Lack of Effect of a Multicomponent Palliative Care Program for Nursing Home Residents on Hospital Use in the Last Month of Life and on Place of Death: A Secondary Analysis of a Multicountry Cluster Randomized Control 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.

Reducing unplanned hospital admissions from care homes: a systematic review

Background

Care homes predominantly care for older people with complex health and care needs, who are at high risk of unplanned hospital admissions. While often necessary, such admissions can be distressing and provide an opportunity cost as well as a financial cost.

Objectives

Our objective was to update a 2014 evidence review of interventions to reduce unplanned admissions of care home residents. We carried out a systematic review of interventions used in the UK and other high-income countries by synthesising evidence of effects of these interventions on hospital admissions; feasibility and acceptability; costs and value for money; and factors affecting applicability of international evidence to UK settings.

Data sources

We searched the following databases in December 2021 for studies published since 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Health Management Information Consortium; Medline; PsycINFO; Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes; Social Care Online; and Social Service Abstracts. 'Grey' literature (January 2022) and citations were searched and reference lists were checked.

Methods

We included studies of any design reporting interventions delivered in care homes (with or without nursing) or hospitals to reduce unplanned hospital admissions. A taxonomy of interventions was developed from an initial scoping search. Outcomes of interest included measures of effect on unplanned admissions among care home residents; barriers/facilitators to implementation in a UK setting and acceptability to care home residents, their families and staff. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We used published frameworks to extract data on intervention characteristics, implementation barriers/facilitators and applicability of international evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention type and setting. Overall strength of evidence for admission reduction was assessed using a framework based on study design, study numbers and direction of effect.

Results

We included 124 publications/reports (30 from the UK). Integrated care and quality improvement programmes providing additional support to care homes (e.g. the English Care Homes Vanguard initiatives and hospital-based services in Australia) appeared to reduce unplanned admissions relative to usual care. Simpler training and staff development initiatives showed mixed results, as did interventions aimed at tackling specific problems (e.g. medication review). Advance care planning was key to the success of most quality improvement programmes but do-not-hospitalise orders were problematic. Qualitative research identified tensions affecting decision-making involving paramedics, care home staff and residents/family carers. The best way to reduce end-of-life admissions through access to palliative care was unclear in the face of inconsistent and generally low-quality evidence.

Conclusions

Effective implementation of interventions at various stages of residents' care pathways may reduce unplanned admissions. Most interventions are complex and require adaptation to local contexts. Work at the interface between health and social care is key to successful implementation.

Limitations

Much of the evidence identified was of low quality because of factors such as uncontrolled study designs and small sample size. Meta-analysis was not possible.

Future work

We identified a need for improved economic evidence and the evaluation of integrated care models of the type delivered by hospital-based teams. Researchers should carefully consider what is realistic in terms of study design and data collection given the current context of extreme pressure on care homes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO database CRD42021289418.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (award number NIHR133884) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Nursing Home Palliative Care during the Pandemic: Directions for the Future

Background and Objectives

Palliative care addresses physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual suffering that accompanies serious illness. Emphasis on symptom management and goals of care is especially valuable for seriously ill nursing home residents. We investigated barriers to nursing home palliative care provision highlighted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the solutions nursing home staff used to provide care in the face of those barriers.

Research Design and Methods

For this descriptive qualitative study, seven Massachusetts nursing home directors of nursing were interviewed remotely about palliative care provision before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Before the pandemic, palliative care was delivered primarily by nursing home staff depending on formal and informal consultations from palliative care specialists affiliated with hospice providers. When COVID-19 lockdowns precluded these consultations, nursing staff did their best to provide palliative care, but were often overwhelmed by shortfalls in resources, resident decline brought on by isolation and COVID-19 itself, and a sense that their expertise was lacking. Advance care planning conversations focused on hospitalization decisions and options for care given resource constraints. Nevertheless, nursing staff discovered previously untapped capacity to provide palliative care on-site as part of standard care, building trust of residents and families.

Discussion and Implications

Nursing staff rose to the palliative care challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit with great effort. Consistent with prepandemic analysis, we conclude that nursing home payment and quality standards should support development of in-house staff capacity to deliver palliative care while expanding access to the formal consultations and family involvement that were restricted by the pandemic. Future research should be directed to evaluating initiatives that pursue these aims.

Use of Theoretical Frameworks in the Development and Testing of Palliative Care Interventions

CONTEXT

Palliative care (PC) research has grown over the last 20 years. Yet, the causal components and pathways of PC interventions remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To document the prevalence and application of theoretical frameworks in developing and testing PC interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of previously published systematic reviews of PC randomized clinical trials. Trials were evaluated for explicit mention of a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline that supported the development of the intervention. We used a structured data extraction form to document study population, outcomes, and whether and how authors used a theoretical framework, process/delivery model, or clinical practice guideline. We applied an adapted coding scheme to evaluate use of theoretical frameworks.

RESULTS

We reviewed 85 PC trials conducted between 1984 and 2021. Thirty-eight percent (n = 32) of trials explicitly mentioned a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline as a foundation for the intervention design. Only nine trials included a theoretical framework, while the remaining 23 cited a process/delivery model or clinical practice guideline.

CONCLUSION

Most PC trials do not cite a theoretical foundation for their intervention design. Future work should focus on developing and validating new theoretical frameworks and modifying existing theories and models to better explain the mechanisms of the variety of PC interventions.