Using Palliative Care Needs Rounds in the UK for care home staff and residents: an implementation science study.

Background: Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this. Objective: To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. Design: A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Setting: Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, n = 4, and Scotland, n = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each. Participants: Phase 1: interviews (n = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops (n = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews (n = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire (n = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire (n = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire (n = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews (n = 11); fidelity assessment (n = 14 Needs Rounds recordings). Interventions: (1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents' physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings. Main outcome measures: A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement. Data sources: Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members. Results: The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents' last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services' complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality. Limitations: COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care. Conclusions: Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff. Future work: Conduct analysis of costs-benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from hospice teams and so may experience distressing symptoms at end of life if care home staff cannot fully meet their needs. We examined how an approach which worked well in Australia called 'Palliative Care Needs Rounds' (or 'Needs Rounds') could be used in the United Kingdom. We interviewed 28 people (care home staff, hospice staff and other National Health Service/social care professionals in the community) about their understanding of the United Kingdom setting, what might help trigger change and what results they would want. We discussed these interviews at online workshops with 43 people, where we started to develop a theory of 'what would work, for whom, under what circumstances' and determine what United Kingdom Needs Rounds would look like. Six specialist palliative care services, each partnered with three to six local care homes, used Needs Rounds for a year. We collected information on care home residents, staff experiences of using Needs Rounds, relatives' perceptions of care quality, staff views of residents' quality of death, and on their ability to provide a palliative approach to residents. We found that Needs Rounds can provide care home staff and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to work together during a protected time, to plan for residents' last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while using each services' expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication between care home staff, families, specialist palliative care staff and primary care. This improves the quality of resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and also benefits relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality.

Outcomes of home design to support healthy cognitive ageing: modified e-Delphi exercise with older people and housing-related professionals.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging agreement that living in a home designed to support healthy cognitive ageing can enable people to live better with dementia and cognitive change. However, existing literature has used a variety of outcome measures that have infrequently been informed by the perspectives of older people or of professional in design and supply of housing. The DesHCA (Designing Homes for Healthy Cognitive Ageing) study aimed to identify outcomes that were meaningful for these groups and to understand their content and meanings. METHODS: A presurvey of older people and housing professionals (n = 62) identified potential outcomes. These were then used in three rounds of a modified e-Delphi exercise with a panel of older people and housing professionals (n = 74) to test meanings and identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Descriptive statistics were used to present findings from previous rounds. RESULTS: The survey confirmed a wide range of possible outcomes considered important. Through the e-Delphi rounds, panellists prioritised outcomes relating to living at home that could be influenced by design, and clarified their understanding of the meanings of outcomes. In subsequent rounds, they commented on earlier results. The exercise enabled five key outcome areas to be identified - staying independent, feeling safe, living in an adaptable home, enabling physical activity and enabling enjoyed activities- which were then tested for their content and applicability in panellists' views. CONCLUSION: The five key outcome areas appeared meaningful to panellists, whilst also demonstrating nuanced meanings. They indicate useful outcomes for future research, though will require careful definition in each case to become measures. Importantly, they are informed by the views of those most immediately affected by better or poorer home design.

Othering Older People's Housing: Gaming Ageing to Support Future-Planning.

The 'othering' of ageing is linked to an integrated process of ageism and hinders planning for the future for both individuals and practitioners delivering housing and health services. This paper aims to explore how creative interventions can help personalise, exchange knowledge and lead to system changes that tackle the 'othering' of ageing. The Designing Homes for Healthy Cognitive Ageing (DesHCA) project offers new and creative insights through an innovative methodology utilising 'serious games' with a co-produced tool called 'Our House' that provides insights into how to deliver housing for older people for ageing well in place. In a series of playtests with over 128 people throughout the UK, the findings show that serious games allow interaction, integration and understanding of how ageing affects people professionally and personally. The empirical evidence highlights that the game mechanisms allowed for a more in-depth and nuanced consideration of ageing in a safe and creative environment. These interactions and discussions enable individuals to personalise and project insights to combat the 'othering' of ageing. However, the solutions are restrained as overcoming the consequences of ageism is a societal challenge with multilayered solutions. The paper concludes that serious gaming encourages people to think differently about the concept of healthy ageing-both physically and cognitively-with the consideration of scalable and creative solutions to prepare for ageing in place.

Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Two-year follow-up in 54 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgery has seen increasing application in the treatment of spinal disorders. Treatment of degenerative spinal stenosis, with or without spondylolisthesis, with minimally invasive technique preserves stabilizing ligaments, bone, and muscle. Satisfactory results can be achieved without the need for fusion in most cases. METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patients underwent bilateral decompressions from a unilateral approach for spinal stenosis using METRx instrumentation. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded preoperatively and patients were interviewed, in person or by phone, by our office nurse practitioner (LD) to assess postoperative VAS scores, and patient satisfaction with the clinical results 21-39 months postoperatively (median 27 months). RESULTS: Fifty-four patients underwent decompression at 77 levels (L4/5 = 43, L3/4 = 22, L5/S1 = 8, L1/2 = 4, L2/3 = 4), (single = 35, double = 16, triple = 2, quadruple = 1). There were 39 females and 15 males. The average age was 67 years. The average operative time was 78 minutes and the average blood loss was 37 ml per level. Twenty-seven patients had preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis (Grade 1 = 26, Grade 2 = 1). Eight patients had discectomies and four had synovial cysts. Patient satisfaction was high. Use of pain medication for leg and back pain was low, and VAS scores improved by more than half. There were three dural tears. There were no deaths or infections. One patient with an unrecognized dural tear required re-exploration for repair of a pseudomeningocele and one patient required a lumbar fusion for pain associated with progression of her spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive bilateral decompression of acquired spinal stenosis from a unilateral approach can be successfully accomplished with reasonable operative times, minimal blood loss, and acceptable morbidity. Two-year outcomes in this series revealed high patient satisfaction and only one patient progressed to lumbar fusion.