet residents' needs for both care home staff as well as GPs. Misunderstandings, ambiguities and boundaries around roles and responsibilities of health and social care staff limited the development of constructive relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare of care home residents is difficult because their needs are complex and unpredictable. Neither GPs nor care home staff have enough time to meet these needs and many lack the prerequisite skills and training. Anticipatory care is generally held to be preferable to reactive care. Attempts to structure care to make it more anticipatory are dependent on effective relationships between GPs and care home staff and their ability to establish common goals. Roles and responsibilities for many aspects of healthcare are not made explicit and this risks poor outcomes for residents.

Community falls prevention for people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: we estimated the cost-effectiveness of a community falls prevention service compared with usual care from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective over the 12 month trial period. DESIGN: a cost-effectiveness and cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial SETTING: community. PARTICIPANTS: people over 60 years of age living at home or in residential care who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance but were not taken to hospital. INTERVENTIONS: referral to community fall prevention services or usual health and social care. MEASUREMENTS: incremental cost per fall prevented and incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) RESULTS: a total of 157 participants (82 interventions and 75 controls) were used to perform the economic evaluation. The mean difference in NHS and personal social service costs between the groups was £-1,551 per patient over 1 year (95% CI: £-5,932 to £2,829) comparing the intervention and control groups. The intervention patients experienced on average 5.34 fewer falls over 12 months (95% CI: -7.06 to -3.62). The mean difference in QALYs was 0.070 (95% CI: -0.010 to 0.150) in favour of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: the community falls prevention service was estimated to be cost-effective in this high-risk group. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67535605. (controlled-trials.com).

Acute medical unit comprehensive geriatric assessment intervention study (AMIGOS).

BACKGROUND: Many older people presenting to Acute Medical Units (AMU) are discharged after only a short stay (< 72 hours), yet many re-present to hospital or die within 1 year. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment may improve patient outcomes for this group. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged > 70 years and scoring positive on a risk screening tool ('Identification of Seniors At Risk') who are discharged within 72 hours of attending an AMU with a medical crisis, recruited prior to discharge. Sample size is 400. Carers of participants will also be recruited. INTERVENTION: Assessment on the AMU and further out-patient management by a specialist physician in geriatric medicine. Assessment and further management will follow the principles of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, providing advice and support to primary care services. DESIGN: Multi-centre, individual patient randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care. OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Follow up is by postal questionnaire 90 days after randomisation, and data will be entered into the study database by a researcher blind to allocation. The primary outcome is the number of days spent at home (for those admitted from home), or days spent in the same care home (if admitted from a care home). Secondary outcomes include mortality, institutionalisation, health and social care resource use, and scaled outcome measures, including quality of life, disability, mental well-being. Carer strain and well being will also be measured at 90 days. ANALYSES: Comparisons of outcomes and costs, and a cost utility analysis between the intervention and control groups will be carried out. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN21800480.

Thinking falls - taking action: a guide to action for falls prevention.

Clinical guidelines and research papers help clinicians measure and understand the risk of falling in their older clients but very few provide the assessor with recommendations as to which interventions they can use to reduce the risk of a fall. The Guide to Action for Falls Prevention tool (GtA) was developed to help professionals from a broad range of organizations to recognize factors that might increase falls risk and know which actions to take to lessen that risk. Twenty four professionals tested the GtA in a clinical setting and found it quick (15 minutes) and easy to complete. The GtA needs further evaluation to test whether it is a practical way of delivering a falls prevention intervention.

Community falls prevention for people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a service to prevent falls in the community would help reduce the rate of falls in older people who call an emergency ambulance when they fall but are not taken to hospital. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community covered by four primary care trusts, England. PARTICIPANTS: 204 adults aged more than 60 living at home or in residential care who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance but were not taken to hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Referral to community fall prevention services or standard medical and social care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of falls over 12 months, ascertained from monthly diaries. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Barthel index, Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale, and falls efficacy scale at baseline and by postal questionnaire at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: 102 people were allocated to each group. 99 (97%) participants in the intervention group received the intervention. Falls diaries were analysed for 88.6 person years in the intervention group and 84.5 person years in the control group. The incidence rates of falls per year were 3.46 in the intervention group and 7.68 in the control group (incidence rate ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58, P<0.001). The intervention group achieved higher scores on the Barthel index and Nottingham extended activities of daily living and lower scores on the falls efficacy scale (all P<0.05) at the 12 month follow-up. The number of times an emergency ambulance was called because of a fall was significantly different during follow-up (incidence rate ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.92, P=0.018). CONCLUSION: A service to prevent falls in the community reduced the fall rate and improved clinical outcome in the high risk group of older people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall but are not taken to hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67535605.