Geriatricians and care homes: perspectives from geriatric medicine departments and primary care trusts

[Liaison geriatrics with nursing homes in COVID time. A new coordination model arrived to stay]

Older people living in nursing homes fulfil the criteria to be considered as geriatric patients, but they often do not have met their health care needs. Current deficits appeared as a result of COVID-19 pandemic. The need to improve the coordination between hospitals and nursing homes emerged, and in Madrid it materialized with the implantation of Liaison Geriatrics teams or units at public hospitals. The Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología has defined the role of the geriatricians in the COVID-19 pandemic and they have given guidelines about prevention, early detection, isolation and sectorization, training, care homes classification, patient referral coordination, and the role of the different care settings, among others. These units and teams also must undertake other care activities that have a shortfall currently, like nursing homes-hospital coordination, geriatricians visits to the homes, telemedicine sessions, geriatric assessment in emergency rooms, and primary care and public health services coordination. This paper describes the concept of Liaison Geriatrics and its implementation at the Autonomous Community of Madrid hospitals as a result of COVID-19 pandemic. Activity data from a unit at a hospital with a huge number of nursing homes in its catchment area are reported. The objective is to understand the need of this activity in order to avoid the current fragmentation of care between hospitals and nursing homes. This activity should be consolidated in the future.

Proceedings from an International Virtual Townhall: Reflecting on the COVID-19 Pandemic: Themes from Long-Term Care

Residents of long-term care (LTC) homes have suffered disproportionately during the COVID-19 pandemic, from the virus itself and often from the imposition of lockdown measures. Provincial Geriatrics Leadership Ontario, in collaboration with interRAI and the International Federation on Aging, hosted a virtual Town Hall on September 25, 2020. The purpose of this event was to bring together international perspectives from researchers, clinicians, and policy experts to address important themes potentially amenable to timely policy interventions. This article summarizes these themes and the ensuing discussions among 130 attendees from 5 continents. The disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on frail residents of LTC homes reflects a systematic lack of equitable prioritization by health system decision makers around the world. The primary risk factors for an outbreak in an LTC home were outbreaks in the surrounding community, high staff and visitor traffic in large facilities, and crowding of residents in ageing buildings. Infection control measures must be prioritized in LTC homes, though care must be taken to protect frail and vulnerable residents from their overly blunt application that deprives residents from appropriate physical and psychosocial support. Staffing, in terms of overall numbers, training, and leadership skills, was inadequate. The built environment of LTC homes can be configured for both optimal resident well-being and infection control. Infection control and resident wellness need not be mutually exclusive. Improving outcomes for LTC residents requires more staffing with proper training and interprofessional leadership. All these initiatives must be underpinned by an effective quality assurance system based on standardized, comprehensive, accessible, and clinically relevant data, and which can support broad communities of practice capable of effecting real and meaningful change for frail older persons, wherever they chose to reside.

Supporting good quality, community-based end-of-life care for people living with dementia: the SEED research programme including feasibility RCT

Background

In the UK, most people with dementia die in the community and they often receive poorer end-of-life care than people with cancer.

Objective

The overall aim of this programme was to support professionals to deliver good-quality, community-based care towards, and at, the end of life for people living with dementia and their families.

Design

The Supporting Excellence in End-of-life care in Dementia (SEED) programme comprised six interlinked workstreams. Workstream 1 examined existing guidance and outcome measures using systematic reviews, identified good practice through a national e-survey and explored outcomes of end-of-life care valued by people with dementia and family carers (n = 57) using a Q-sort study. Workstream 2 explored good-quality end-of-life care in dementia from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders using qualitative methods (119 interviews, 12 focus groups and 256 observation hours). Using data from workstreams 1 and 2, workstream 3 used co-design methods with key stakeholders to develop the SEED intervention. Worksteam 4 was a pilot study of the SEED intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Using a cluster design, we assessed the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment and retention, outcome measures and our intervention. Four general practices were recruited in North East England: two were allocated to the intervention and two provided usual care. Patient recruitment was via general practitioner dementia registers. Outcome data were collected at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 months. Workstream 5 involved economic modelling studies that assessed the potential value of the SEED intervention using a contingent valuation survey of the general public (n = 1002). These data informed an economic decision model to explore how the SEED intervention might influence care. Results of the model were presented in terms of the costs and consequences (e.g. hospitalisations) and, using the contingent valuation data, a cost–benefit analysis. Workstream 6 examined commissioning of end-of-life care in dementia through a narrative review of policy and practice literature, combined with indepth interviews with a national sample of service commissioners (n = 20).

Setting

The workstream 1 survey and workstream 2 included services throughout England. The workstream 1 Q-sort study and workstream 4 pilot trial took place in North East England. For workstream 4, four general practices were recruited; two received the intervention and two provided usual care.

Results

Currently, dementia care and end-of-life care are commissioned separately, with commissioners receiving little formal guidance and training. Examples of good practice rely on non-recurrent funding and leadership from an interested clinician. Seven key components are required for good end-of-life care in dementia: timely planning discussions, recognising end of life and providing supportive care, co-ordinating care, effective working with primary care, managing hospitalisation, continuing care after death, and valuing staff and ongoing learning. Using co-design methods and the theory of change, the seven components were operationalised as a primary care-based, dementia nurse specialist intervention, with a care resource kit to help the dementia nurse specialist improve the knowledge of family and professional carers. The SEED intervention proved feasible and acceptable to all stakeholders, and being located in the general practice was considered beneficial. None of the outcome measures was suitable as the primary outcome for a future trial. The contingent valuation showed that the SEED intervention was valued, with a wider package of care valued more than selected features in isolation. The SEED intervention is unlikely to reduce costs, but this may be offset by the value placed on the SEED intervention by the general public.

Limitations

The biggest challenge to the successful delivery and completion of this research programme was translating the ‘theoretical’ complex intervention into practice in an ever-changing policy and service landscape at national and local levels. A major limitation for a future trial is the lack of a valid and relevant primary outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention that influences outcomes for both individuals and systems.

Conclusions

Although the dementia nurse specialist intervention was acceptable, feasible and integrated well with existing care, it is unlikely to reduce costs of care; however, it was highly valued by all stakeholders (professionals, people with dementia and their families) and has the potential to influence outcomes at both an individual and a systems level.

Future work

There is no plan to progress to a full randomised controlled trial of the SEED intervention in its current form. In view of new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence dementia guidance, which now recommends a care co-ordinator for all people with dementia, the feasibility of providing the SEED intervention throughout the illness trajectory should be explored. Appropriate outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of such a complex intervention are needed urgently.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21390601.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research, Vol. 8, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Specialist healthcare services for UK care home residents: a latent class analysis

Aim:

To identify discrete approaches to specialist healthcare support for older care home residents in the UK and to estimate their prevalence.

Background:

Internationally, a range of new initiatives are emerging to meet the multiple and complex healthcare needs of care home residents. However, little is known about their relative effectiveness and, given their heterogeneity, a classification scheme is required to enable research staff to explore this.

Method:

A UK survey collected information on the funding, age, coverage, aims, staffing and activities of 64 specialist care home support services. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to allocate the sample into subgroups with similar characteristics.

Findings:

Three classes were identified. Class 1 (55% of sample) contained services with a high probability of providing scheduled input (regular preplanned visits) and support for all residents and a moderate probability of undertaking medication management, but a low probability of training care home staff (‘predominantly direct care’). Class 2 (23% of sample) had a moderate/high probability of providing scheduled input, support for all residents, medication management and training (‘direct and indirect care’). Class 3 (22% of sample) had a low probability of providing scheduled input, support for all residents and medication management, but a high probability of providing training for care home staff (‘predominantly indirect care’). Consultants were more likely to be members of services in Class 1 than Class 2, and Class 2 than Class 3.

Conclusions:

LCA offers a promising approach to the creation of a taxonomy of specialist care home support services. The skills and knowledge required by healthcare staff vary between classes, raising important issues for service design. The proposed classification can be used to explore the extent to which different organisational forms are associated with better resident, process and service outcomes.

Prevalence of unmet needs for spasticity management in care home residents in the East Midlands, United Kingdom: a cross-sectional observational study

OBJECTIVE

To establish the prevalence of unmet need for spasticity management in care home residents in two counties of the United Kingdom.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study with a six-month follow-up arm for participants with identified unmet needs.

SETTING

22 care homes in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

SUBJECTS

60 care home residents with upper motor neuron syndrome-related spasticity.

INTERVENTIONS

No intervention. When unmet needs around spasticity management were identified, the participant's general practitioner was advised of these in writing.

MAIN MEASURES

Resistance to Passive Movement Scale to assess spasticity; recording of (a) the presence of factors which may aggravate spasticity, (b) potential complications of spasticity, (c) spasticity-related needs and (d) current interventions to manage spasticity. Two assessors judged the presence or absence of needs for spasticity management and whether these needs were met by current care.

RESULTS

Out of 60 participants, 14 had no spasticity-related needs; 46 had spasticity-related needs; 11 had needs which were being met by current care and 35 participants had spasticity-related needs at baseline which were not being met by their current care. These were most frequently related to the risk of contracture development or problems with skin hygiene or integrity in the upper limb. In total, 6 participants had one or more pressure sores and 35 participants had one or more established joint contractures. A total of 31 participants were available for follow-up. Informing general practitioners of unmet needs resulted in no change to spasticity management in 23/31 cases.

CONCLUSION

Care home residents in this study had high levels of unmet need for spasticity management.

Optimal NHS service delivery to care homes: a realist evaluation of the features and mechanisms that support effective working for the continuing care of older people in residential settings

Background

Care homes are the institutional providers of long-term care for older people. The OPTIMAL study argued that it is probable that there are key activities within different models of health-care provision that are important for residents’ health care.

Objectives

To understand ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. Study questions focused on how different mechanisms within the various models of service delivery act as the ‘active ingredients’ associated with positive health-related outcomes for care home residents.

Methods

Using realist methods we focused on five outcomes: (1) medication use and review; (2) use of out-of-hours services; (3) hospital admissions, including emergency department attendances and length of hospital stay; (4) resource use; and (5) user satisfaction. Phase 1: interviewed stakeholders and reviewed the evidence to develop an explanatory theory of what supported good health-care provision for further testing in phase 2. Phase 2 developed a minimum data set of resident characteristics and tracked their care for 12 months. We also interviewed residents, family and staff receiving and providing health care to residents. The 12 study care homes were located on the south coast, the Midlands and the east of England. Health-care provision to care homes was distinctive in each site.

Findings

Phase 1 found that health-care provision to care homes is reactive and inequitable. The realist review argued that incentives or sanctions, agreed protocols, clinical expertise and structured approaches to assessment and care planning could support improved health-related outcomes; however, to achieve change NHS professionals and care home staff needed to work together from the outset to identify, co-design and implement agreed approaches to health care. Phase 2 tested this further and found that, although there were few differences between the sites in residents’ use of resources, the differences in service integration between the NHS and care homes did reflect how these institutions approached activities that supported relational working. Key to this was how much time NHS staff and care home staff had had to learn how to work together and if the work was seen as legitimate, requiring ongoing investment by commissioners and engagement from practitioners. Residents appreciated the general practitioner (GP) input and, when supported by other care home-specific NHS services, GPs reported that it was sustainable and valued work. Access to dementia expertise, ongoing training and support was essential to ensure that both NHS and care home staff were equipped to provide appropriate care.

Limitations

Findings were constrained by the numbers of residents recruited and retained in phase 2 for the 12 months of data collection.

Conclusions

NHS services work well with care homes when payments and role specification endorse the importance of this work at an institutional level as well as with individual residents. GP involvement is important but needs additional support from other services to be sustainable. A focus on strategies that promote co-design-based approaches between the NHS and care homes has the potential to improve residents’ access to and experience of health care.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Provision of NHS generalist and specialist services to care homes in England: review of surveys

Background

The number of beds in care homes (with and without nurses) in the United Kingdom is three times greater than the number of beds in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Care homes are predominantly owned by a range of commercial, not-for-profit or charitable providers and their residents have high levels of disability, frailty and co-morbidity. NHS support for care home residents is very variable, and it is unclear what models of clinical support work and are cost-effective.

Objectives

To critically evaluate how the NHS works with care homes.

Methods

A review of surveys of NHS services provided to care homes that had been completed since 2008. It included published national surveys, local surveys commissioned by Primary Care organisations, studies from charities and academic centres, grey literature identified across the nine government regions, and information from care home, primary care and other research networks. Data extraction captured forms of NHS service provision for care homes in England in terms of frequency, location, focus and purpose.

Results

Five surveys focused primarily on general practitioner services, and 10 on specialist services to care home. Working relationships between the NHS and care homes lack structure and purpose and have generally evolved locally. There are wide variations in provision of both generalist and specialist healthcare services to care homes. Larger care home chains may take a systematic approach to both organising access to NHS generalist and specialist services, and to supplementing gaps with in-house provision. Access to dental care for care home residents appears to be particularly deficient.

Conclusions

Historical differences in innovation and provision of NHS services, the complexities of collaborating across different sectors (private and public, health and social care, general and mental health), and variable levels of organisation of care homes, all lead to persistent and embedded inequity in the distribution of NHS resources to this population. Clinical commissioners seeking to improve the quality of care of care home residents need to consider how best to provide fair access to health care for older people living in a care home, and to establish a specification for service delivery to this vulnerable population.

Effective health care for older people resident in care homes: the optimal study protocol for realist review

BACKGROUND

Care homes in the UK rely on general practice for access to specialist medical and nursing care as well as referral to therapists and secondary care. Service delivery to care homes is highly variable in both quantity and quality. This variability is also evident in the commissioning and organisation of care home-specific services that range from the payment of incentives to general practitioners (GPs) to visit care homes, to the creation of care home specialist teams and outreach services run by geriatricians. No primary studies or systematic reviews have robustly evaluated the impact of these different approaches on organisation and resident-level outcomes. Our aim is to identify factors which may explain the perceived or demonstrated effectiveness of programmes to improve health-related outcomes in older people living in care homes.

METHODS/DESIGN

A realist review approach will be used to develop a theoretical understanding of what works when, why and in what circumstances. Elements of service models of interest include those that focus on assessment and management of residents' health, those that use strategies to encourage closer working between visiting health care providers and care home staff, and those that address system-wide issues about access to assessment and treatment. These will include studies on continence, dignity, and speech and language assessment as well as interventions to promote person centred dementia care, improve strength and mobility, and nutrition. The impact of these interventions and their different mechanisms will be considered in relation to five key outcomes: residents' medication use, use of out of hours' services, hospital admissions (including use of Accident and Emergency) and length of hospital stay, costs and user satisfaction. An iterative three-stage approach will be undertaken that is stakeholder-driven and optimises the knowledge and networks of the research team.

DISCUSSION

This realist review will explore why and for whom different approaches to providing health care to residents in care homes improves access to health care in the five areas of interest. It will inform commissioning decisions and be the basis for further research. This systematic review protocol is registered on the PROSPERO database reference number: CRD42014009112.

New horizons in care home medicine

Care home medicine has been an under-researched area, but over the last decade there has been a substantial growth in publications. Most of these have focused on the 'geriatric giants' of falls, incontinence and mental health issues (especially dementia, behavioural disturbance and depression) as well as other key topics such as medication use and issues related to death and dying. Other areas of recent interest are around access to health services for care home residents, how such services may most effectively be developed and how the quality of life for residents can be enhanced. While many of the reported studies are small and not always well designed, evidence in several areas is emerging which begins to guide service developments. A common theme is that multi-disciplinary interventions are the most effective models of delivery. The role of care home staff as members of these teams is key to their effectiveness. Recent consensus guidelines around falls prevention in care homes synthesise the evidence and recommend multi-disciplinary interventions, and clarify the role of vitamin D and of exercise in certain populations in the care home. The benefits of pharmacist led medication reviews are beginning to emerge; although studies reviewed to date have not yet led to the 'holy grail' of hospital admission avoidance they point to benefits in reduction of drug burden. Effectiveness may be enhanced when working with GPs and care home nurses. Welcome evidence is emerging that in the UK the rate of prescription of anti-psychotics has fallen. This is clear evidence that changes in practice around care homes can be effected. The poor access to non-pharmacological therapies for care home residents with behavioural disturbance remains a significant gap in service. End-of-life care planning and delivery is an important part of care in care homes, and there is evidence that integrated pathways can improve care; however, the use of palliative care medications was limited unless specialist care staff were involved. Integrated models of care that focus on resident-centred goals and which value the role of care home staff as members of the team working to deliver these goals are most likely to result in improvements in the quality of care experienced by care home residents.

Health status of UK care home residents: a cohort study

Background: UK care home residents are often poorly served by existing healthcare arrangements. Published descriptions of residents’ health status have been limited by lack of detail and use of data derived from surveys drawn from social, rather than health, care records.

Aim: to describe in detail the health status and healthcare resource use of UK care home residents

Design and setting: a 180-day longitudinal cohort study of 227 residents across 11 UK care homes, 5 nursing and 6 residential, selected to be representative for nursing/residential status and dementia registration.

Method: Barthel index (BI), Mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric index (NPI), Mini-nutritional index (MNA), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), diagnoses and medications were recorded at baseline and BI, NPI, GHQ-12 and EQ-5D at follow-up after 180 days. National Health Service (NHS) resource use data were collected from databases of local healthcare providers.

Results: out of a total of 323, 227 residents were recruited. The median BI was 9 (IQR: 2.5–15.5), MMSE 13 (4–22) and number of medications 8 (5.5–10.5). The mean number of diagnoses per resident was 6.2 (SD: 4). Thirty per cent were malnourished, 66% had evidence of behavioural disturbance. Residents had contact with the NHS on average once per month.

Conclusion: residents from both residential and nursing settings are dependent, cognitively impaired, have mild frequent behavioural symptoms, multimorbidity, polypharmacy and frequently use NHS resources. Effective care for such a cohort requires broad expertise from multiple disciplines delivered in a co-ordinated and managed way.

An exploration of palliative care provision in Scottish care homes

This paper suggests that there is an imbalance between the ideal and the actual palliative care provision for some older people living and dying in care homes in Scotland. Successive studies demonstrate that care home residents are increasingly frail and disabled. Many experience challenging physical and psychosocial symptoms which could benefit from a palliative approach to alleviate suffering and promote comfort. However, palliative needs for people with non-malignant conditions, such as dementia, can be complex, and not easily identified or managed. A range of challenging factors currently impact palliative care provision for care home residents in Scotland including: the insufficiency of robust NHS healthcare support, the skill mix of the care home workforce, and the promotion of palliative tools as the primary means of improving the quality of palliative care in non-specialist settings. Issues highlighted in this paper give cause for concern on a number of levels, particularly as the demand for palliative care in care homes is likely to increase in the near future. Therefore, sustained collaborative effort from leaders in the health, social and care home sectors is recommended if practical solutions are to be found for this vulnerable population.