Predicting discharge to institutional long-term care following acute hospitalisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: moving into long-term institutional care is a significant life event for any individual. Predictors of institutional care admission from community-dwellers and people with dementia have been described, but those from the acute hospital setting have not been systematically reviewed. Our aim was to establish predictive factors for discharge to institutional care following acute hospitalisation. Methods: we registered and conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015023497). We searched MEDLINE; EMBASE and CINAHL Plus in September 2015. We included observational studies of patients admitted directly to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation where factors associated with institutionalisation were reported. Results: from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). Studies were heterogeneous, with the proportions discharged to a care home 3-77% (median 15%). Eleven studies (n = 12,642), of moderate to low quality, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The need for institutional long-term care was associated with age (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.00-1.04), female sex (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.03-1.92), dementia (pooled OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.24-3.70) and functional dependency (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.58-2.69). Conclusions: discharge to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation is common, but current data do not allow prediction of who will make this transition. Potentially important predictors evaluated in community cohorts have not been examined in hospitalised cohorts. Understanding these predictors could help identify individuals at risk early in their admission, and support them in this transition or potentially intervene to reduce their risk.

Fixing the broken image of care homes, could a 'care home innovation centre' be the answer?

The UK has many excellent care homes that provide high-quality care for their residents; however, across the care home sector, there is a significant need for improvement. Even though the majority of care homes receive a rating of 'good' from regulators, still significant numbers are identified as requiring 'improvement' or are 'inadequate'. Such findings resonate with the public perceptions of long-term care as a negative choice, to be avoided wherever possible-as well as impacting on the career choices of health and social care students. Projections of current demographics highlight that, within 10 years, the part of our population that will be growing the fastest will be those people older than 80 years old with the suggestion that spending on long-term care provision needs to rise from 0.6% of our Gross Domestic Product in 2002 to 0.96% by 2031. Teaching/research-based care homes have been developed in the USA, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia in response to scandals about care, and the shortage of trained geriatric healthcare staff. There is increasing evidence that such facilities help to reduce inappropriate hospital admissions, increase staff competency and bring increased enthusiasm about working in care homes and improve the quality of care. Is this something that the UK should think of developing? This commentary details the core goals of a Care Home Innovation Centre for training and research as a radical vision to change the culture and image of care homes, and help address this huge public health issue we face.

New institutionalisation following acute hospital admission: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: institutionalisation following acute hospital admission is common and yet poorly described, with policy documents advising against this transition. Objective: to characterise the individuals admitted to a care home on discharge from an acute hospital admission and to describe their assessment. Design and setting: a retrospective cohort study of people admitted to a single large Scottish teaching hospital. Subjects: 100 individuals admitted to the acute hospital from home and discharged to a care home. Methods: a single researcher extracted data from ward-based case notes. Results: people discharged to care homes were predominantly female (62%), widowed (52%) older adults (mean 83.6 years) who lived alone (67%). About 95% had a diagnosed cognitive disorder or evidence of cognitive impairment. One-third of cases of delirium were unrecognised. Hospital stays were long (median 78.5 days; range 14-231 days) and transfers between settings were common. Family request, dementia, mobility, falls risk and behavioural concerns were the commonest reasons for the decision to admit to a care home. About 55% were in the acute hospital when the decision for a care home was made and 44% of that group were discharged directly from the acute hospital. Conclusions: care home admission from hospital is common and yet there are no established standards to support best practice. Decisions should involve the whole multidisciplinary team in partnership with patients and families. Documentation of assessment in the case notes is variable. We advocate the development of interdisciplinary standards to support the assessment of this vulnerable and complex group of patients.

Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians.

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice.We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, non-randomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools.We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review - along with awareness of their strengths and limitations - become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice.

Outcomes measures in a decade of dementia and mild cognitive impairment trials.

BACKGROUND: In a research study, to give a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of interventions, the outcome measures should reflect the lived experience of the condition. In dementia studies, this necessitates the use of outcome measures which capture the range of disease effects, not limited to cognitive functioning. In particular, assessing the functional impact of cognitive impairment is recommended by regulatory authorities, but there is no consensus on the optimal approach for outcome assessment in dementia research. Our aim was to describe the outcome measures used in dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) intervention studies, with particular interest in those evaluating patient-centred outcomes of functional performance and quality of life. METHODS: We performed a focused review of the literature with multiple embedded checks of internal and external validity. We used the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of dementia studies, ALOIS. ALOIS was searched to obtain records of all registered dementia and MCI intervention studies over a 10-year period (2004-2014). We included both published and unpublished materials. Outcomes were categorised as cognitive, functional, quality of life, mood, behaviour, global/disease severity and institutionalisation. RESULTS: From an initial return of 3271 records, we included a total of 805 records, including 676 dementia trial records and 129 MCI trial records. Of these, 78 % (630) originated from peer-reviewed publications and 60 % (487) reported results of pharmacological interventions. Cognitive outcomes were reported in 70 % (563), in contrast with 29 % (237) reporting measures of functional performance and only 13 % (102) reporting quality of life measures. We identified significant heterogeneity in the tools used to capture these outcomes, with frequent use of non-standardised tests. CONCLUSIONS: This focus on cognitive performance questions the extent to which intervention studies for dementia are evaluating outcome measures which are relevant to individual patients and their carers. The heterogeneity in measures, use of bespoke tools and poor descriptions of test strategy all support the need for a more standardised approach to the conduct and reporting of outcomes assessments.

New horizons: the management of hypertension in people with dementia.

The optimal management of hypertension in people with dementia is uncertain. This review explores if people with dementia experience greater adverse effects from antihypertensive medications, if cognitive function is protected or worsened by controlling blood pressure (BP) and if there are subgroups of people with dementia for whom antihypertensive therapy is more likely to be harmful. Robust evidence is scant, trials of antihypertensive medications have generally excluded those with dementia. Observational data show changes in risk association over the life course, with high BP being a risk factor for cognitive decline in mid-life, while low BP is predictive in later life. It is therefore possible that excessive BP lowering in older people with dementia might harm cognition. From the existing literature, there is no direct evidence of benefit or harm from treating hypertension in people with dementia. So what practical steps can the clinician take? Assess capacity, establish patient preferences when making treatment decisions, use ambulatory monitoring to thoroughly assess BP, individualise and consider deprescribing where side effects (e.g. hypotension) outweigh the benefits. Future research might include pragmatic randomised trials of targeted deprescribing, which include patient-centred outcome measures to help support decision-making and studies to address mechanistic uncertainties.