Development of an intervention for patients following an anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an online nominal group technique consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an intervention for to support patients diagnosed with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture with decision-making regarding treatment. (2) To define evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients following an ACL rupture. DESIGN: Nominal group technique consensus study. SETTING: Online meetings with patients and key stakeholders working and receiving treatment in the National Health Service, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Consensus meetings composed of eight voting participants and five non-voting facilitators. Voting participants included five clinicians, one outpatient therapy manager and two patients with experience in an ACL rupture and reconstructive surgery. Non-voting facilitators supported group discussions and/or observed study procedures. This included a clinical academic expert, two methodology experts and two patient representatives. METHOD: Two online meetings were held. Pre-elicitation material was distributed ahead of the first meeting. Premeeting voting was conducted ahead of both meetings. A draft of the shared decision-making intervention and recommendations were shared ahead of the second meeting. Components were discussed and ranked for inclusion based on a 70% agreement threshold. RESULTS: The meetings led to the development of a shared decision-making intervention to support treatment decision-making following an ACL rupture. The intervention includes two components: (1) a patient information leaflet and key questions diagram and (2) option grid. The evidence-based recommendations encompass core components of treatment reaching the 70% threshold agreed by the group. The recommendations cover: (1) advice and education, (2) exercise guidance, (3) intervention delivery, (4) outcome measure use and (5) shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: This study has successfully developed a shared decision-making intervention to support ACL treatment decision-making, ready for testing in a future feasibility study. Evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients following ACL injury, ready for testing in a National Health Service (UK) setting, are also presented. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05529511.

What are the views of adults with an intellectual disability (AWID), carers and healthcare professionals on a community falls management programme for AWID: a qualitative interview study in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to refine a draft of the ACTiON FALLS LD programme based on the views of adults with an intellectual disability (AWID), carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The semistructured interview study included HCP as well as AWID and carers supporting AWID living in the community. Community settings included sheltered living, supported living, AWID living at home with family carers or independently. The interview study explored the first draft of the ACTiON FALLS LD programme as well as the wider falls management for AWID. Interviews with AWID were developed to include a range of approaches (eg, case studies, pictures) to support inclusive participation. Individual interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Researcher notes were used during interviews with AWID. All data were analysed using the principles of framework analysis. RESULTS: 14 HCP, 8 carers and 13 AWID took part in the interview process. Five key themes were identified: programme components, programme design, programme approach, who would use the programme and programme delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The views of AWID, HCP and carers showed the need to consider the impact of risk perception, anxiety and fear of falling in the adaption of the ACTiON FALLS programme. The programme needs to be accessible and support the inclusion of AWID in managing falls and ultimately fulfil the requirement for a proactive and educational tool by all.

Hospital-based caregiver intervention for people following hip fracture surgery (HIP HELPER): multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study in England.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: Two-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. INTERVENTION: Usual care: usual NHS care. EXPERIMENTAL: usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals. RESULTS: 102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient-caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site's ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13270387.

An investigation of Reablement or restorative homecare interventions and outcome effects: A systematic review of randomised control trials.

The effect of Reablement, a multi-faceted intervention is unclear, specifically, which interventions improve outcomes. This Systematic Review evaluates randomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing Reablement investigating the population, interventions, who delivered them, the effect and sustainability of outcomes. Database search from inception to August 2021 included AMED, ASSIA, BNI, CINHALL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PUBMED, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov. Two researchers undertook data collection and quality assessment, following the PRISMA (2020) statement. They measured effect by changed primary or secondary outcomes: no ongoing service, functional ability, quality of life and mobility. The reviewers reported the analysis narratively, due to heterogeneity of outcome measures, strengthened by the SWiM reporting guideline. The search criteria resulted in eight international studies, five studies had a risk of bias limitations in either design or method. Ongoing service requirement decreased in five studies, with improved effect at 3 months shown in studies with occupational therapist involvement. Functional ability increased statistically in four studies at 3 months. Increase in quality of life was statistically significant in three studies, at 6 and 7 months. None of the studies reported a statistically significant improvement in functional mobility. Reablement is effective in the context of Health and Social Care. The outcomes were sustained at 3 months, with less sustainability at 6 months. There was no statistical result for the professional role regarding assessment, delivery and evaluation of interventions, and further research is justified.

COVID-NURSE: evaluation of a fundamental nursing care protocol compared with care as usual on experience of care for noninvasively ventilated patients in hospital with the SARS-CoV-2 virus-protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse-patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: we aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients' Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University's FutureLearn web platform. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

Protocol for a definitive randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a community-based rehabilitation programme following hip fracture: fracture in the elderly multidisciplinary rehabilitation-phase III (FEMuR III).

INTRODUCTION: Proximal femoral (hip) fracture is common, serious and costly. Rehabilitation may improve functional recovery but evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are lacking. An enhanced rehabilitation intervention was previously developed and a feasibility study tested the methods used for this randomised controlled trial (RCT). The objectives are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the enhanced rehabilitation programme following surgical repair of proximal femoral fracture in older people compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Protocol for phase III, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority, pragmatic RCT with 1:1 allocation ratio; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with a built-in random element; secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be usual care (control) and usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation programme (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation will consist of a patient-held information workbook, goal setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blind; patient and carer participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 17 and 52 weeks' follow-up. Primary outcome at 52 weeks will be the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale. Secondary outcomes will measure anxiety and depression, health utility, cognitive status, hip pain intensity, falls self-efficacy, fear of falling, grip strength and physical function. Carer strain, anxiety and depression will be measured in carers. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events will be assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis from a health service and personal social care perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the enhanced rehabilitation programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service research ethics approval reference 18/NE/0300. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28376407; Pre-results registered on 23 November 2018.

Barriers and facilitators of loaded self-managed exercises and physical activity in people with patellofemoral pain: understanding the feasibility of delivering a multicentred randomised controlled trial, a UK qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: There is an emergent body of evidence supporting exercise therapy and physical activity in the management of musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this study was to explore potential barriers and facilitators with patients and physiotherapists with patellofemoral pain involved in a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) study. The trial investigated a loaded self-managed exercise intervention, which included education and advice on physical activity versus usual physiotherapy as the control. DESIGN: Qualitative study, embedded within a mixed-methods design, using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: A UK National Health Service physiotherapy clinic in a large teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Purposively sampled 20 participants within a feasibility RCT study; 10 patients with a diagnosis of patellofemoral pain, aged between 18 and 40 years, and 10 physiotherapists delivering the interventions. RESULTS: In respect to barriers and facilitators, the five overlapping themes that emerged from the data were: (1) locus of control; (2) belief and attitude to pain; (3) treatment expectations and preference; (4) participants' engagement with the loaded self-managed exercises and (5) physiotherapists' clinical development. Locus of control was one overarching theme that was evident throughout. Contrary to popular concerns relating to painful exercises, all participants in the intervention group reported positive engagement. Both physiotherapists and patients, in the intervention group, viewed the single exercise approach in a positive manner. Participants within the intervention group described narratives demonstrating self-efficacy, with greater internal locus of control compared with those who received usual physiotherapy, particularly in relation to physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation, delivery and evaluation of the intervention in clinical settings may be challenging, but feasible with the appropriate training for physiotherapists. Participants' improvements in pain and function may have been mediated, in some part, by greater self-efficacy and locus of control. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN35272486; Pre-results.

Motivation as a mechanism underpinning exercise-based falls prevention programmes for older adults with cognitive impairment: a realist review.

OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to identify mechanisms underlying participation in falls prevention interventions, in older adults with cognitive impairment. In particular we studied the role of motivation. DESIGN: A realist review of the literature. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and PEDRO. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Publications reporting exercise-based interventions for people with cognitive impairment, including dementia, living in the community. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A 'rough programme theory' (a preliminary model of how an intervention works) was developed, tested against findings from the published literature and refined. Data were collected according to elements of the programme theory and not isolated to outcomes. Motivation emerged as a key element, and was prioritised for further study. RESULTS: An individual will access mechanisms to support participation when they think that exercise will be beneficial to them. Supportive mechanisms include having a 'gate-keeper', such as a carer or therapist, who shares responsibility for the perception of exercise as beneficial. Lack of access to support decreases adherence and participation in exercise. Motivational mechanisms were particularly relevant for older adults with mild-to-moderate dementia, where the exercise intervention was multicomponent, in a preferred setting, at the correct intensity and level of progression, correctly supported and considered, and flexibly delivered. CONCLUSION: Motivation is a key element enabling participation in exercise-based interventions for people with cognitive impairment. Many of the mechanisms identified in this review have parallels in motivational theory. Clinically relevant recommendations were derived and will be used to further develop and test a motivationally considered exercise-based falls intervention for people with mild dementia. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015030169.

Systematic scoping review of frameworks used to develop rehabilitation interventions for older adults.

OBJECTIVES: Rehabilitation interventions for older adults are complex as they involve a number of interacting components, have multiple outcomes of interest and are influenced by a number of contextual factors. The importance of rigorous intervention development prior to formal evaluation has been acknowledged and a number of frameworks have been developed. This review explored which frameworks have been used to guide the development of rehabilitation interventions for older adults. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. SETTING: Studies were not limited for inclusion based on setting. PARTICIPANTS: Studies were included that featured older adults (>65 years of age). INTERVENTIONS: Studies were included that reported the development of a rehabilitation intervention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were extracted on study population, setting, type of intervention developed and frameworks used. The primary outcome of interest was the type of intervention development framework. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included. There was a range of underlying medical conditions including mild cognitive impairment and dementia (n=5), cardiac (n=4), stroke (n=3), falls (n=3), hip fracture (n=2), diabetes (n=2), breast cancer (n=1), Parkinson's disease (n=1), depression (n=1), chronic health problems (n=1), osteoarthritis (n=1), leg ulcer (n=1), neck pain (n=1) and foot problems (n=1). The intervention types being developed included multicomponent, support based, cognitive, physical activities, nursing led, falls prevention and occupational therapy led. Twelve studies (34%) did not report using a framework. Five frameworks were reported with the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions being the most frequently cited (77%, n=17). CONCLUSION: At present, the MRC framework is the most popular for developing rehabilitation interventions for older adults. Many studies do not report using a framework. Further, specific guidance to assist this complex field of rehabilitation research is required.

Quality improvement collaborative aiming for Proactive HEAlthcare of Older People in Care Homes (PEACH): a realist evaluation protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol describes a study of a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to support implementation and delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in UK care homes. The QIC will be formed of health and social care professionals working in and with care homes and will be supported by clinical, quality improvement and research specialists. QIC participants will receive quality improvement training using the Model for Improvement. An appreciative approach to working with care homes will be encouraged through facilitated shared learning events, quality improvement coaching and assistance with project evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The QIC will be delivered across a range of partnering organisations which plan, deliver and evaluate health services for care home residents in four local areas of one geographical region. A realist evaluation framework will be used to develop a programme theory informing how QICs are thought to work, for whom and in what ways when used to implement and deliver CGA in care homes. Data collection will involve participant observations of the QIC over 18 months, and interviews/focus groups with QIC participants to iteratively define, refine, test or refute the programme theory. Two researchers will analyse field notes, and interview/focus group transcripts, coding data using inductive and deductive analysis. The key findings and linked programme theory will be summarised as context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing what needs to be in place to use QICs to implement service improvements in care homes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed by the National Health Service Health Research Authority (London Bromley research ethics committee reference: 205840) and the University of Nottingham (reference: LT07092016) ethics committees. Both determined that the Proactive HEAlthcare of Older People in Care Homes study was a service and quality improvement initiative. Findings will be shared nationally and internationally through conference presentations, publication in peer-reviewed journals, a graphical illustration and a dissemination video.

Development of an evidence-based complex intervention for community rehabilitation of patients with hip fracture using realist review, survey and focus groups.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence and theory-based complex intervention for improving outcomes in elderly patients following hip fracture. DESIGN: Complex-intervention development (Medical Research Council (MRC) framework phase I) using realist literature review, surveys and focus groups of patients and rehabilitation teams. SETTING: North Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Surveys of therapy managers (n=13), community and hospital-based physiotherapists (n=129) and occupational therapists (n=68) throughout the UK. Focus groups with patients (n=13), their carers (n=4) and members of the multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams in North Wales (n=13). RESULTS: The realist review provided understanding of how rehabilitation interventions work in the real-world context and three programme theories were developed: improving patient engagement by tailoring the intervention to individual needs; reducing fear of falling and improving self-efficacy to exercise and perform activities of daily living; and coordination of rehabilitation delivery. The survey provided context about usual rehabilitation practice; focus groups provided data on the experience, acceptability and feasibility of rehabilitation interventions. An intervention to enhance usual rehabilitation was developed to target these theory areas comprising: a physical component consisting of six additional therapy sessions; and a psychological component consisting of a workbook to enhance self-efficacy and a patient-held goal-setting diary for self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: A realist approach may have advantages in the development of evidence-based interventions and can be used in conjunction with other established methods to contribute to the development of potentially more effective interventions. A rehabilitation intervention was developed which can be tested in a future randomised controlled trial (MRC framework phases II and III). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22464643, Pre-results.

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER) 2: a cluster randomised trial and systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess older people following a fall with referral to community-based care when appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Emergency calls are frequently made to ambulance services for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without any ongoing care. We evaluated a new clinical protocol which allowed paramedics to assess older people who had fallen and, if appropriate, refer them to community-based falls services. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes, processes and costs of care between intervention and control groups; and to understand factors which facilitate or hinder use. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participating paramedics at three ambulance services in England and Wales were based at stations randomised to intervention or control arms. Participants were aged 65 years and over, attended by a study paramedic for a fall-related emergency service call, and resident in the trial catchment areas. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention paramedics received a clinical protocol with referral pathway, training and support to change practice. Control paramedics continued practice as normal. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome comprised subsequent emergency health-care contacts (emergency admissions, emergency department attendances, emergency service calls) or death at 1 month and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pathway of care, ambulance service operational indicators, self-reported outcomes and costs of care. Those assessing outcomes remained blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Across sites, 3073 eligible patients attended by 105 paramedics from 14 ambulance stations were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 2841 eligible patients attended by 110 paramedics from 11 stations were randomly allocated to the control group. After excluding dissenting and unmatched patients, 2391 intervention group patients and 2264 control group patients were included in primary outcome analyses. We did not find an effect on our overall primary outcome at 1 month or 6 months. However, further emergency service calls were reduced at both 1 month and 6 months; a smaller proportion of patients had made further emergency service calls at 1 month (18.5% vs. 21.8%) and the rate per patient-day at risk at 6 months was lower in the intervention group (0.013 vs. 0.017). Rate of conveyance to emergency department at index incident was similar between groups. Eight per cent of trial eligible patients in the intervention arm were referred to falls services by attending paramedics, compared with 1% in the control arm. The proportion of patients left at scene without further care was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (22.6% vs. 30.3%). We found no differences in duration of episode of care or job cycle. No adverse events were reported. Mean cost of the intervention was £17.30 per patient. There were no significant differences in mean resource utilisation, utilities at 1 month or 6 months or quality-adjusted life-years. In total, 58 patients, 25 paramedics and 31 stakeholders participated in focus groups or interviews. Patients were very satisfied with assessments carried out by paramedics. Paramedics reported that the intervention had increased their confidence to leave patients at home, but barriers to referral included patients' social situations and autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that this new pathway may be introduced by ambulance services at modest cost, without risk of harm and with some reductions in further emergency calls. However, we did not find evidence of improved health outcomes or reductions in overall NHS emergency workload. Further research is necessary to understand issues in implementation, the costs and benefits of e-trials and the performance of the modified Falls Efficacy Scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756 and PROSPERO CRD42013006418. 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. 21, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Paramedic Assessment of Older Adults After Falls, Including Community Care Referral Pathway: Cluster Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic protocol for the care of older people who fall. METHODS: We undertook a cluster randomized trial in 3 UK ambulance services between March 2011 and June 2012. We included patients aged 65 years or older after an emergency call for a fall, attended by paramedics based at trial stations. Intervention paramedics could refer the patient to a community-based falls service instead of transporting the patient to the emergency department. Control paramedics provided care as usual. The primary outcome was subsequent emergency contacts or death. RESULTS: One hundred five paramedics based at 14 intervention stations attended 3,073 eligible patients; 110 paramedics based at 11 control stations attended 2,841 eligible patients. We analyzed primary outcomes for 2,391 intervention and 2,264 control patients. One third of patients made further emergency contacts or died within 1 month, and two thirds within 6 months, with no difference between groups. Subsequent 999 call rates within 6 months were lower in the intervention arm (0.0125 versus 0.0172; adjusted difference -0.0045; 95% confidence interval -0.0073 to -0.0017). Intervention paramedics referred 8% of patients (204/2,420) to falls services and left fewer patients at the scene without any ongoing care. Intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care. There were no other differences between groups. Mean intervention cost was $23 per patient, with no difference in overall resource use between groups at 1 or 6 months. CONCLUSION: A clinical protocol for paramedics reduced emergency ambulance calls for patients attended for a fall safely and at modest cost.

A systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in care homes.

BACKGROUND: A thorough understanding of the literature generated from research in care homes is required to support evidence-based commissioning and delivery of healthcare. So far this research has not been compiled or described. We set out to describe the extent of the evidence base derived from randomized controlled trials conducted in care homes. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care homes. Medline was searched for "Nursing Home", "Residential Facilities" and "Homes for the Aged"; CINAHL for "nursing homes", "residential facilities" and "skilled nursing facilities"; AMED for "Nursing homes", "Long term care", "Residential facilities" and "Randomized controlled trial"; and BNI for "Nursing Homes", "Residential Care" and "Long-term care". Articles were classified against a keywording strategy describing: year and country of publication; randomization, stratification and blinding methodology; target of intervention; intervention and control treatments; number of subjects and/or clusters; outcome measures; and results. RESULTS: 3226 abstracts were identified and 291 articles reviewed in full. Most were recent (median age 6 years) and from the United States. A wide range of targets and interventions were identified. Studies were mostly functional (44 behaviour, 20 prescribing and 20 malnutrition studies) rather than disease-based. Over a quarter focussed on mental health. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to collate data from all RCTs conducted in care homes and represents an important resource for those providing and commissioning healthcare for this sector. The evidence-base is rapidly developing. Several areas - influenza, falls, mobility, fractures, osteoporosis - are appropriate for systematic review. For other topics, researchers need to focus on outcome measures that can be compared and collated.