Validation of an integrated service model, Health-RESPECT, for older patients in long-term care institution using information and communication technologies: protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Information technology-supported integrated health service for older adults in long-term care settings

BACKGROUND

To examine the effectiveness and safety of a data sharing and comprehensive management platform for institutionalized older patients.

METHODS

We applied information technology-supported integrated health service platform to patients who live at long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) and nursing homes (NHs) with cluster randomized controlled study. We enrolled 555 patients aged 65 or older (461 from 7 LTCHs, 94 from 5 NHs). For the intervention group, a tablet-based platform comprising comprehensive geriatric assessment, disease management, potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) management, rehabilitation program, and screening for adverse events and warning alarms were provided for physicians or nurses. The control group was managed with usual care. Co-primary outcomes were (1) control rate of hypertension and diabetes, (2) medication adjustment (PIM prescription rate, proportion of polypharmacy), and (3) combination of potential quality-of-care problems (composite quality indicator) from the interRAI assessment system which assessed after 3-month of intervention.

RESULTS

We screened 1119 patients and included 555 patients (control; 289, intervention; 266) for analysis. Patients allocated to the intervention group had better cognitive function and took less medications and PIMs at baseline. The diabetes control rate (OR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.37-4.99, p = 0.0035), discontinuation of PIM (OR = 4.65, 95% CI 2.41-8.97, p < 0.0001), reduction of medication in patients with polypharmacy (OR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.24-3.16, p = 0.0042), and number of PIMs use (ꞵ =  - 0.27, p < 0.0001) improved significantly in the intervention group. There was no significant difference in hypertension control rate (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.20-1.43, p = 0.2129), proportion of polypharmacy (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.75-2.60, p = 0.2863), and improvement of composite quality indicators (ꞵ = 0.03, p = 0.2094). For secondary outcomes, cognitive and motor function, quality of life, and unplanned hospitalization were not different significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The information technology-supported integrated health service effectively reduced PIM use and controlled diabetes among older patients in LTCH or NH without functional decline or increase of healthcare utilization.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service, KCT0004360. Registered on 21 October 2019.

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.

Factors associated with anticholinergic burden among older patients in long-term care hospitals in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Drugs with anticholinergic properties (DAPs) are associated with adverse health outcomes in older patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors that determine the prescribing of more DAPs in long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) in Korea. In addition, the current patterns of DAP prescription were explored using a novel platform, which can collect data from LTCHs.

METHODS

This was a Health-RESPECT (integrated caRE Systems for elderly PatiEnts using iCT) sub-study, which is a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. The Health-RESPECT platform was used to collect prescribed medication data of 466 patients (aged ≥ 65 years) from seven LTCHs. DAPs were identified using the Korean Anticholinergic Burden Scale (KABS). Physical frailty, cognitive function, functional status, and quality of life were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 466 LTCH patients, 88.8% (n = 414) were prescribed DAPs, and the prevalence of high KABS (≥ 3) was 70.4% (n = 328). The drugs that contributed most to the total KABS were quetiapine (20.7%), chlorpheniramine (19.5%), tramadol (9.8%), cimetidine (5.8%), and furosemide (3.6%). Polypharmacy, higher body mass index, less dependence, better communication and cognitive functions, and poorer quality of life were associated with high KABS.

CONCLUSION

Although the patients with a high burden of DAPs were less dependent and had better cognitive and communication functions, they had poorer quality of life. DAP use in LTCH patients should be monitored carefully, and the risk/ benefit relationship for their use should be considered.

Analysis of blood pressure and blood pressure variability pattern among older patients in long-term care hospitals: an observational study analysing the Health-RESPECT (integrated caRE Systems for elderly PatiEnts using iCT) dataset

OBJECTIVES

There are limited data regarding blood pressure (BP) variability among older adults living in long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). We aimed to collect data from LTCH and analyse BP characteristics and its variability among these patients using a novel platform.

METHODS

The Health-RESPECT (integrated caRE Systems for elderly PatiEnts using iCT) platform was used to construct a daily BP dataset using data of 394 older patients from 6 LTCHs. BP variability was expressed as coefficient of variation (CV = standard deviation/mean of BP × 100). Physical frailty and cognitive function were evaluated using the K-FRAIL questionnaire and the Cognitive Performance Scale of the interRAI Long-Term Care Facilities tool, respectively.

RESULTS

From September 2019 to September 2020, 151,092 BP measurements, 346.5 (IQR 290.8-486.3) measurements per patient, were included. The mean BP was 123.4 ± 10.8/71.3 ± 6.5 mmHg. BP was significantly lower in frail patients (122.2 ± 11.3/70.4 ± 6.8 mmHg) than in pre-frail/robust patients (124.4 ± 10.4/72.1 ± 6.1 mmHg, P < 0.05). However, CV of systolic (10.7 ± 2.3% versus 11.3 ± 2.3%, P = 0.005) and diastolic (11.6 ± 2.3% versus 12.4 ± 2.4%, P < 0.001) BP was higher in frail patients. The mean BP was lower, but BP variability was higher in patients with cognitive impairment. The mean BP, but not BP variability, was higher in treated hypertensive patients, as the number of antihypertensive medications increased.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with physical or cognitive frailty had lower BP but higher BP variability. Relationship among frailty, increased BP variability and adverse clinical outcomes should be investigated.