Adapting a Dutch Web-Based Intervention to Support Family Caregivers of People With Dementia in the UK Context: Accelerated Experience-Based Co-Design.

BACKGROUND: Around 700,000 family caregivers provide unpaid care for 900,000 people living with dementia in the United Kingdom. Few family caregivers receive support for their own psychological needs and funding for community respite services has declined. These trends are seen across Europe as demographic and budgetary pressures have intensified due to public spending cuts arising from the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization has prioritized the need to expand the provision of support for caregivers and families of people with dementia by 2025. Web-based interventions have the potential for development as they require modest investment and can be accessed by family caregivers at home. Further cost benefits can be realized by adapting existing interventions with demonstrated effectiveness for new contexts. This paper reports initial findings from the CareCoach study, which is adapting Partner in Balance (PiB), a web-based coaching intervention developed in the Netherlands, for family caregivers in the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to work with unpaid family caregivers and staff in adapting the Dutch web-based support tool PiB to improve its acceptability and usability for use in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Accelerated Experience-Based Co-Design (AEBCD) was used with caregivers, staff, and core stakeholders. Interviews, workshops, and stakeholder consultations were conducted. Data were analyzed iteratively. Recommendations for the redesign of PiB for use across the United Kingdom were adjudicated by the study Adaptation Working Party. RESULTS: Sixteen caregivers and 17 staff took part in interviews. Thirteen caregivers and 17 staff took part in workshops. Most (n=26) participants were White, female, and retired. All except 4 caregivers (2 male and 2 female) found the PiB's offer of web-based self-help learning acceptable. Caregivers identified complexity and lack of inclusivity in some wording and video resources as problematic. The staff took a stronger perspective on the lack of inclusivity in PiB video resources. Staff and caregivers coproduced new inclusive wording and recommended creating new videos to adapt PiB for the UK context. CONCLUSIONS: AEBCD methods facilitated the engagement of caregivers and staff and advanced the adaptation of the PiB complex intervention. An important addition to the AEBCD method in this process was the work of an Adaptation Working Party, which adjudicated and agreed to new wording where this could not be established in consultation with caregivers and staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12540555; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12540555.

Patient-reported experiences and views on the Cytosponge test: a mixed-methods analysis from the BEST3 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The BEST3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3, a cell collection device coupled with the biomarker trefoil factor 3, as a tool for detecting Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), in primary care. In this nested study, our aim was to understand patient experiences. DESIGN: Mixed-methods using questionnaires (including Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-6 and two-item perceived risk) and interviews. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant satisfaction, anxiety and perceived risk of developing OAC. SETTING: General practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with acid reflux enrolled in the intervention arm of the BEST3 trial and attending the Cytosponge appointment (N=1750). RESULTS: 1488 patients successfully swallowing the Cytosponge completed the follow-up questionnaires, while 30 were interviewed, including some with an unsuccessful swallow.Overall, participants were satisfied with the Cytosponge test. Several items showed positive ratings, in particular convenience and accessibility, staff's interpersonal skills and perceived technical competence. The most discomfort was reported during the Cytosponge removal, with more than 60% of participants experiencing gagging. Nevertheless, about 80% were willing to have the procedure again or to recommend it to friends; this was true even for participants experiencing discomfort, as confirmed in the interviews.Median anxiety scores were below the predefined level of clinically significant anxiety and slightly decreased between baseline and follow-up (p < 0.001). Interviews revealed concerns around the ability to swallow, participating in a clinical trial, and waiting for test results.The perceived risk of OAC increased following the Cytosponge appointment (p<0.001). Moreover, interviews suggested that some participants had trouble conceptualising risk and did not understand the relationships between test results, gastro-oesophageal reflux and risk of Barrett's oesophagus and OAC. CONCLUSIONS: When delivered during a trial in primary care, the Cytosponge is well accepted and causes little anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN68382401.

GPs' mindlines on deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in English general practice.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of hypertension in older patients with multimorbidity is a cornerstone of primary care practice. Despite emphasis on personalised approaches to treatment in older patients, there is little guidance on how to achieve medication reduction when GPs are concerned that possible risks outweigh potential benefits of treatment. Mindlines - tacit, internalised guidelines developed over time from multiple sources - may be of particular importance in such situations. AIM: To explore GPs' decision-making on deprescribing antihypertensives in patients with multimorbidity aged ≥80 years, drawing on the concept of mindlines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study set in English general practice. METHOD: Thematic analysis of face-to-face interviews with a sample of 15 GPs from seven practices in the East of England, using a chart-stimulated recall approach to explore approaches to treatment for older patients with multimorbidity with hypertension. RESULTS: GPs are typically confident making decisions to deprescribe antihypertensive medication in older patients with multimorbidity when prompted by a trigger, such as a fall or adverse drug event. GPs are less confident to attempt deprescribing in response to generalised concerns about polypharmacy, and work hard to make sense of multiple sources (including available evidence, shared experiential knowledge, and non-clinical factors) to guide decision-making. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a clear evidence base on when and how to attempt medication reduction in response to concerns about polypharmacy, GPs develop 'mindlines' over time through practicebased experience. These tacit approaches to making complex decisions are critical to developing confidence to attempt deprescribing and may be strengthened through reflective practice.

Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing focus on the development of multi-factorial cancer risk prediction algorithms alongside tools that operationalise them for clinical use. BOADICEA is a breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and other risk factors. A new user-friendly Web-based tool (CanRisk.org) has been developed to apply BOADICEA. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool among two healthcare professional groups to inform further development, evaluation and implementation. METHOD: A multi-methods approach was used. Clinicians from primary care and specialist genetics clinics in England, France and Germany were invited to use the CanRisk prototype with two test cases (either face-to-face with a simulated patient or via a written vignette). Their views about the tool were examined via a semi-structured interview or equivalent open-ended questionnaire. Qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis and organised around Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: Seventy-five clinicians participated, 21 from primary care and 54 from specialist genetics clinics. Participants were from England (n = 37), France (n = 23) and Germany (n = 15). The prototype CanRisk tool was generally acceptable to most participants due to its intuitive design. Primary care clinicians were concerned about the amount of time needed to complete, interpret and communicate risk information. Clinicians from both settings were apprehensive about the impact of the CanRisk tool on their consultations and lack of opportunities to interpret risk scores before sharing them with their patients. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the challenges associated with developing a complex tool for use in different clinical settings; they also helped refine the tool. This prototype may not have been versatile enough for clinical use in both primary care and specialist genetics clinics where the needs of clinicians are different, emphasising the importance of understanding the clinical context when developing cancer risk assessment tools.

The experience of transitions in care in very old age: implications for general practice.

BACKGROUND: It can be challenging for general practitioners to support their oldest old patients through the complex process of relocation. OBJECTIVE: To provide a typology of the experiences of moving in very old age that is clinically useful for practitioners navigating very old people's relocation. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of data from a mixed-methods UK population-based longitudinal study, Cambridge City over-75s Cohort (CC75C), from Year 21 follow-up onwards. Interviews with participants aged ≥95 years old and proxy informants (Year 21: 44/48, 92%, subsequent attrition all deaths). Thematic analysis of qualitative data available from 26/32 participants who moved before they died. RESULTS: Individuals who moved voluntarily in with family experienced gratitude, and those who moved into sheltered house or care homes voluntarily had no regrets. One voluntary move into care was experienced with regret, loss and increased isolation as it severed life-long community ties. Regret and loss were key experiences for those making involuntary moves into care, but acceptance, relief and appreciation of increased company were also observed. The key experience of family members was trauma. Establishing connections with people or place ahead of moving, for example through previous respite care, eased moving. A checklist for practitioners based on the resulting typology of relocation is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the sample moved into residential care. This study highlights the importance of connections to locality, people and place along with good family relationships as the key facilitators of a healthy transition into care for the oldest old. The proposed checklist may have clinical utility.

When Frail Older People Relocate in Very Old Age, Who Makes the Decision?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Older people are likely to transition to a new home closer to family who can provide assistance or to long-term residential care as their health declines and their care needs increase. A minority choose to move to "age-friendly" housing before the onset of disability, but the majority prefer to "age in place" and defer moving until health crises compel a transition. Older people living with dementia are likely to move into residential care, but not much is known about the role they play in decision making around these moves. This qualitative study addresses this gap in knowledge by examining how a rare cohort of "older old" people, most with some level of cognitive impairment, were involved in decisions surrounding assistance seeking and moving to a care home. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thematic analysis of qualitative interview data from Cambridge City over-75s Cohort (CC75C) study participants aged 95 years and older, who had moved in later life, and their proxy informants (n = 26). RESULTS: Moves at such an old age were made due to a complexity of push and pull factors which had layered dynamics of decision making. In most cases (n = 22), decision making involved other people with varying degrees of decision ownership. Only four older people, who moved voluntarily, had full ownership of the decision to move. Many relatives reported being traumatized by events leading up to the move. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: "Older old" people are sometimes unable to make their own decisions about moving due to the urgency of health crisis and cognitive decline. There is a need to support relatives to discuss moving and housing options at timely junctures before health crises intervene in an effort to optimize older people's participation in decision making.

The effectiveness of inter-professional working for older people living in the community: a systematic review.

Health and social care policy in the UK advocates inter-professional working (IPW) to support older people with complex and multiple needs. Whilst there is a growing understanding of what supports IPW, there is a lack of evidence linking IPW to explicit outcomes for older people living in the community. This review aimed to identify the models of IPW that provide the strongest evidence base for practice with community dwelling older people. We searched electronic databases from 1 January 1990-31 March 2008. In December 2010 we updated the findings from relevant systematic reviews identified since 2008. We selected papers describing interventions that involved IPW for community dwelling older people and randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting user-relevant outcomes. Included studies were classified by IPW models (Case Management, Collaboration and Integrated Team) and assessed for risk of bias. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence according to the type of care (interventions delivering acute, chronic, palliative and preventive care) identified within each model of IPW. We retrieved 3211 records and included 37 RCTs which were mapped onto the IPW models: Overall, there is weak evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for IPW, although well-integrated and shared care models improved processes of care and have the potential to reduce hospital or nursing/care home use. Study quality varied considerably and high quality evaluations as well as observational studies are needed to identify the key components of effective IPW in relation to user-defined outcomes. Differences in local contexts raise questions about the applicability of the findings and their implications for practice. We need more information on the outcomes of the process of IPW and evaluations of the effectiveness of different configurations of health and social care professionals for the care of community dwelling older people.

Models of inter professional working for older people living at home: a survey and review of the local strategies of English health and social care statutory organisations.

BACKGROUND: Most services provided by health and social care organisations for older people living at home rely on interprofessional working (IPW). Although there is research investigating what supports and inhibits how professionals work together, less is known about how different service models deliver care to older people and how effectiveness is measured. The aim of this study was to describe how IPW for older people living at home is delivered, enacted and evaluated in England. METHOD: An online survey of health and social care managers across England directly involved in providing services to older people, and a review of local strategies for older people services produced by primary care organisations and local government adult services organisations in England. RESULTS: The online survey achieved a 31% response rate and search strategies identified 50 local strategies that addressed IPW for older people living at home across health and social care organisations. IPW definitions varied, but there was an internal consistency of language informed by budgeting and organisation specific definitions of IPW. Community Services for Older People, Intermediate Care and Re-enablement (rehabilitation) Teams were the services most frequently identified as involving IPW. Other IPW services identified were problem or disease specific and reflected issues highlighted in local strategies. There was limited agreement about what interventions or strategies supported the process of IPW. Older people and their carers were not reported to be involved in the evaluation of the services they received and it was unclear how organisations and managers judged the effectiveness of IPW, particularly for services that had an open-ended commitment to the care of older people. CONCLUSION: Health and social care organisations and their managers recognise the value and importance of IPW. There is a theoretical literature on what supports IPW and what it can achieve. The need for precision may not be so necessary for the terms used to describe IPW. However, there is a need for shared identification of both user/patient outcomes that arise from IPW and greater understanding of what kind of model of IPW achieves what kind of outcomes for older people living at home.