Randomised controlled trial of packaged “evidenced” interventions for reducing hospitalisations from residential aged care (RAC): First results from the ARCHUS study

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.

Optimal NHS service delivery to care homes: a realist evaluation of the features and mechanisms that support effective working for the continuing care of older people in residential settings

Background

Care homes are the institutional providers of long-term care for older people. The OPTIMAL study argued that it is probable that there are key activities within different models of health-care provision that are important for residents’ health care.

Objectives

To understand ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. Study questions focused on how different mechanisms within the various models of service delivery act as the ‘active ingredients’ associated with positive health-related outcomes for care home residents.

Methods

Using realist methods we focused on five outcomes: (1) medication use and review; (2) use of out-of-hours services; (3) hospital admissions, including emergency department attendances and length of hospital stay; (4) resource use; and (5) user satisfaction. Phase 1: interviewed stakeholders and reviewed the evidence to develop an explanatory theory of what supported good health-care provision for further testing in phase 2. Phase 2 developed a minimum data set of resident characteristics and tracked their care for 12 months. We also interviewed residents, family and staff receiving and providing health care to residents. The 12 study care homes were located on the south coast, the Midlands and the east of England. Health-care provision to care homes was distinctive in each site.

Findings

Phase 1 found that health-care provision to care homes is reactive and inequitable. The realist review argued that incentives or sanctions, agreed protocols, clinical expertise and structured approaches to assessment and care planning could support improved health-related outcomes; however, to achieve change NHS professionals and care home staff needed to work together from the outset to identify, co-design and implement agreed approaches to health care. Phase 2 tested this further and found that, although there were few differences between the sites in residents’ use of resources, the differences in service integration between the NHS and care homes did reflect how these institutions approached activities that supported relational working. Key to this was how much time NHS staff and care home staff had had to learn how to work together and if the work was seen as legitimate, requiring ongoing investment by commissioners and engagement from practitioners. Residents appreciated the general practitioner (GP) input and, when supported by other care home-specific NHS services, GPs reported that it was sustainable and valued work. Access to dementia expertise, ongoing training and support was essential to ensure that both NHS and care home staff were equipped to provide appropriate care.

Limitations

Findings were constrained by the numbers of residents recruited and retained in phase 2 for the 12 months of data collection.

Conclusions

NHS services work well with care homes when payments and role specification endorse the importance of this work at an institutional level as well as with individual residents. GP involvement is important but needs additional support from other services to be sustainable. A focus on strategies that promote co-design-based approaches between the NHS and care homes has the potential to improve residents’ access to and experience of health care.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Hospitalizations of nursing homes residents: the role of reimbursement policies

Factors which contribute to hospitalization of nursing home residents are multiple and complex. They include dimensions of the policy setting as well as patient management practices. In seeking interventions to reduce such hospitalizations, most research has focussed on changing patient management. But provider reimbursement policies may also influence the decision to hospitalize nursing home residents. This includes payments to hospitals and general practitioners as well as to the nursing homes themselves. Differences in payment methods may mean that interventions that work well in one setting do not work well in another.

This is a commentary on http://www.ijhpr.org/content/3/1/2/.