Testing the Implementation of Function-focused Care in Assisted Living Settings

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.

The Association Between Engagement in Activities of Daily Living and Care Interactions for Residents Living With Dementia

BACKGROUND

Care interactions are essential to residents with dementia.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to describe the characteristics and quality of staff-resident care interactions among nursing home residents living with dementia and to test whether the quality of staff-resident care interactions varied by resident level of engagement in the interaction. Specifically, it was hypothesized that controlling for age, gender, comorbidities, cognition, and function, actively engaged residents would have more positive care interactions with staff compared with passively engaged residents.

METHODS

This was a secondary data analysis using baseline data from the Evidence Integration Triangle for Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia intervention study.

RESULTS

A total of 532 residents were included. Actively engaged residents had significantly more positive interactions compared to passively engaged residents.

CONCLUSIONS

Passively engaged residents may be at risk to receive poor quality care interactions. Strategies and interventions to optimize care interactions for these individuals are needed.

Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior of Residents in Assisted Living: A Preliminary Study

Low physical activity (PA) and high sedentary behavior (SB) place residents in assisted living at risk for physical decline, but little is known about factors that influence PA/SB in this setting. In the current cross-sectional study, we described objectively measured PA/SB (activPAL™) and examined the relationships between PA/SB and use of an assistive walking device, depression, sleep disturbance, pain, fatigue, social isolation, and the tendency to make social comparisons. Fifty-four residents from eight assisted living facilities participated. Mean time spent in PA was 252.9 (SD = 134.3) minutes/day. Mean time spent in SB was 660.8 (SD = 181.4) minutes/day. Depression predicted PA (R2 = 0.16). Residents using an assistive device spent significantly more time in SB (p = 0.02). Fatigue correlated with time in longer bouts of SB (r = 0.19, p = 0.04). The tendency to make social comparisons correlated with SB (r = 0.22, p = 0.04). Findings show residents in assisted living are inactive and further research is needed to fully understand factors that influence PA/SB. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, xx(x), xx-xx.].

Impact of Function-Focused Care on Psychotropic Medications and Opioid Use Among Assisted Living Residents

Objective To test the impact of the Function Focused Care Intervention on use of psychotropic medications and opioids over a 12-month period in assisted living residents. Setting The study included 794 residents from 85 general assisted living communities in the United States. The general assisted living communities that had at least 25 beds and 10 residents per community were enrolled. Results There was no significant difference in the treatment groups regarding medication use except for a decrease in opioid use at 4 months (P = 0.03). In the full sample there was a significant increase in use of benzodiazepines from baseline to 12 months (P = 0.04) and an increase in the use of antipsychotics between 4 and 12 months (P = 0.04). Conclusion Function-focused care does not increase the need for psychotropic medications or opioids and may help decrease the need for opioids. Further, we recommend the involvement of a pharmacy consultant to provide oversight and medication reviews for all residents in assisted living to consider deprescribing, if possible, for potentially unnecessary use of psychotropic medications or opioids.

Pragmatic Trials in Long-Term Care: Research Challenges and Potential Solutions in Relation to Key Areas of Care

As a method of research, pragmatic trials are recommended so as to generate results that are applicable to real-world care. This intent is especially important for the millions of older adults who receive long-term care in thousands of nursing homes and assisted living communities across the country-and many millions more around the globe. This article presents key points raised by experts participating in a conference funded by the National Institute of Aging held at the 2021 conference of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine. The purpose of the conference was to convene leading clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to address special considerations of pragmatic trials in long-term care. Cross-cutting and unique challenges and solutions to conducting pragmatic trials were discussed focusing on 3 areas of clinical relevance to long-term care: (1) functional care and outcomes, (2) psychosocial care and quality of life, and (3) medical care and outcomes, with a special focus on persons with dementia. Challenges and innovative solutions were organized across the 9 domains of the revised Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) Tool, and future research recommendations for pragmatic trials in long-term care were identified.

Pragmatic Trials in Long-Term Care: Research Challenges and Potential Solutions in Relation to Key Areas of Care

As a method of research, pragmatic trials are recommended so as to generate results that are applicable to real-world care. This intent is especially important for the millions of older adults who receive long-term care in thousands of nursing homes and assisted living communities across the country-and many millions more around the globe. This article presents key points raised by experts participating in a conference funded by the National Institute of Aging held at the 2021 conference of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine. The purpose of the conference was to convene leading clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to address special considerations of pragmatic trials in long-term care. Cross-cutting and unique challenges and solutions to conducting pragmatic trials were discussed focusing on 3 areas of clinical relevance to long-term care: (1) functional care and outcomes, (2) psychosocial care and quality of life, and (3) medical care and outcomes, with a special focus on persons with dementia. Challenges and innovative solutions were organized across the 9 domains of the revised Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) Tool, and future research recommendations for pragmatic trials in long-term care were identified.

Pragmatic trials in long-term care: Research challenges and potential solutions in relation to key areas of care

As a method of research, pragmatic trials are recommended so as to generate results that are applicable to real-world care. This intent is especially important for the millions of older adults who receive long-term care in thousands of nursing homes and assisted living communities across the country-and many millions more around the globe. This article presents key points raised by experts participating in a conference funded by the National Institute of Aging held at the 2021 conference of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine. The purpose of the conference was to convene leading clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to address special considerations of pragmatic trials in long-term care. Cross-cutting and unique challenges and solutions to conducting pragmatic trials were discussed focusing on 3 areas of clinical relevance to long-term care: (1) functional care and outcomes, (2) psychosocial care and quality of life, and (3) medical care and outcomes, with a special focus on persons with dementia. Challenges and innovative solutions were organized across the 9 domains of the revised Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) Tool, and future research recommendations for pragmatic trials in long-term care were identified.