Systematic Dementia Screening by Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Nursing Homes for Reducing Emergency Department Transfers: The IDEM Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities

BACKGROUND

The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Impact of a complex health services intervention in long-term care nursing homes on 3-year overall survival: results from the CoCare study

BACKGROUND

The Coordinated medical Care (CoCare) project aimed to improve the quality of medical care in nursing homes by optimizing collaboration between nurses and physicians. We analyze the impact of the CoCare intervention on overall survival.

METHODS

The effect of time-varying treatment on 3-year overall survival was analyzed with treatment as time-varying covariate within the entire cohort. To reduce bias due to non-random assignment to treatment groups, regression adjustment was applied. Therefore, age, sex, and level of care were used as potential confounders.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 8,893 nursing home residents (NHRs), of which 1,330 participated in the CoCare intervention. The three-year overall survival was 49.8% in the entire cohort. NHRs receiving the intervention were associated with a higher survival probability compared to NHRs of the control group. In a univariable cox model with time-dependent treatment, the intervention was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.70 [95%CI 0.56-0.87, p = 0.002]. After adjustment for age, sex and level of care, the hazard ratio increased to 0.82 but was still significant [95%CI 0.71-0.96, p = 0.011].

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that optimizing collaboration between nurses and physicians leads to better survival of NHRs in Germany. This adds to the already published favorable cost-benefit ratio of the CoCare intervention and shows that a routine implementation of optimized collaboration between nurses and physicians is highly recommended.

Preventing autonomy loss with multicomponent geriatric interventions: A resource-saving strategy? Evidence from the SPRINT-T study

Background

The objective of healthy aging strategies is to support interventions targeting autonomy loss prevention, with the assumption that these interventions are likely to be efficient by simultaneously improving clinical outcomes and saving costs.

Methods

We compare the economic impact of two interventions targeting frailty prevention in older European populations: a multicomponent intervention including physical activity monitoring, nutrition management, information and communications technology use and a relatively simple healthy aging lifestyle education program based on a series of workshops. Our sample includes 1,519 male and female participants from 11 European countries aged 70 years or older. Our econometric model explores trends in several outcomes depending on intervention receipt and frailty status at baseline.

Results

Implementing a multicomponent intervention among frail older people does not lead to a lower use of care and do not prevent quality of life losses associated with aging. However, it impacts older people's sense of priorities and interest in the future. We find no statistically significant differences between the two interventions, suggesting that the implementation of a multicomponent intervention may not be the most efficient strategy. The impact of the interventions does not differ by frailty status at baseline.

Conclusions

Our results show the need to implement healthy aging strategies that are more focused on people's interests.

Which interventions are effective at decreasing or increasing emergency department attendances or hospital admissions from long-term care facilities? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

UK long-term care facility residents account for 185 000 emergency hospital admissions each year. Avoidance of unnecessary hospital transfers benefits residents, reduces demand on the healthcare systems but is difficult to implement. We synthesised evidence on interventions that influence unplanned hospital admissions or attendances by long-term care facility residents.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2012 to 2022, building on a review published in 2013. We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated interventions that influence (decrease or increase) acute hospital admissions or attendances of long-term care facility residents. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using Cochrane Risk Of Bias-2 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Forty-three randomised studies were included in this review. A narrative synthesis was conducted and the weight of evidence described with vote counting. Advance care planning and goals of care setting appear to be effective at reducing hospitalisations from long-term care facilities. Other effective interventions, in order of increasing risk of bias, were: nurse practitioner/specialist input, palliative care intervention, influenza vaccination and enhancing access to intravenous therapies in long-term care facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors that affect hospitalisation and emergency department attendances of long-term care facility residents are complex. This review supports the already established use of advance care planning and influenza vaccination to reduce unscheduled hospital attendances. It is likely that more than one intervention will be needed to impact on healthcare usage across the long-term care facility population. The findings of this review are useful to identify effective interventions that can be combined, as well as highlighting interventions that either need evaluation or are not effective at decreasing healthcare usage.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020169604.

Do not PIMP my nursing home ride! The impact of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Prescribing on residents' emergency care use

Nursing home residents often are poly-medicated, which increases their risks of receiving potentially inappropriate medications. This problem has become a major public health issue in many countries, and in particular in France. Indeed, high uses of potentially inappropriate medication prescriptions can lead to adverse effects that are likely to increase emergency room (ER) visits. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the causal relationship between the amount of use of potentially inappropriate medications and ER visit risks among nursing homes residents. Indeed, this question is subject to endogeneity issues due to omitted variables that simultaneously affect inappropriate medications prescriptions and ER use. We take advantage of the IDEM Randomized Clinical Trial (Systematic Dementia Screening by Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Nursing Homes for Reducing Emergency Department Transfers) to overcome that issue. Indeed, randomization in the IDEM intervention group created exogenous variations in potentially inappropriate prescriptions, and was thus used as an instrument. Using an instrumental variable model, we show that over a 12-month period, a 1% increase in the share of potentially inappropriate medications spending in total medication spending leads to a 5.7 percentage point increase in residents' ER use risks (p < 0.001). This effect is robust to various model specifications. Moreover, the intensity of this correlation persists over an 18-month period. While tackling wasteful spending has become a priority in most countries, our results have important policy implications. Indeed, reducing potentially inappropriate medication spending in nursing homes should be a key component of value-based aging policies, which objectives are to reduce inefficient care, and provide health care services centered in people's interest.

Hospital transfer rates and advance care planning following a nursing home-targeted video-conference education series (Project ECHO): a prospective cohort study

Purpose

Nursing home staff manage increasingly complex patients yet struggle to access education. This study measured the impact of a novel education programme on emergency transfers from nursing homes.

Methods

In this prospective experimental cohort study, ten interactive sessions were provided to 20 nursing homes, using teleconferencing technology through the “Project ECHO” (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model. Details of all emergency hospital transfers were submitted by participating nursing homes 6 months before and 6 months from commencement of ECHO.

Results

Of 20 nursing homes, 13 submitted sufficient data for inclusion. In these 13, there were 260 emergency transfers over a year. There was no significant difference in the number of transfers before and after ECHO (137/260 pre-ECHO vs 123/260 post-ECHO, p = 0.62). Post-ECHO, it was 50% more likely that transfer wishes were discussed in advance of transfer (62 of 137 (45%) transferred pre-ECHO vs 82 of 123 (67%) post-ECHO, p < 0.001). There was a significant increase in compliance with resident wishes post-ECHO in that transferred residents were less likely to have a documented “Not for Transfer” wish (29/137 pre-ECHO (21%) vs 10/123 post-ECHO (8%), p < 0.001). Point prevalence surveys of residents demonstrated significant increases in “Do Not Resuscitate” orders; 286/589 (49%) residents pre-ECHO vs 386/594 (65%) post-ECHO, p < 0.001. Post-ECHO, pain was less frequently the primary cause for transfer (11/137 (8%) pre-ECHO vs 1/123 (0.8%) post-ECHO, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

ECHO did not affect rates of emergency hospital transfers but did increase advance care planning discussions ahead of hospital transfer by 50% and compliance with the results of those discussions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-022-00624-6.

Aim

What effect does a novel education programme have on emergency hospital transfers of, and advance care planning decisions among, nursing home residents?

Findings

This education programme did not affect overall rates of emergency hospital transfer. It did increase advance care planning discussions, increase compliance with the results of these discussions and increase “DNR” orders among nursing home residents.

Message

Novel tele-education programmes have the potential to improve advance care planning discussions in nursing homes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-022-00624-6.

Does an Integrated Palliative Care Program Reduce Emergency Department Transfers for Nursing Home Palliative Residents?

Background: Nursing homes (NHs) are faced with a myriad of challenges to provide quality palliative care to residents who are at their end of life. Objectives: To describe and examine the impact of the GeriCare Palliative Care Program, which comprises telemedicine, on-site clinical preceptorship, palliative care education program, and Advance Care Planning (ACP) advocacy in reducing emergency department (ED) transfers from NHs. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: A total of 217 telemedicine consults were conducted for 187 unique NH residents across 5 NHs in Singapore over a 27-month period from April 2018 to June 2020. Measurement: Records of all enrolled palliative care residents who were triaged by telemedicine consultations were examined. Results: Our findings revealed that 82% of our urgent telemedicine consultations have successfully averted ED transfers. Gender and completion of ACP were statistically significant between ED transfer group and non-ED transfer group. Among those who completed their ACP, 78.3% of the ED transfer group chose limited intervention as their main goals of care compared with 30% in the non-ED transfer group. Conclusions: The GeriCare Palliative Care Program is a novel program, which is developed to improve the quality of palliative care in NHs. The comprehensive GeriCare model comprises a systematic framework, an integration of clinical support, ACP advocacy, and education program. Our findings demonstrated that these interventions synergistically led to a reduction in ED transfers while optimizing the residents' quality of care. By carrying out the targeted initiatives to support NHs, the residents could age-in-place comfortably.

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review

INTRODUCTION

One of the current challenges in long-term care homes (LTCH) is to identify the optimal model of care, which may include specialty physicians, nursing staff, person support workers, among others. There is currently no consensus on the complement or scope of care delivered by these providers, nor is there a repository of studies that evaluate the various models of care. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and map what care provider models and interventions in LTCH have been evaluated to improve quality of life, quality of care, and health outcomes of residents.

METHODS

We conducted this review over 10-weeks of English language, peer-reviewed studies published from 2010 onward. Search strategies for databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were run on July 9, 2020. Studies that evaluated models of provider care (e.g., direct patient care), or interventions delivered to facility, staff, and residents of LTCH were included. Study selection was performed independently, in duplicate. Mapping was performed by two reviewers, and data were extracted by one reviewer, with partial verification by a second reviewer.

RESULTS

A total of 7,574 citations were screened based on the title/abstract, 836 were reviewed at full text, and 366 studies were included. Studies were classified according to two main categories: healthcare service delivery (n = 92) and implementation strategies (n = 274). The condition/ focus of the intervention was used to further classify the interventions into subcategories. The complex nature of the interventions may have led to a study being classified in more than one category/subcategory.

CONCLUSION

Many healthcare service interventions have been evaluated in the literature in the last decade. Well represented interventions (e.g., dementia care, exercise/mobility, optimal/appropriate medication) may present opportunities for future systematic reviews. Areas with less research (e.g., hearing care, vision care, foot care) have the potential to have an impact on balance, falls, subsequent acute care hospitalization.