Improving eye care in residential aged care facilities using the Residential Ocular Care (ROC) model: study protocol for a multicentered, prospective, customized, and cluster randomized controlled trial in Australia

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.

Prevalence of Eye Conditions, Utilization of Eye Health Care Services, and Ophthalmic Medications After Entering Residential Aged Care in Australia

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the burden and trends of eye diseases, utilisation of eye health care services, and ophthalmic medications among older people living in residential aged care facilities in Australia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Registry of Senior Australians. Individuals aged ≥65 years who entered permanent residential aged care facilities between 2008 and 2015 were included. The prevalence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of eye diseases by year, eye health care services, and ophthalmic medication use within a year of entry into the service were evaluated. Poisson regression models estimated adjusted rate of change using prevalence ratio (PR) by age, sex, state, and frailty scores.

Results

Of the 409,186 people studied, 43.6% (N = 178,367) had an eye condition. Of the total cohort, 32.9% (N = 134,566) had chronic eye conditions and 19.7% (N = 80,661) had an acute eye condition. Common chronic eye conditions were glaucoma (13.6%, N = 55,830), cataract (8%, (N = 32,779), blindness (4.5%, N = 18,856), and poor vision (10.3%, N = 42,245). Prevalence of any eye condition (2008: 42.7%, 95% CI = 42.2%-43.2% and 2015: 41.2%, 95% CI = 40.8-41.6%, PR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-0.99, P < 0.001), acute eye conditions (2008: 19.8%, 95% CI = 19.4%-20.2% and 2015: 17.4%, 95% CI = 17.1%-17.6%, PR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.97-0.98, P < 0.001), and blindness (2008: 5.2%, 95% CI = 5.0%-5.4% and 2015: 3.7%, 95% CI = 3.5%-3.9%, PR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.93-0.94, p < 0.001). decreased over the study period. The prevalence of glaucoma (2008: 13.5%, 95% CI = 13.2%-13.8% and 2015: 13.8%, 95% CI = 13.5%-13.7%; PR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.99-1.10, P < 0.001) and cataract (2008: 7.4%, 95% CI = 7.2%-7.7% and 2015: 8.5%, 95% CI = 8.3%-8.7%, PR = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00-1.01, P < 0.001) remained stable or slightly increased. Overall, 46.4% (N = 82,769) of individuals with eye conditions, accessed at least one eye health service within the first year of entering residential care and 70.5% (N = 125,673) used at least one ophthalmic medication. Optometric services (41.7%, N = 74,358) were the most used eye health care services and anti-infective eye drops (37.2%, N = 66,331) were the most commonly dispensed medications.

Conclusions

The prevalence of blindness among older Australian using residential aged care services decreased over the study period. However, the burden of eye diseases remained high between 2008 and 2015, whereas the use of eye health care services was disproportionately low. This study provides evidence of a significant need for eye health care services for older people with an eye disease in residential aged care facilities.

Translational Relevance

Four in ten long term aged care residents in Australia had at least one eye condition over the study period, indicating potential for a high eye health care needs in aged care settings.

High vision-related quality of life indices reduce the odds of depressive symptoms in aged care facilities

Objective: To examine the association between vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) and depressive symptoms in residents with vision impairment (VI) in aged care facilities.Methods: In this cross-sectional study using baseline data from a cluster-randomized controlled trial (ACTRN12615000587505) assessing the effectiveness of a novel eye care model, 186 English-speaking residents (mean age 84 years, SD[standard deviation] = 8.7; 33.9% male) with VI and moderate cognitive functioning or better were recruited from 38 facilities across Victoria, Australia. VRQoL was measured using Rasch-transformed scores from the 'Reading'; 'Mobility', and 'Emotional' scales of the Impact of Vision Impairment for Residential Care (IVI-RC) questionnaire. Outcomes were presence of depressive symptoms (binary score: Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia [CSDD] > 0 vs. CSDD = 0) and severity of depressive symptoms (continuous CSDD score; sample range 1-21). Independent associations with presence and severity of depressive symptoms were examined using zero-inflated logistic and linear multivariable models, respectively.Results: Of the 186 participants, n = 79 (42.5%), n = 94 (50.5%) and n = 13 (7%) reported no, mild (scores 1-7), and clinically significant depressive symptoms (score ≥8), respectively. Better vision-related Mobility (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.95, p = 0.02) was associated with reduced odds of depressive symptoms. With every unit improvement in vision-related Reading (β=-0.48; 95% CI: -0.94, -0.01, p = 0.04) and Emotional (β=-0.56; 95% CI: -1.09, -0.02, p = 0.04), severity of depressive symptoms reduced, independent of sociodemographic and medical issues.Conclusion: Better VRQoL was independently associated with reduced depressive symptoms. Supporting older people in aged care to maintain optimal levels of vision-specific functioning, independence, and emotional well-being may protect their mental health.

Environmental and behavioural interventions for reducing physical activity limitation and preventing falls in older people with visual impairment

BACKGROUND

Impairment of vision is associated with a decrease in activities of daily living. Avoidance of physical activity in older adults with visual impairment can lead to functional decline and is an important risk factor for falls. The rate of falls and fractures is higher in older people with visual impairment than in age-matched visually normal older people. Possible interventions to reduce activity restriction and prevent falls include environmental and behavioral interventions.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of environmental and behavioral interventions in reducing physical activity limitation, preventing falls and improving quality of life amongst visually impaired older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 2, 2020), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases to 4 February 2020, with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (Q-RCTs) that compared environmental interventions, behavioral interventions or both, versus control (usual care or no intervention); or that compared different types of environmental or behavioral interventions. Eligible study populations were older people (aged 60 and over) with irreversible visual impairment, living in their own homes or in residential settings. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must have included a measure of physical activity or falls, the two primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes included fear of falling, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (686 participants) conducted in five countries (Australia, Hungary, New Zealand, UK, US) with follow-up periods ranging from two to 12 months. Participants in these trials included older adults (mean age 80 years) and were mostly female (69%), with visual impairments of varying severity and underlying causes. Participants mostly lived in their homes and were physically independent. We classified all trials as having high risk of bias for masking of participants, and three trials as having high or unclear risk of bias for all other domains. The included trials evaluated various intervention strategies (e.g. an exercise program versus home safety modifications). Heterogeneity of study characteristics, including interventions and outcomes, (e.g. different fall measures), precluded any meta-analysis. Two trials compared the home safety modification by occupational therapists versus social/home visits. One trial (28 participants) reported physical activity at six months and showed no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (step counts: mean difference (MD) = 321, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1981 to 2623; average walking time (minutes): MD 1.70, 95% CI -24.03 to 27.43; telephone questionnaire for self-reported physical activity: MD -3.68 scores, 95% CI -20.6 to 13.24; low-certainty of evidence for each outcome). Two trials reported the proportion of participants who fell at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.51; 28 participants) and 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, 196 participants) with low-certainty of evidence for each outcome. One trial (28 participants) reported fear of falling at six months, using the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, and found no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (MD 2.55 scores, 95% CI -0.51 to 5.61; low-certainty of evidence). This trial also reported quality of life at six months using 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, and showed no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (MD -3.14 scores, 95% CI -10.86 to 4.58; low-certainty of evidence). Five trials compared a behavioral intervention (exercise) versus usual activity or social/home visits. One trial (59 participants) assessed self-reported physical activity at six months and showed no evidence of a difference between groups (MD 9.10 scores, 95% CI -13.85 to 32.5; low-certainty of evidence). Three trials investigated different fall measures at six or 12 months, and found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates (RRs for proportion of fallers ranged from 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.01; 41 participants); to 0.93 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.39; 120 participants); low-certainty of evidence for each outcome). Three trials assessed the fear of falling using Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International or the Illinois Fear of Falling Measure from two to 12 months, and found no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (the estimates ranged from -0.88 score (95% CI -2.72 to 0.96, 114 participants) to 1.00 score (95% CI -0.13 to 2.13; 59 participants); low-certainty of evidence). One trial (59 participants) assessed the European Quality of Life scale at six months (MD -0.15 score, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.01), and found no evidence of a clinical difference between groups (low-certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of effect for most of the environmental or behavioral interventions studied for reducing physical activity limitation and preventing falls in visually impaired older people. The certainty of evidence is generally low due to poor methodological quality and heterogeneous outcome measurements. Researchers should form a consensus to adopt standard ways of measuring physical activity and falls reliably in older people with visual impairments. Fall prevention trials should plan to use objectively measured or self-reported physical activity as outcome measures of reduced activity limitation. Future research should evaluate the acceptability and applicability of interventions, and use validated questionnaires to assess the adherence to rehabilitative strategies and performance during activities of daily living.

Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults

BACKGROUND

Low vision rehabilitation aims to optimise the use of residual vision after severe vision loss, but also aims to teach skills in order to improve visual functioning in daily life. Other aims include helping people to adapt to permanent vision loss and improving psychosocial functioning. These skills promote independence and active participation in society. Low vision rehabilitation should ultimately improve quality of life (QOL) for people who have visual impairment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation interventions on health-related QOL (HRQOL), vision-related QOL (VRQOL) or visual functioning and other closely related patient-reported outcomes in visually impaired adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers up to 18 September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating HRQOL, VRQOL and related outcomes of adults, with an irreversible visual impairment (World Health Organization criteria). We included studies that compared rehabilitation interventions with active or inactive control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 studies (73 reports) conducted in North America, Australia, Europe and Asia. Considering the clinical diversity of low vision rehabilitation interventions, the studies were categorised into four groups of related intervention types (and by comparator): (1) psychological therapies and/or group programmes, (2) methods of enhancing vision, (3) multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes, (4) other programmes. Comparators were no care or waiting list as an inactive control group, usual care or other active control group. Participants included in the reported studies were mainly older adults with visual impairment or blindness, often as a result of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Study settings were often hospitals or low vision rehabilitation services. Effects were measured at the short-term (six months or less) in most studies. Not all studies reported on funding, but those who did were supported by public or non-profit funders (N = 31), except for two studies. Compared to inactive comparators, we found very low-certainty evidence of no beneficial effects on HRQOL that was imprecisely estimated for psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.80; participants = 183; studies = 1) and an imprecise estimate suggesting little or no effect of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21; participants = 183; studies = 2; I2 = 0%); no data were available for methods of enhancing vision or other programmes. Regarding VRQOL, we found low- or very low-certainty evidence of imprecisely estimated benefit with psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.08; studies = 2; I2 = 24%) and methods of enhancing vision (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.15; participants = 262; studies = 5; I2 = 34%). Two studies using multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes showed beneficial but inconsistent results, of which one study, which was at low risk of bias and used intensive rehabilitation, recorded a very large and significant effect (SMD: -1.64, 95% CI -2.05 to -1.24), and the other a small and uncertain effect (SMD -0.42, 95%: -0.90 to 0.07). Compared to active comparators, we found very low-certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects on HRQOL that were imprecisely estimated with psychological therapies and/or group programmes including no difference (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.20; participants = 600; studies = 4; I2 = 67%). We also found very low-certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects with methods of enhancing vision, that were imprecisely estimated (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09; participants = 443; studies = 2; I2 = 0%) and multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.12; participants = 375; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). Concerning VRQOL, low-certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects that were imprecisely estimated, was found with psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.01; participants = 1245; studies = 7; I2 = 19%) and moderate-certainty evidence of small effects with methods of enhancing vision (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.08; participants = 660; studies = 7; I2 = 16%). No additional benefit was found with multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.20; participants = 464; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Among secondary outcomes, very low-certainty evidence of a significant and large, but imprecisely estimated benefit on self-efficacy or self-esteem was found for psychological therapies and/or group programmes versus waiting list or no care (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.22; participants = 456; studies = 5; I2 = 91%). In addition, very low-certainty evidence of a significant and large estimated benefit on depression was found for psychological therapies and/or group programmes versus waiting list or no care (SMD -1.23, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.28; participants = 456; studies = 5; I2 = 94%), and moderate-certainty evidence of a small benefit versus usual care (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; participants = 1334; studies = 9; I2 = 0%). ln the few studies in which (serious) adverse events were reported, these seemed unrelated to low vision rehabilitation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this Cochrane Review, no evidence of benefit was found of diverse types of low vision rehabilitation interventions on HRQOL. We found low- and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively, of a small benefit on VRQOL in studies comparing psychological therapies or methods for enhancing vision with active comparators. The type of rehabilitation varied among studies, even within intervention groups, but benefits were detected even if compared to active control groups. Studies were conducted on adults with visual impairment mainly of older age, living in high-income countries and often having AMD. Most of the included studies on low vision rehabilitation had a short follow-up, Despite these limitations, the consistent direction of the effects in this review towards benefit justifies further research activities of better methodological quality including longer maintenance effects and costs of several types of low vision rehabilitation. Research on the working mechanisms of components of rehabilitation interventions in different settings, including low-income countries, is also needed.