Recruiting care homes to a randomised controlled trial

Determining the Key Education Priorities Related to Heart Failure Care in Nursing Homes: A Modified Delphi Approach

There is currently a limited understanding of what nurses in nursing homes view as the key education priorities to support their ability to provide the appropriate care for residents with heart failure (HF). A modified Delphi technique was utilized to gain a consensus on the key education priorities for nurses working in nursing homes in Northern Ireland. An initial list of items (n = 58), across 19 domains, was generated using the findings of a scoping review and stakeholder interviews, and a review of available clinical guidelines. Two rounds of surveys were undertaken. Items were presented using a 5-point Likert scale, with an additional exercise in the second round to rank the domains in order of importance. Fifty-four participants completed the first-round survey and 34 (63%) returned to complete the second. The findings highlight the importance of providing nurses in nursing home settings with general HF education and the delivery of person-centered care. Participants perceived education around technology for the management of HF and quality improvement or research methodologies associated with HF in nursing homes as lower priorities. This study illuminates key priorities from nursing home nurses regarding HF education that are applicable to this care setting.

Pharmacist-led intervention for older people with atrial fibrillation in long-term care (PIVOTALL study): a randomised pilot and feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Older care home residents are a vulnerable group of people with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high risk of adverse health events. The Atrial Fibrillation Better Care (ABC: Avoid stroke; Better symptom management; Cardiovascular and other comorbidity management) pathway is the gold-standard approach toward integrated AF care, and pharmacists are a potential resource with regards to its' implementation. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of pharmacist-led medicines optimisation in care home residents, based on the ABC pathway compared to usual care.

METHODS

Individually randomised, prospective pilot and feasibility study of older (aged ≥ 65 years) care home residents with AF (ISRCTN14747952); residents randomised to ABC pathway optimised care versus usual care. The primary outcome was a description of study feasibility (resident and care home recruitment and retention). Secondary outcomes included the number and type of pharmacist medication recommendations and general practitioner (GP) implementation.

RESULTS

Twenty-one residents were recruited and 11 (mean age [standard deviation] 85.0 [6.5] years, 63.6% female) were randomised to receive pharmacist-led medicines optimisation. Only 3/11 residents were adherent to all three components of the ABC pathway. Adherence was higher to 'A' (9/11 residents) and 'B' (9/11 residents) components compared to 'C' (3/11 residents). Four ABC-specific medicines recommendations were made for three residents, and two were implemented by residents' GPs. Overall ABC adherence rates did not change after pharmacist medication review, but adherence to 'A' increased (from 9/11 to 10/11 residents). Other ABC recommendations were inappropriate given residents' co-morbidities and risk of medication-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The ABC pathway as a framework was feasible to implement for pharmacist medication review, but most residents' medications were already optimised. Low rates of adherence to guideline-recommended therapy were a result of active decisions not to treat after assessment of the net risk-benefit.

Data resource profile: the virtual international care homes trials archive (VICHTA)

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care home settings address a range of health conditions impacting older people, but often include a common core of data about residents and the care home environment. These data can be used to inform service provision, but accessing these data can be challenging.

Methods

The Virtual International Care Home Trials Archive (VICHTA) collates care home RCTs conducted since 2010, with >100 participants, across multiple conditions, with documented eligibility criteria, initially identified from a scoping review. A Steering Committee comprising contributing trialists oversees proposed uses of fully anonymised data. We characterised available demography and outcomes to inform potential analyses. Data are accessible via application to the Virtual Trials Archives, through a secure online analysis platform. Trial recruitment is ongoing and future expansion will include international studies.

Results

The first phase of VICHTA includes data from six UK RCTs, with individual participant data (IPD) on 5,674 residents across 308 care homes. IPD include age, sex, dementia status, length of stay, quality of life, clinical outcome measures, medications, resource use, and care home characteristics, such as funding, case mix, and occupancy. Follow-up ranges between four and sixteen months.

Conclusions

VICHTA collates and makes accessible data on a complex and under-represented research population for novel analyses, and to inform design of future studies. Planned expansion to international care home RCTs will facilitate a wider range of research questions. Interested collaborators can submit trial data or request data at http://www.virtualtrialsarchives.org.

Systematic review of research barriers, facilitators, and stakeholders in long-term care and geriatric settings, and a conceptual mapping framework to build research capacity

BACKGROUND

Older adults are underrepresented in research. Heterogeneity of research processes in this population, specifically in long-term care (LTC) and geriatric acute care (GAC), is not well described and may impede the design, planning, and conduct of research. In this study, we identified, quantified, and mapped stakeholders, research stages, and transversal themes of research processes, to develop a mapping framework to improve research capacity by better characterizing this heterogeneity.

METHODS

Multicomponent mixed methods study. An environmental scan was used to initiate a preliminary framework. We conducted a systematic literature search on processes, barriers, and methods for clinical research in GAC and LTC to extract and update stakeholders, research stages, and themes. Importance and interactions of elements were synthesized via heatmaps by number of articles, mentions, and content intersections.

RESULTS

For our initial framework and environmental scan, we surveyed 24 stakeholders. Of 9277 records, 68 articles were included in our systematic review and allowed us to identify 12 stakeholders, 13 research stages, 17 transversal themes (either barriers, facilitators, general themes, or recommendations), and 1868 intersections. Differences in relative importance between LTC and GAC emerged for stakeholders (staff, managers vs. caregivers, ethics committees), and for research stages (funding, facility recruitment vs. ethics, individual recruitment). Crucial themes according to specific stakeholders were collaboration for the research team; communication, trust, and human resources for managers; heterogeneity for patients and residents. A heatmap framework synthesizing vital stakeholders and themes per research stage was generated.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified and quantified the interactions between stakeholders, stages, and themes to characterize heterogeneity in LTC and GAC research. Our framework may serve as a blueprint to co-construct and improve each stage of the research process.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to the inclusion of older adults living in UK care homes in research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

With an ageing population, older adults will have more complex health and social care needs and many of these older adults will be living in care homes. Despite the growth in care home populations, care home residents are often excluded from research that could potentially benefit their care. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore resident-related barriers and facilitators to including older people living in UK care homes in research and to identify potential approaches to modify such barriers.

METHOD

The 6-stage scoping review methodology framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley guided this review. Five electronic databases (MedLine, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL) and grey literature were searched. Identified articles went through two levels of screening, and those deemed relevant were collated, summarised and reported using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

90 reports were eligible for inclusion and were synthesised into 7 themes and related subthemes: (1) research design; (2) understanding and beliefs about research (resident and care home staff); (3) communication; (4) relationships; (5) eligibility criteria (resident and care home); (6) preference-based decisions; and (7) care home staff and environment. Given the complex interplay of the factors identified, both direct and indirect factors were included.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of recurring barriers and facilitators to the inclusion of care home residents in research are reported. However, isolating resident-related barriers was complex as both direct and indirect factors must be considered as influential. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to inclusion will enable these factors to be addressed and increase the evidence-base for care provided to older people living in care homes.

Why the trial researcher matters: Day-to-day work viewed through the lens of normalization process theory

Researchers working in the field, the places where research-relevant activity happens, are essential to recruitment and data collection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to understand the nature of this often invisible work. Data were generated through an RCT of a pharmacist-led medication management service for older people in care homes. The study was conducted over three years and employed seven Research Associates (RA) working in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. Weekly research team meetings and Programme Management Group meetings naturally generated 129 sets of minutes. This documentary data was supplemented with two end-of-study RA debriefing meetings. Data were coded to sort the work being done in the field, then deductively explored through the lens of Normalization Process Theory to enable a greater understanding of the depth, breadth and complexity of work carried out by these trial delivery RAs. Results indicate RAs helped stakeholders and participants make sense of the research, they built relationships with participants to support retention, operationalised complex data collection procedures and reflected on their own work contexts to reach agreement on changes to trial procedures. The debrief discussions enabled RAs to explore and reflect on experiences from the field which had affected their day-to-day work. The learning from the challenges faced in facilitating care home research may be useful to inform future research team preparation for complex interventions. Scrutinising these data sources through the lens of NPT enabled us to identify RAs as linchpins in the successful conduct of a complex RCT study.

Methodology and outcome of trials involving older adults in UK care homes: A rapid review

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom (UK) has a well-developed health and social care system, and strong research governance. However, there is limited evidence to guide best research practice among vulnerable older people in care homes and there is no consensus on clinical trial methodology that is deliverable in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature on trials conducted among older adults residing in care homes within the UK and collate evidence on their methodological characteristics and outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic rapid review methodology was employed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in two incremental stages: stage 1 searched for oral health-related trials conducted within the UK care homes up to July 2021, whereas stage 2 sought for general health-related trials in the same setting from 2011 to 2021. The quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Findings were summarised descriptively.

RESULTS

Five oral health and 33 general health-related trials involving care home residents were included for analysis. The most common trial design was parallel group with two arms (n = 25) involving individual randomisation (n = 21). Consent was mainly obtained from residents and/or their proxies (n = 24), followed by residents only (n = 13) and care homes only (n = 1). Based on available data, the number needed to screen to recruit one participant ranged from 2 to 40 (median: 3; Q1-Q3: 2-9). Attrition rates ranged from 0% to 73% (median: 21%; Q1-Q3: 13%-32%) for follow-up periods between 1 and 52 weeks. The studies were of mixed methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

This rapid review outlines the methodological characteristics and outcomes of trials conducted among older adults in UK care homes. The findings of this review provide valuable information to assist in navigating and designing future research in this complex setting.

Medication errors and processes to reduce them in care homes in the United Kingdom: a scoping review

Medicines-related incidents are a leading cause of preventable harm across all patient groups, including care home residents. Despite national guidance, there is little information on assessing medication error rates and evaluating changes to reduce them. This review explored the scientific and gray literature on medicine-related incidents, causation and evaluation of changes in care homes in the United Kingdom. The research identified 2951 documents, 32 analyzed; some of them covered more than one area. Seven reported rate and causes, eleven causes, eleven made recommendations, and four reported the evaluation of changes to processes and systems. Three areas emerged; 1) medicine-related incident rates ranged between 1% and 38%, 2) incident rates increased where formulations were not tablets or capsules ranging from 12% to 50% depending on the formulation, 3) three evaluations of changes aimed at reducing medicine incidents. Therefore, information on medicine-related incidents in care homes is available, but not systematically described.

An intervention to increase physical activity in care home residents: results of a cluster-randomised, controlled feasibility trial (the REACH trial)

BACKGROUND

Care home (CH) residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Strategies to improve activity are required.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process and health economic evaluations. Twelve residential CHs in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised to the MoveMore intervention plus usual care (UC) (n = 5) or UC only (n = 7).

PARTICIPANTS

Permanent residents aged ≥65 years.

INTERVENTION

MoveMore: a whole home intervention involving all CH staff designed to encourage and support increase in movement of residents.

OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENTS

Feasibility objectives relating to recruitment, intervention delivery, data collection and follow-up and safety concerns informed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial. Data collection at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months included: participants' physical function and mobility, perceived health, mood, quality of life, cognitive impairment questionnaires; accelerometry; safety data; intervention implementation.

RESULTS

300 residents were screened; 153 were registered (62 MoveMore; 91 UC). Average cluster size: MoveMore: 12.4 CHs; UC: 13.0 CHs. There were no CH/resident withdrawals. Forty (26.1%) participants were unavailable for follow-up: 28 died (12 MoveMore; 16 UC); 12 moved from the CH. Staff informant/proxy data collection for participants was >80%; data collection from participants was <75%; at 9 months, 65.6% of residents provided valid accelerometer data; two CHs fully, two partially and one failed to implement the intervention. There were no safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruiting CHs and residents was feasible. Intervention implementation and data collection methods need refinement before a definitive trial. There were no safety concerns.

Strategies to enhance routine physical activity in care home residents: the REACH research programme including a cluster feasibility RCT

Background

Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity.

Objectives

The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams.

Design

This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5).

Setting

The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK.

Participants

The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes.

Intervention

The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5).

Results

Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green).

Limitations

Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial.

Conclusions

A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting.

Future work

The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Feasibility and acceptability evaluation of the Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention for living well with dementia

OBJECTIVES

Post-diagnostic psychosocial interventions could play an important role in supporting people with mild dementia remain independent. The Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention was developed to address this.

METHOD

The mixed methods non-randomized, pre-post feasibility study occurred across England. Facilitators were recruited from the voluntary sector and memory services. Participants and their supporters took part in the three-session intervention. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and follow-up. To evaluate acceptability, focus groups and interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants and facilitators.

RESULTS

Contextual challenges to delivery including national research governance changes, affected recruitment of study sites. Thirty-four dyads consented, with 14 facilitators providing the intervention. Dyads took part in at least two sessions (79%), and 73% in all three. Outcome measures were completed by 79% without difficulty, with minimal missing data. No significant changes were found on pre and post assessments. Post hoc analysis found moderate effect size improvements for self-management (SMAS instrument) in people with dementia (d = 0.41) and quality of life (EQ5D measure) in carers (d = 0.40). Qualitative data indicated that dyads found PRIDE acceptable, as did intervention facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The three-session intervention was well accepted by participant-dyads and intervention facilitators. A randomized controlled trial of PRIDE would need to carefully consider recruitment potential across geographically varied settings and site stratification according to knowledge of contextual factors, such as the diversity of post-diagnostic services across the country. Letting sites themselves be responsible for identifying suitable intervention facilitators was successful. The self-report measures showed potential to be included in the main trial.

Nobody ever questions-Polypharmacy in care homes: A mixed methods evaluation of a multidisciplinary medicines optimisation initiative

BACKGROUND

Nurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing.

INTERVENTION

The Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

In three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews.

METHODS

This mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later.

RESULTS

We recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers.

IMPLICATIONS

ADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes.

REGISTRATION

NLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Nurse-led medicines' monitoring in care homes, implementing the Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRe) Profile improvement initiative for mental health medicines: An observational and interview study

Introduction

Preventable adverse effects of medicines often pass unnoticed, but lead to real harm.

Intervention

Nurse-led monitoring using the structured Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRe) Profile identifies and addresses adverse effects of mental health medicines.

Objectives

This study investigated the implementation and clinical impact of ADRe, and barriers to and facilitators of sustained utilisation in routine practice.

Methods

Administration of ADRe was observed for 30 residents prescribed mental health medicines in ten care homes. The study pharmacist reviewed completed ADRes against medication records. Policy context was explored in 30 interviews with service users, nurse managers and strategic leads in Wales.

Results

Residents were aged 60–95, and prescribed 1–17 (median 9 [interquartile range (IQR) 7–13]) medicines. ADRe identified a median of 18 [IQR 11.5–23] problems per resident and nurses made 2 [1–2] changes to care per resident. For example: falls were reported for 9 residents, and care was modified for 5; pain was identified in 8 residents, and alleviated for 7; all 6 residents recognised as dyspnoeic were referred to prescribers. Nurses referred 17 of 30 residents to prescribers. Pharmacists recommended review for all 30. Doubts about administering ADRe, sometimes expressed by people who had not yet used it, diminished as it became familiar. ADRe was needed to bridge communication between resident, nurses and prescribers. When barriers of time, complacency, and doctors’ non-availability were overcome, reporting with ADRe made prescribers more likely to heed nurses’ concerns regarding residents’ welfare. Clinical gains were facilitated by one-to-one time, staff-resident relationships, and unification of documentation.

Implications

To our knowledge, ADRe is the only instrument that brings a full account of patients’ problems to medication reviews. This juxtaposition of signs and symptoms against prescriptions facilitates dose adjustments and de-prescribing and leads to: reduced pain and sedation; early identification of problems linked to ADRs, such as falls; and timely medication reviews e.g. for dyspnoea.