Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study.

Background: Quality of life and care varies between and within the care homes in which almost half a million older people live and over half a million direct care staff (registered nurses and care assistants) work. The reasons are complex, understudied and sometimes oversimplified, but staff and their work are a significant influence. Objective(s): To explore variations in the care home nursing and support workforce; how resident and relatives' needs in care homes are linked to care home staffing; how different staffing models impact on care quality, outcomes and costs; how workforce numbers, skill mix and stability meet residents' needs; the contributions of the care home workforce to enhancing quality of care; staff relationships as a platform for implementation by providers. Design: Mixed-method (QUAL-QUANT) parallel design with five work packages. WP1 - two evidence syntheses (one realist); WP2 - cross-sectional survey of routine staffing and rated quality from care home regulator; WP3 - analysis of longitudinal data from a corporate provider of staffing characteristics and quality indicators, including safety; WP4 - secondary analysis of care home regulator reports; WP5 - social network analysis of networks likely to influence quality innovation. We expressed our synthesised findings as a logic model. Setting: English care homes, with and without nursing, with various ownership structures, size and location, with varying quality ratings. Participants: Managers, residents, families and care home staff. Findings: Staffing's contribution to quality and personalised care requires: managerial and staff stability and consistency; sufficient staff to develop 'familial' relationships between staff and residents, and staff-staff reciprocity, 'knowing' residents, and skills and competence training beyond induction; supported, well-led staff seeing modelled behaviours from supervisors; autonomy to act. Outcome measures that capture the relationship between staffing and quality include: the extent to which resident needs and preferences are met and culturally appropriate; resident and family satisfaction; extent of residents living with purpose; safe care (including clinical outcomes); staff well-being and job satisfaction were important, but underacknowledged. Limitations: Many of our findings stem from self-reported and routine data with known biases - such as under reporting of adverse incidents; our analysis may reflect these biases. COVID-19 required adapting our original protocol to make it feasible. Consequently, the effects of the pandemic are reflected in our research methods and findings. Our findings are based on data from a single care home operator and so may not be generalised to the wider population of care homes. Conclusions: Innovative and multiple methods and theory can successfully highlight the nuanced relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Modifiable characteristics such as visible philosophies of care and high-quality training, reinforced by behavioural and relational role modelling by leaders can make the difference when sufficient amounts of consistent staff are employed. Greater staffing capacity alone is unlikely to enhance quality in a cost-effective manner. Social network analysis can help identify the right people to aid adoption and spread of quality and innovation. Future research should focus on richer, iterative, evaluative testing and development of our logic model using theoretically and empirically defensible - rather than available - inputs and outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021241066 and Research Registry registration: 1062. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/144/29) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

This study was about the relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Almost half a million older people live in care homes in England. Why quality of care and quality of life for residents vary so much between and within homes is unknown, but staff and the ways they work are likely to be important. Researching staffing and quality is difficult: quality means different things to different people and a lot of things shape how quality feels to residents, families and staff. In the past, researchers have oversimplified the problem to study it and may have missed important influences. We took a more complex view. In five interlinked work packages, we collected and analysed: (1) research journal articles; (2) national data from different care homes; (3) data from a large care organisation to look at what it is about staffing that influences quality; (4) reports and ratings of homes from the Care Quality Commission; and (5) we looked at the networks between staff in homes that shape how quality improvement techniques might spread. We used theories about how our findings might be linked to plan for this data collection and analysis. The results were combined into something called a 'logic model' ­ a diagram and explanation that make it easier for managers, researchers and people interested in care homes to see how staffing influences quality. Staffing considerations that might improve quality include: not swapping managers too much; having sufficient and consistent staff for family-like relationships in homes and putting residents' needs first; supporting staff and giving them freedom to act; and key staff leading by example. Research examining care home quality should capture those aspects that mean the most to residents, their families and staff.

Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of pharmacist independent prescribers in care homes: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness, cost effectiveness (to be reported elsewhere), and safety of pharmacy independent prescribers in care homes. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial, with clusters based on triads of a pharmacist independent prescriber, a general practice, and one to three associated care homes. SETTING: Care homes across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, their associated general practices, and pharmacy independent prescribers, formed into triads. PARTICIPANTS: 49 triads and 882 residents were randomised. Participants were care home residents, aged ≥65 years, taking at least one prescribed drug, recruited to 20 residents/triad. INTERVENTION: Each pharmacy independent prescriber provided pharmaceutical care to approximately 20 residents across one to three care homes, with weekly visits over six months. Pharmacy independent prescribers developed a pharmaceutical care plan for each resident, did medicines reviews/reconciliation, trained staff, and supported with medicines related procedures, deprescribing, and authorisation of prescriptions. Participants in the control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was fall rate/person at six months analysed by intention to treat, adjusted for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (EQ-5D by proxy), Barthel score, Drug Burden Index, hospital admissions, and mortality. Assuming a 21% reduction in falls, 880 residents were needed, allowing for 20% attrition. RESULTS: The average age of participants at study entry was 85 years; 70% were female. 697 falls (1.55 per resident) were recorded in the intervention group and 538 falls (1.26 per resident) in the control group at six months. The fall rate risk ratio for the intervention group compared with the control group was not significant (0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.26) after adjustment for all model covariates. Secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups, with exception of the Drug Burden Index, which significantly favoured the intervention. A third (185/566; 32.7%) of pharmacy independent prescriber interventions involved medicines associated with falls. No adverse events or safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Change in the primary outcome of falls was not significant. Limiting follow-up to six months combined with a small proportion of interventions predicted to affect falls may explain this. A significant reduction in the Drug Burden Index was realised and would be predicted to yield future clinical benefits for patients. This large trial of an intensive weekly pharmacist intervention with care home residents was also found to be safe and well received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 17847169.

A personhood and citizenship training workshop for care home staff to potentially increase wellbeing of residents with dementia: intervention development and feasibility testing of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, one third of people with dementia live in residential care homes, a sector where high staff turnover negatively affects continuity of care. To examine the effect of including personhood and citizenship principles in training, interventions need to be robustly tested, with outcomes relevant to residents with dementia. METHODS: Phase one intervention development: The training intervention (PERSONABLE) comprised five reflective exercises facilitated by a mental health nurse/researcher. PERSONABLE was informed by four focus groups, and one field exercise, consisting of care home staff and family members. Phase two feasibility testing: Participants were (i) care home residents with dementia and (ii) care home staff working in any role. After baseline measurements, care homes were randomly allocated to (i) staff receiving PERSONABLE training or (ii) training as usual. Feasibility outcomes were the recruitment and attrition of care homes, residents and staff members (measured ten weeks between randomisation and follow-up), the acceptability of the training intervention PERSONABLE, and acceptability of outcome measures. The care home environment was evaluated, at baseline, using the Therapeutic Environment Screening Survey for Residential Care Homes. Measurements conducted at baseline and follow-up were resident wellbeing (Dementia Care Mapping™), staff knowledge of and confidence with personhood and citizenship (Personhood in Dementia Questionnaire and a perceived ability to care visual analogue scale). Inter-rater agreement for Dementia Care Mapping™ was undertaken at follow-up in one intervention and one training as a usual care home. RESULTS: Phase one: The developed reflective approach to the PERSONABLE exercises appeared to give staff a holistic understanding of residents living with dementia, seeing them as autonomous people rather than reductively as persons with a condition. Phase two: Six care homes, 40 residents and 118 staff were recruited. Four residents were lost to follow-up. Twenty-nine staff in the PERSONABLE arm of the study received the training intervention. In the PERSONABLE arm, 26 staff completed both baseline and follow-up measurements compared to 21 in the training as the usual arm. The most common reason for the loss to follow-up of staff was leaving employment. For the outcome measure Dementia Care Mapping™, the proportion of overall agreement between the two observers was 18.6%. High attrition of staff occurred in those homes undergoing leadership changes. CONCLUSION: With the right approach, it is possible to achieve good engagement during trial recruitment and intervention delivery of care home managers, staff and residents. Organisational changes are a less controllable aspect of trials but having a visible researcher presence during data collection helps to capitalise the engagement of those staff remaining in employment. Tailored, brief and flexible training interventions encourage staff participation. Simplification of study methods helps promote and retain sufficient staff in a definitive randomised controlled trial. This study found that some components of Dementia Care Mapping™ work effectively as an outcome measure. However, inter-rater reliability was poor, and the practical implementation of the measurement would need a great deal of further refinement to accurately capture the effect of a training intervention if delivered across a large number of clusters. The Dementia Care Mapping™ measurement fidelity issue would be further complicated if using multiple different unacquainted observers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with the ISRCTN under the title: Does a dementia workshop, delivered to residential care home staff, improve the wellbeing of residents with dementia? Trial identifier: ISRCTN13641553. Registered: 30/05/2017 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13641553 .

Understanding the staff behaviours that promote quality for older people living in long term care facilities: A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the workforce influences quality in long term care facilities for older people. Staff numbers are important but do not fully explain this relationship. OBJECTIVES: To develop theoretical explanations for the relationship between long-term care facility staffing and quality of care as experienced by residents. DESIGN: A realist evidence synthesis to understand staff behaviours that promote quality of care for older people living in long-term care facilities. SETTING: Long-term residential care facilities PARTICIPANTS: Long-term care facility staff, residents, and relatives METHODS: The realist review, (i) was co-developed with stakeholders to determine initial programme theories, (ii) systematically searched the evidence to test and develop theoretical propositions, and (iii) validated and refined emergent theory with stakeholder groups. RESULTS: 66 research papers were included in the review. Three key findings explain the relationship between staffing and quality: (i) quality is influenced by staff behaviours; (ii) behaviours are contingent on relationships nurtured by long-term care facility environment and culture; and (iii) leadership has an important influence on how organisational resources (sufficient staff effectively deployed, with the knowledge, expertise and skills required to meet residents' needs) are used to generate and sustain quality-promoting relationships. Six theoretical propositions explain these findings. CONCLUSION: Leaders (at all levels) through their role-modelling behaviours can use organisational resources to endorse and encourage relationships (at all levels) between staff, residents, co-workers and family (relationship centred care) that constitute learning opportunities for staff, and encourage quality as experienced by residents and families.

Non-benzodiazepine hypnotic use for sleep disturbance in people aged over 55 years living with dementia: a series of cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance affects around 60% of people living with dementia and can negatively affect their quality of life and that of their carers. Hypnotic Z-drugs (zolpidem, zopiclone and zaleplon) are commonly used to treat insomnia, but their safety and efficacy have not been evaluated for people living with dementia. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the benefits and harms of Z-drugs in people living with dementia with sleep disturbance. DESIGN: A series of observational cohort studies using existing data from (1) primary care linked to hospital admission data and (2) clinical cohort studies of people living with dementia. DATA SOURCES: Primary care study - Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Clinical cohort studies - the Resource Use and Disease Course in Dementia - Nursing Homes (REDIC) study, National Alzheimer's Coordinating Centre (NACC) clinical data set and the Improving Well-being and Health for People with Dementia (WHELD) in nursing homes randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care study - 371 primary care practices in England. Clinical cohort studies - 47 nursing homes in Norway, 34 Alzheimer's disease centres in the USA and 69 care homes in England. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care study - NHS England primary care patients diagnosed with dementia and aged > 55 years, with sleep disturbance or prescribed Z-drugs or low-dose tricyclic antidepressants, followed over 2 years. Clinical cohort studies - people living with dementia consenting to participate, followed over 3 years, 12 years and 9 months, for REDIC, NACC and WHELD, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: The primary exposure was prescription or use of Z-drugs. Secondary exposures included prescription or use of benzodiazepines, low-dose tricyclic antidepressants and antipsychotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Falls, fractures, infection, stroke, venous thromboembolism, mortality, cognitive function and quality of life. There were insufficient data to investigate sleep disturbance. RESULTS: The primary care study and combined clinical cohort studies included 6809 and 18,659 people living with dementia, with 3089 and 914 taking Z-drugs, respectively. New Z-drug use was associated with a greater risk of fractures (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.94), with risk increasing with greater cumulative dose (p = 0.002). The hazard ratio for Z-drug use and hip fracture was 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.53) and for mortality was 1.34 (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.64). No excess risks of falls, infections, stroke or venous thromboembolism were detected. Z-drug use also did not have an impact on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, disability or quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Primary care study - possible residual confounding because of difficulties in identifying patients with sleep disturbance and by dementia severity. Clinical cohort studies - the small numbers of people living with dementia taking Z-drugs and outcomes not necessarily being measured before Z-drug initiation restricted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a dose-dependent increase in fracture risk, but no other harms, with Z-drug use in dementia. However, multiple outcomes were examined, increasing the risk of false-positive findings. The mortality association was unlikely to be causal. Further research is needed to confirm the increased fracture risk. Decisions to prescribe Z-drugs may need to consider the risk of fractures, balanced against the impact of improved sleep for people living with dementia and that of their carers. Our findings suggest that when Z-drugs are prescribed, falls prevention strategies may be needed, and that the prescription should be regularly reviewed. FUTURE WORK: More research is needed on safe and effective management strategies for sleep disturbance in people living with dementia. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EU PAS) 18006. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Poor sleep is common in people living with dementia. It can worsen their own and their carer's quality of life. Sleeping tablets called Z-drugs (zolpidem, zopiclone and zaleplon) are often given to people with dementia. Some studies suggest that Z-drugs may be harmful, but no studies have looked into the effects of Z-drugs for people with dementia. Good sleep is important, but we need to understand if Z-drugs cause harm. WHAT DID WE DO?: Using existing medical records, we compared the quality of life, memory and number of falls, infections, strokes, broken bones and deaths for a group of people living with dementia taking a Z-drug, with those for a group not taking any sleep drug. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Z-drug users were no more likely to suffer falls, infection or stroke, but they were more likely to break a bone. We also found that Z-drug users died earlier, but we could not be sure that this was as a result of taking the Z-drug. Using Z-drugs did not appear to affect quality of life or memory. We talked to carers and health-care practitioners, who told us that decisions about Z-drugs need to balance a range of complicated health and social factors. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: We found that people living with dementia who take Z-drugs are more likely to break a bone or to die sooner than similar people with dementia who are not taking Z-drugs. However, we cannot be certain that these problems are caused by Z-drugs, as many other factors can also lead to broken bones and death. Further work is needed to clarify the risk of broken bones, but if sleep problems can be managed in other ways then this may be preferable. Patients and family carers should be involved in decisions about Z-drugs, so that they can balance the possible harms against the benefits.

A survey of the experience of living with dementia in a dementia-friendly community.

Dementia-friendly communities (DFCs) are one way in which people living with dementia can be supported to be active, engaged and valued citizens. Quantitative evaluations of the experiences of those with dementia living within these communities are scarce. This article reports findings from a survey of people living with dementia on their experience of living in a DFC. Two-hundred and forty people living with dementia completed a cross-sectional survey in six DFCs across England. Around half of respondents reported they were aware they were living in a DFC. Being aware of living in a DFC was associated with taking part in leisure activities (p = 0.042), community centre attendance (p = 0.009), being involved in organised activities or groups (p < 0.001), feeling understood (p = 0.008), and feeling valued for their own contributions to the community (p = 0.002). This study illustrates the contribution that surveys can make in facilitating the expression of views and experiences of people living with dementia. Awareness of living within a DFC is associated with greater involvement in, and belonging to, the wider community.

Adverse effects of Z-drugs for sleep disturbance in people living with dementia: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is common in dementia and often treated with Z-drugs (zopiclone, zaleplon, and zolpidem). While some observational studies suggest that Z-drugs are associated with adverse events such as falls and fracture risks in older people, this has not been studied in dementia. METHODS: We used data from 27,090 patients diagnosed with dementia between January 2000 and March 2016 from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episodes Statistics data in England. We compared adverse events for 3532 patients newly prescribed Z-drugs by time-varying dosage to (1) 1833 non-sedative-users with sleep disturbance; (2) 10,214 non-sedative-users with proximal GP consultation matched on age, sex, and antipsychotic use; and (3) 5172 patients newly prescribed benzodiazepines. We defined higher dose Z-drugs and benzodiazepines as prescriptions equivalent to ≥ 7.5 mg zopiclone or > 5 mg diazepam daily. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for incident fracture, hip fracture, fall, mortality, acute bacterial infection, ischaemic stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and venous thromboembolism over a 2-year follow-up, adjusted for demographic- and health-related covariates. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of patients was 83 (7.7) years, and 16,802 (62%) were women. Of 3532 patients prescribed Z-drugs, 584 (17%) were initiated at higher doses. For patients prescribed higher dose Z-drugs relative to non-users with sleep disturbance, the HRs (95% confidence interval) for fractures, hip fractures, falls, and ischaemic stroke were 1.67 (1.13-2.46), 1.96 (1.16-3.31), 1.33 (1.06-1.66), and 1.88 (1.14-3.10), respectively. We observed similar associations when compared to non-sedative-users with proximal GP consultation. Minimal or inconsistent excess risks were observed at ≤ 3.75 mg zopiclone or equivalent daily, and for mortality, infection, and venous thromboembolism. We observed no differences in adverse events for Z-drugs compared to benzodiazepines, except lower mortality rates with Z-drugs (HR [95% confidence interval] of 0.73 [0.64-0.83]). CONCLUSIONS: Higher dose Z-drug use in dementia is associated with increased fracture and stroke risks, similar or greater to that for higher dose benzodiazepines. Higher dose Z-drugs should be avoided, if possible, in people living with dementia, and non-pharmacological alternatives preferentially considered. Prescriptions for higher dose Z-drugs in dementia should be regularly reviewed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ENCePP e-register of studies, EUPAS18006.

Increasing prevalence of anticholinergic medication use in older people in England over 20 years: cognitive function and ageing study I and II.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic medication use is linked with increased cognitive decline, dementia, falls and mortality, and their use should be limited in older people. Here we estimate the prevalence of anticholinergic use in England's older population in 1991 and 2011, and describe changes in use by participant's age, sex, cognition and disability. METHODS: We compared data from participants aged 65+ years from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I and II), collected during 1990-1993 (N = 7635) and 2008-2011 (N = 7762). We estimated the prevalence of potent anticholinergic use (Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden [ACB] score = 3) and average anticholinergic burden (sum of ACB scores), using inverse probability weights standardised to the 2011 UK population. These were stratified by age, sex, Mini-Mental State Examination score, and activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental ADL (IADL) disability. RESULTS: Prevalence of potent anticholinergic use increased from 5.7% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 5.2-6.3%) of the older population in 1990-93 to 9.9% (9.3-10.7%) in 2008-11, adjusted odds ratio of 1.90 (95% CI 1.67-2.16). People with clinically significant cognitive impairment (MMSE [Mini Mental State Examination] 21 or less) were the heaviest users of potent anticholinergics in CFAS II (16.5% [95% CI 12.0-22.3%]). Large increases in the prevalence of the use medication with 'any' anticholinergic activity were seen in older people with clinically significant cognitive impairment (53.3% in CFAS I to 71.5% in CFAS II). CONCLUSIONS: Use of potent anticholinergic medications nearly doubled in England's older population over 20 years with some of the greatest increases amongst those particularly vulnerable to anticholinergic side-effects.

Anticholinergic drugs and incident dementia, mild cognitive impairment and cognitive decline: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: the long-term effect of the use of drugs with anticholinergic activity on cognitive function remains unclear. METHODS: we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between anticholinergic drugs and risk of dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitive decline in the older population. We identified studies published between January 2002 and April 2018 with ≥12 weeks follow-up between strongly anticholinergic drug exposure and the study outcome measurement. We pooled adjusted odds ratios (OR) for studies reporting any, and at least short-term (90+ days) or long-term (365+ days) anticholinergic use for dementia and MCI outcomes, and standardised mean differences (SMD) in global cognition test scores for cognitive decline outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic and risk of bias using ROBINS-I. RESULTS: twenty-six studies (including 621,548 participants) met our inclusion criteria. 'Any' anticholinergic use was associated with incident dementia (OR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.32, I2 = 86%). Short-term and long-term use were also associated with incident dementia (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.29, I2 = 2%; and OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.22-1.85, I2 = 90%). 'Any' anticholinergic use was associated with cognitive decline (SMD 0.15; 95% CI 0.09-0.21, I2 = 3%) but showed no statistically significant difference for MCI (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97-1.59, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: anticholinergic drug use is associated with increased dementia incidence and cognitive decline in observational studies. However, a causal link cannot yet be inferred, as studies were observational with considerable risk of bias. Stronger evidence from high-quality studies is needed to guide the management of long-term use.

Structure and agency attributes of residents' use of dining space during mealtimes in care homes for older people.

Research stresses that mealtimes in care homes for older people are vital social events in residents' lives. Mealtimes have great importance for residents as they provide a sense of normality, reinforce individuals' identities and orientate their routines. This ethnographic study aimed to understand residents' use of dining spaces during mealtimes, specifically examining residents' table assignment processes. Data were collected in summer 2015 in three care homes located in England. The research settings looked after residents aged 65+, each having a distinct profile: a nursing home, a residential home for older people and a residential home for those with advanced dementia. Analyses revealed a two-stage table assignment process: 1. Allocation - where staff exert control by determining residents' seating. Allocation is inherently part of the care provided by the homes and reflects the structural element of living in an institution. This study identified three strategies for allocation adopted by the staff: (a) personal compatibilities; (b) according to gender and (c) 'continual allocation'. 2. Appropriation - it consists of residents routinely and willingly occupying the same space in the dining room. Appropriation helps residents to create and maintain their daily routines and it is an expression of their agency. The findings demonstrate the mechanisms of residents' table assignment and its importance for their routines, contributing towards a potentially more self-fulfilling life. These findings have implications for policy and care practices in residential and nursing homes.

Protocol for the process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of independent pharmacist prescribing in care home: the CHIPPS study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is ongoing to evaluate the effectiveness of an independent prescribing pharmacist assuming responsibility for medicines management in care homes compared to usual care. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation of the RCT, in line with Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation guidance, to inform interpretation of main trial findings and if the service is found to be effective and efficient, to inform subsequent implementation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe the intervention as delivered in terms of quality, quantity, adaptations and variations across triads and time. 2. To explore the effects of individual intervention components on the primary outcomes. 3. To investigate the mechanisms of impact. 4. To describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components [including pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP) training and care home staff training] from participant [general practitioner (GP), care home, PIP and resident/relative] perspectives. 5. To describe the characteristics of GP, care home, PIP and resident participants to assess reach. 6. To estimate the extent to which intervention delivery is normalised among the intervention healthcare professionals and related practice staff. METHODS: A mix of quantitative (surveys, record reviews) and qualitative (interviews) approaches will be used to collect data on the extent of the delivery of detailed tasks required to implement the new service, to collect data to confirm the mechanism of impact as hypothesised in the logic model, to collect explanatory process and final outcome data, and data on contextual factors which could have facilitated or hindered effective and efficient delivery of the service. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is ongoing and the trial should complete in early 2020. The systematic and comprehensive approach that is being adopted will ensure data is captured on all aspects of the study, and allow a full understanding of the implementation of the service and the RCT findings. With so many interrelated factors involved it is important that a process evaluation is undertaken to enable us to identify which elements of the service were deemed to be effective, explain any differences seen, and identify enablers, barriers and future adaptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17847169. Date registered: 15 December 2017.

Neuropathological Correlates of Cumulative Benzodiazepine and Anticholinergic Drug Use.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs have been implicated in causing cognitive decline and potentially increasing dementia risk. However, evidence for an association with neuropathology is limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the correlation between neuropathology at death and prior use of benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs. METHODS: We categorized 298 brain donors from the population-based Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study, according to their history of benzodiazepine (including Z-drugs) or anticholinergic medication (drugs scoring 3 on the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale) use. We used logistic regression to compare dichotomized neuropathological features for those with and without history of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use before dementia, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Forty-nine (16%) and 51 (17%) participants reported benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use. Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change was similar whether or not exposed to either drug, for example 46% and 57% had intermediate/high levels among those with and without anticholinergic drug use. Although not significant after multiple testing adjustments, we estimated an odds ratio (OR) of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.18-0.87) for anticholinergic use and cortical atrophy. For benzodiazepine use, we estimated ORs of 4.63 (1.11-19.24) and 3.30 (1.02-10.68) for neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis and substantial nigra. There was evidence of neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis with anticholinergic drug use, but the association reduced when adjusted for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that benzodiazepine or anticholinergic drug use is associated with typical pathological features of Alzheimer's disease; however, we cannot rule out effects owing to small numbers.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes: the CHIPPS study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. Research has identified the need for one person to assume overall responsibility for the management of medicines within each care home. and shown that a pharmacist independent prescriber service is feasible in this context. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-independent prescribing service in care homes compared to usual general practitioner (GP)-led care. OBJECTIVES: To perform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot to determine the intervention's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and enable modelling beyond the end of the trial. METHODS: This protocol is for a cluster RCT with a 3-month internal pilot to confirm that recruitment is achievable, and there are no safety concerns. The unit of randomisation is a triad comprising a pharmacist-independent prescriber (PIP) based in a GP practice with sufficient registered patients resident in one or more care homes to allow recruitment of an average of 20 participants. In the intervention group, the PIP will, in collaboration with the GP: assume responsibility for prescribing and managing residents' medicines including medication review and pharmaceutical care planning; support systematic ordering and administration in the care home, GP practice and supplying pharmacy; train care home and GP practice staff; communicate with GP practice, care home, supplying community pharmacy and study team. The intervention will last 6 months. The primary outcome will be resident falls at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include resident health-related quality of life, falls at 3 months, medication burden, medication appropriateness, mortality and hospitalisations. A full health economic analysis will be undertaken. The target sample size is 880 residents (440) in each arm) from 44 triads. This number is sufficient to detect a decrease in fall rate from 1.5 per individual to 1.178 (relative reduction of 21%) with 80% power and an ICC of 0.05 or less. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is on-going and the trial should complete in early 2020. The trial results will have implications for the future management of residents in care homes and the ongoing implementation of independent pharmacist prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: 17847169. Registered on 15 December 2017.

Changing prevalence and treatment of depression among older people over two decades.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a leading cause of disability, with older people particularly susceptible to poor outcomes. AIMS: To investigate whether the prevalence of depression and antidepressant use have changed across two decades in older people. METHOD: The Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I and CFAS II) are two English population-based cohort studies of older people aged ≥65 years, with baseline measurements for each cohort conducted two decades apart (between 1990 and 1993 and between 2008 and 2011). Depression was assessed by the Geriatric Mental State examination and diagnosed with the Automated Geriatric Examination for Computer-Assisted Taxonomy algorithm. RESULTS: In CFAS I, 7635 people aged ≥65 years were interviewed, of whom 1457 were diagnostically assessed. In CFAS II, 7762 people were interviewed and diagnostically assessed. Age-standardised depression prevalence in CFAS II was 6.8% (95% CI 6.3-7.5%), representing a non-significant decline from CFAS I (risk ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.07, P = 0.14). At the time of CFAS II, 10.7% of the population (95% CI 10.0-11.5%) were taking antidepressant medication, more than twice that of CFAS I (risk ratio 2.79, 95% CI 1.96-3.97, P < 0.0001). Among care home residents, depression prevalence was unchanged, but the use of antidepressants increased from 7.4% (95% CI 3.8-13.8%) to 29.2% (95% CI 22.6-36.7%). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial increase in the proportion of the population reporting taking antidepressant medication is seen across two decades for people aged ≥65 years. However there was no evidence for a change in age-specific prevalence of depression.

Collaborative Learning in Practice (CLIP): Evaluation of a new approach to clinical learning.

BACKGROUND: There are challenges in creating positive clinical learning environments. A new model of practice learning for pre-registration nurse education was pilot-tested in the East of England. The Collaborative Learning in Practice model (CLIP) was developed from a similar model of practice learning used in the Netherlands. OBJECTIVES: We undertook an evaluation of a new approach to clinical learning. The aims of the project were to consider the challenges of implementation; consider the perception of gains and losses of students and stakeholders experiencing the new model of practice learning; and consider the sustainability of the new model in the context of service delivery. METHODS: Mixed methods were used. Data were collected in three forms: (1) a survey of students undertaking the CLIP model and those learning within the existing mentorship model to assess the supervisory relationships and pedagogical atmosphere experienced; (2) student focus groups; and (3) qualitative one-to-one interviews with key stakeholders in the provision of practice learning environments. RESULTS: A total of 607 questionnaires were returned out of the 738 distributed, five focus groups of a total of 30 students were undertaken, and 13 stakeholders were interviewed. Students who had experienced CLIP reported lower supervisory relationship scores compared with those without experience (mean difference = -0.24 points, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.094, p = 0.001). There was no difference in pedagogical atmosphere scores (mean difference -0.085 points, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.040, p = 0.19). Analysis of qualitative data produced two themes: 'Adapting the environment' illustrated the importance of learning context and 'learning to fly' highlighted the process of students gaining greater autonomy. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that collaborative learning in practice offers many benefits as an approach to clinical learning but with important caveats. Attention needs to be paid to particular aspects of the model such as sufficient numbers of students, and an acknowledgement of perceived losses as well as gains.

Anticholinergic and benzodiazepine medication use and risk of incident dementia: a UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that anticholinergic medication or benzodiazepine use could increase dementia risk. We tested this hypothesis using data from a UK cohort study. METHODS: We used data from the baseline (Y0), 2-year (Y2) and 10-year (Y10) waves of the Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. Participants without dementia at Y2 were included (n = 8216). Use of benzodiazepines (including nonbenzodiazepine Z-drugs), anticholinergics with score 3 (ACB3) and anticholinergics with score 1 or 2 (ACB12) according to the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale were coded as ever use (use at Y0 or Y2), recurrent use (Y0 and Y2), new use (Y2, but not Y0) or discontinued use (Y0, but not Y2). The outcome was incident dementia by Y10. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson regression adjusted for potential confounders. Pre-planned subgroup analyses were conducted by age, sex and Y2 Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score. RESULTS: Dementia incidence was 9.3% (N = 220 cases) between Y2 and Y10. The adjusted IRRs (95%CI) of developing dementia were 1.06 (0.72, 1.60), 1.28 (0.82, 2.00) and 0.89 (0.68, 1.17) for benzodiazepines, ACB3 and ACB12 ever-users compared with non-users. For recurrent users the respective IRRs were 1.30 (0.79, 2.14), 1.68 (1.00, 2.82) and 0.95 (0.71, 1.28). ACB3 ever-use was associated with dementia among those with Y2 MMSE> 25 (IRR = 2.28 [1.32-3.92]), but not if Y2 MMSE≤25 (IRR = 0.94 [0.51-1.73]). CONCLUSIONS: Neither benzodiazepines nor ACB12 medications were associated with dementia. Recurrent use of ACB3 anticholinergics was associated with dementia, particularly in those with good baseline cognitive function. The long-term prescribing of anticholinergics should be avoided in older people.

The Care Home Independent Prescribing Pharmacist Study (CHIPPS)-a non-randomised feasibility study of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes.

BACKGROUND: Residents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification. METHODS: Mixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident's quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants' views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Across the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload. CONCLUSION: Implementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020.

How do potentially inappropriate medications and polypharmacy affect mortality in frail and non-frail cognitively impaired older adults? A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether the use of potentially inappropriate central nervous system acting medications, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or polypharmacy are associated with mortality in cognitively impaired older adults and whether frailer people are at greater risk of harm. SETTING: A cohort study nested within the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study II, a population representative cohort study of the older population in Cambridgeshire, Nottingham and Newcastle, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1154 cognitively impaired participants, aged 65 years or older. EXPOSURES: Any use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, other anticholinergic medication, benzodiazepines or PPIs, polypharmacy (5-9) and hyperpolypharmacy (≥10 reported medications) were ascertained at baseline. Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Mortality up to 8 years follow-up. HRs associated with potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), frailty and their interaction were estimated adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Within the sample, 44% were taking one or more PIM. Apart from antipsychotics (adjusted HR=3.24, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.73), use of specific PIM was not associated with greater subsequent mortality. Polypharmacy (HR=1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.45) and hyperpolypharmacy were associated with mortality (HR=1.60, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22). Being frail (HR=1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.72) or prefrail (HR=1.56, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.20) was associated with increased mortality. There was some evidence that the HR for polypharmacy on mortality was lower among frailer individuals, but the overall polypharmacy by frailty interaction was not statistically significant (p=0.102). CONCLUSIONS: For those with cognitive impairment, greater concern should be afforded to the number of medications than the prescription of specific classes. Frailer individuals may have a lower relative risk of mortality associated with polypharmacy than less frail individuals.

Dementia Friendly Communities in England: A scoping study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of Dementia Friendly Communities (DFCs) across England in order to inform a national evaluation of their impact on the lives of those affected by dementia. METHODS: DFCs in England were identified through online searches and Alzheimer's Society records. A subsample (n = 100) were purposively selected for in-depth study based on online searches and, where necessary, follow-up telephone calls. Data collection and analysis were guided by a pilot evaluation tool for DFCs that addressed how DFCs are organised and resourced and how their impact is assessed. The evidence was predominantly qualitative, in addition to some descriptive quantitative information. RESULTS: Of 284 DFCs identified, 251 were defined by geographical location, while 33 were communities of interest. Among 100 sampled DFCs, 89 had been set up or started activities following policy endorsement of DFCs in 2012. In the resourcing of DFCs, statutory agencies and charities played an important role. Among DFC activities, awareness raising was cited most commonly. There was some evidence of involvement of people living with dementia in organisational and operational aspects of DFCs. Approaches to evaluation varied, with little evidence of findings having effected change. CONCLUSIONS: DFCs are characterised by variation in type, resourcing, and activities. England has policy endorsement and a recognition system for DFCs. These can be important catalysts for initiation and growth. A systematic approach to evaluation is lacking. This would enable DFCs to be consistent in how they demonstrate progress and how they enable people living with dementia to live well.