Development of the Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology: a qualitative synthesis of interventions in randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Community-based services to sustain independence for older people have varying configurations. A typology of these interventions would improve service provision and research by providing conceptual clarity and enabling the identification of effective configurations. We aimed to produce such a typology. METHOD: We developed our typology by qualitatively synthesising community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in four stages: (i) systematically identifying relevant RCTs; (ii) extracting descriptions of interventions (including control) using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication; (iii) generating categories of key intervention features and (iv) grouping the interventions based on these categories. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019162195. RESULTS: Our search identified 129 RCTs involving 266 intervention arms. The Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology comprises 14 action components and 5 tailoring components. Action components include procedures for treating patients or otherwise intended to directly improve their outcomes; regular examples include formal homecare; physical exercise; health education; activities of daily living training; providing aids and adaptations and nutritional support. Tailoring components involve a process that may result in care planning, with multiple action components being planned, recommended or prescribed. Multifactorial action from care planning was the most common tailoring component. It involves individualised, multidomain assessment and management, as in comprehensive geriatric assessment. Sixty-three different intervention types (combinations) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our typology provides an empirical basis for service planning and evidence synthesis. We recommend better reporting about organisational aspects of interventions and usual care.

The influence of immobility on muscle loss in older people with frailty and fragility fractures.

This longitudinal study aimed to assess muscle morphological and functional changes in older patients admitted with fragility fractures managed by immobilisation of the affected limb for at least 6 weeks. Patients aged ≥ 70 hospitalised with non-weight bearing limb fractures, and functionally limited to transfers only, were recruited. Handgrip (HGS) and knee extensor strength (KES), Vastus Lateralis muscle thickness (VLMT) and cross-sectional area at ultrasound (VLCSA) were measured in the non-injured limb at hospital admission, 1, 3 and 6 weeks later. Barthel Index, mobility aid use and residential status were recorded at baseline and 16 weeks. Longitudinal changes in muscle measurements were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. In a sub-study, female patients' baseline measurements were compared to 11 healthy, female, non-frail, non-hospitalised control volunteers (HC) with comparable BMI, aged ≥ 70, using independent t tests. Fifty patients (44 female) participated. Neither muscle strength nor muscle size changed over a 6-week immobilisation. Dependency increased significantly from pre-fracture to 16 weeks. At baseline, the patient subgroup was weaker (HGS 9.2 ± 4.7 kg vs. 19.9 ± 5.8 kg, p < 0.001; KES 4.5 ± 1.5 kg vs. 7.8 ± 1.3 kg, p < 0.001) and had lower muscle size (VLMT 1.38 ± 0.47 cm vs. 1.75 ± 0.30 cm, p = 0.02; VLCSA 8.92 ± 4.37 cm2 vs. 13.35 ± 3.97 cm2, p = 0.005) than HC. The associations with lower muscle strength measures but not muscle size remained statistically significant after adjustment for age. Patients with non-weight bearing fractures were weaker than HC even after accounting for age differences. Although functional dependency increased after fracture, this was not related to muscle mass or strength loss, which remained unchanged.

RCT-based Social Return on Investment (SROI) of a Home Exercise Program for People With Early Dementia Comparing In-Person and Blended Delivery Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Regular exercise and community engagement may slow the rate of function loss for people with dementia. However, the evidence is uncertain regarding the cost-effectiveness and social return on investment (SROI) of home exercise with community referral for people with dementia. This study aimed to compare the social value generated from the in-person PrAISED program delivered before March 2020 with a blended PrAISED program delivered after March 2020. SROI methodology compared in-person and blended delivery formats of a home exercise program. Stakeholders were identified, a logic model was developed, outcomes were evidenced and valued, costs were calculated, and SROI ratios were estimated. Five relevant and material outcomes were identified: 3 outcomes for patient participants (fear of falling, health-related quality of life, and social connection); 1 outcome for carer participants (carer strain), and 1 outcome for the National Health Service (NHS) (health service resource use). Data were collected at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The in-person PrAISED program generated SROI ratios ranging from £0.58 to £2.33 for every £1 invested. In-person PrAISED patient participants gained social value from improved health-related quality of life, social connection, and less fear of falling. In-person PrAISED carer participants acquired social value from less carer strain. The NHS gained benefit from less health care service resource use. However, the blended PrAISED program generated lower SROI ratios ranging from a negative ratio to £0.08:£1. Compared with the blended program, the PrAISED in-person program generated higher SROI ratios for people with early dementia. An in-person PrAISED intervention with community referral is likely to provide better value for money than a blended one with limited community referral, despite the greater costs of the former.Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15320670.

Factors influencing the commissioning and implementation of health and social care interventions for people with dementia: commissioner and stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Despite several interventions demonstrating benefit to people living with dementia and their caregivers, few have been translated and implemented in routine clinical practice. There is limited evidence of the barriers and facilitators for commissioning and implementing health and social care interventions for people living with dementia. The aim of the current study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to commissioning and implementing health and social care interventions for people with dementia, using a dementia friendly exercise and physical activity-based intervention (PrAISED [Promoting Activity, Stability and Independence in Early Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment]) as a case study. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders from a range of backgrounds including individuals from health and social care, local government, the voluntary and community sector, universities, and research centres in England. The Consolidated Framework for Intervention Research (CFIR) was used to guide the design and analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen participants took part, including commissioning managers, service managers, partnership managers, charity representatives, commercial research specialists, academics/researchers, and healthcare professionals. Data were represented in 33 constructs across the five CFIR domains. Participants identified a need for greater support for people diagnosed with dementia and their caregivers immediately post dementia diagnosis. Key barriers included cost/financing, the culture of commissioning, and available resources. Key facilitators included the adaptability of the intervention, cosmopolitanism/partnerships and connections, external policy and incentives, and the use of already existing (and untapped) workforces. CONCLUSION: Several barriers and facilitators for commissioning and implementing health and social care interventions for people with dementia were identified which need to be addressed. Recommended actions to facilitate the commissioning and implementation of dementia friendly services are: 1) map out local needs, 2) evidence the intervention including effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, 3) create/utilise networks with stakeholders, and 4) plan required resources.

Development and validation of a trauma frailty scale in severely injured patients: the Nottingham Trauma Frailty Index.

Aims: Frailty greatly increases the risk of adverse outcome of trauma in older people. Frailty detection tools appear to be unsuitable for use in traumatically injured older patients. We therefore aimed to develop a method for detecting frailty in older people sustaining trauma using routinely collected clinical data. Methods: We analyzed prospectively collected registry data from 2,108 patients aged ≥ 65 years who were admitted to a single major trauma centre over five years (1 October 2015 to 31 July 2020). We divided the sample equally into two, creating derivation and validation samples. In the derivation sample, we performed univariate analyses followed by multivariate regression, starting with 27 clinical variables in the registry to predict Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; range 1 to 9) scores. Bland-Altman analyses were performed in the validation cohort to evaluate any biases between the Nottingham Trauma Frailty Index (NTFI) and the CFS. Results: In the derivation cohort, five of the 27 variables were strongly predictive of the CFS (regression coefficient B = 6.383 (95% confidence interval 5.03 to 7.74), p < 0.001): age, Abbreviated Mental Test score, admission haemoglobin concentration (g/l), pre-admission mobility (needs assistance or not), and mechanism of injury (falls from standing height). In the validation cohort, there was strong agreement between the NTFI and the CFS (mean difference 0.02) with no apparent systematic bias. Conclusion: We have developed a clinically applicable tool using easily and routinely measured physiological and functional parameters, which clinicians and researchers can use to guide patient care and to stratify the analysis of quality improvement and research projects.

Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES: Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS: The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

The Difficulties of Managing Pain in People Living with Frailty: The Potential for Digital Phenotyping.

Pain and frailty are closely linked. Chronic pain is a risk factor for frailty, and frailty is a risk factor for pain. People living with frailty also commonly have cognitive impairment, which can make assessment of pain and monitoring of pain management even more difficult. Pain may be sub-optimally treated in people living with frailty, people living with cognitive impairment and those with both these factors. Reasons for sub-optimal treatment in these groups are pharmacological (increased drug side effects, drug-drug interactions, polypharmacy), non-pharmacological (erroneous beliefs about pain, ageism, bidirectional communication challenges), logistical (difficulty in accessing primary care practitioners and unaffordable cost of drugs), and, particularly in cognitive impairment, related to communication difficulties. Thorough assessment and characterisation of pain, related sensations, and their functional, emotional, and behavioural consequences ("phenotyping") may help to enhance the assessment of pain, particularly in people with frailty and cognitive impairment, as this may help to identify who is most likely to respond to certain types of treatment. This paper discusses the potential role of "digital phenotyping" in the assessment and management of pain in people with frailty. Digital phenotyping is concerned with observable characteristics in digital form, such as those obtained from sensing-capable devices, and may provide novel and more informative data than existing clinical approaches regarding how pain manifests and how treatment strategies affect it. The processing of extensive digital and usual data may require powerful algorithms, but processing these data could lead to a better understanding of who is most likely to benefit from specific and targeted treatments.

Spotlight on the academic multidisciplinary team: proposals from the 3rd NIHR Newcastle BRC Academic Geriatric Medicine Workshop.

High-quality care for older people is best delivered by multidisciplinary teams involving a range of professions. Similarly, if research evidence is to effectively inform practice, it needs to be designed and executed by teams that are both multidisciplinary and multiprofessional. Here, we summarise the discussions from a 1-day workshop convened by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre in Spring 2021, which focussed on multidisciplinary academic teams. Barriers to success include small numbers of clinical academic researchers across all professions focussing on older people, and lack of career pathways, role models and support for non-medical clinical researchers. The workshop identified strengths in the tradition of multidisciplinary working in the care of older people, research questions that lend themselves naturally to multidisciplinary working, increasing interest from funders in multidisciplinary research, and untapped opportunities for greater commercial engagement. Initiatives to improve engagement of students and trainees, mentorship, career pathways, networking across research centres and possibly developing a national School of Older People's Care Research are all ways that we can ensure the growth of multidisciplinary research to best serve older people's health and social care in the future.

The effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on hospitalised adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is a treatment to prevent or reverse acquired disability in hospitalised adults. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of its effectiveness. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) and the Cochrane library. Inclusion criteria: randomised controlled trials of hospitalised adult patients comparing NMES to control or usual care. The primary outcome was muscle strength. Secondary outcomes were muscle size, function, hospital length of stay, molecular and cellular biomarkers, and adverse effects. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used Review Manager (RevMan) software for data extraction, critical appraisal and synthesis. We assessed certainty using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. RESULTS: A total of 42 papers were included involving 1,452 participants. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias. NMES had a small effect on muscle strength (moderate certainty) (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.33; P < 0.00001), a moderate effect on muscle size (moderate certainty) (SMD = 0.66; P < 0.005), a small effect on walking performance (moderate certainty) (SMD = 0.48; P < 0.0001) and a small effect on functional mobility (low certainty) (SMD = 0.31; P < 0.05). There was a small and non-significant effect on health-related quality of life (very low certainty) (SMD = 0.35; P > 0.05). In total, 9% of participants reported undesirable experiences. The effects of NMES on length of hospital stay, and molecular and cellular biomarkers were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: NMES is a promising intervention component that might help to reduce or prevent hospital-acquired disability.

Promoting Activity, Independence, and Stability in Early Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (PrAISED): randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of an exercise and functional activity therapy intervention in adults with early dementia or mild cognitive impairment compared with usual care. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants' homes and communities at five sites in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 365 adults with early dementia or mild cognitive impairment who were living at home, and family members or carers. INTERVENTION: The intervention, Promoting activity, Independence, and Stability in Early Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (PrAISED), was a specially designed, dementia specific, rehabilitation programme focusing on strength, balance, physical activity, and performance of activities of daily living, which was tailored and progressive and addressed risk and the psychological needs of people with dementia. Up to 50 therapy sessions were provided over 12 months. The control group received usual care plus a falls risk assessment. Procedures were adapted during the covid-19 pandemic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was score on the carer (informant) reported disability assessment for dementia scale 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported activities of daily living, physical activity, quality of life, balance, functional mobility, fear of falling, frailty, cognition, mood, carer strain, service use at 12 months, and falls between months 4 and 15. RESULTS: 365 patient participants were randomised, 183 to intervention and 182 to control. The median age of participants was 80 years (range 65-95), median Montreal cognitive assessment score was 20 out of 30 (range 13-26), and 58% (n=210) were men. Intervention participants received a median of 31 therapy sessions (interquartile range 22-40) and reported completing a mean 121 minutes of PrAISED exercise each week. Primary outcome data were available for 149 intervention and 141 control participants. Scores on the disability assessment for dementia scale did not differ between groups: adjusted mean difference -1.3, 95% confidence interval -5.2 to 2.6; Cohen's d effect size -0.06, 95% confidence interval -0.26 to 0.15; P=0.51). Upper 95% confidence intervals excluded small to moderate effects on any of the range of outcome measures. Between months 4 and 15 the intervention group experienced 79 falls and the control group 200 falls (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3; P=0.3). CONCLUSION: The intensive PrAISED programme of exercise and functional activity training did not improve activities of daily living, physical activity, or quality of life; reduce falls; or improve any other secondary health status outcomes, despite good uptake. Future research should consider alternative approaches to maintaining ability and wellbeing in people with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15320670.

The facilitators and barriers to improving functional activity and wellbeing in people with dementia: a qualitative study from the process evaluation of Promoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia (PrAISED).

BACKGROUND: The PRomoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia (PrAISED) study delivered an exercise and functional activity programme to participants living with dementia. A Randomised Controlled Trial showed no measurable benefits in activities of daily living, physical activity or quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To explore participants' responses to PrAISED and explain why an intervention that might be expected to have produced measurable health gains did not do so. METHODS: A process evaluation using qualitative methods, comprising interviews and researcher notes. SETTING: Data were collected in participants' homes or remotely by telephone or videoconferencing. SAMPLE: A total of 88 interviews were conducted with 44 participants living with dementia (n = 32 intervention group; n = 12 control group) and 39 caregivers. A total of 69 interviews were conducted with 26 therapists. RESULTS: Participants valued the intervention as proactively addressing health issues that were of concern to them, and as a source of social contact, interaction, information and advice. Facilitators to achieving positive outcomes included perceiving progress towards desired goals, positive expectations, therapists' skills and rapport with participants, and caregiver support. Barriers included: cognitive impairment, which prevented independent engagement and carry-over between sessions; chronic physical health problems and intercurrent acute illness and injury; 'tapering' (progressively infrequent supervision intended to help develop habits and independent activity); and the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Self-directed interventions may not be appropriate in the context of dementia, even in the mild stages of the condition. Dementia-specific factors affected outcomes including caregiver support, rapport with therapists, availability of supervision, motivational factors and the limitations of remote delivery. The effects of cognitive impairment, multimorbidity and frailty overwhelmed any positive impact of the intervention. Maintenance of functional ability is valued, but in the face of inevitable progression of disease, other less tangible outcomes become important, challenging how we frame 'health gain' and trial outcomes.

"Crack on": a qualitative study of care home managers experiences and responses to system-led setbacks during the crisis of the COVID-19 Pandemic in England.

OBJECTIVES: To explore care home managers' experiences of systems working with various organisations, including statutory, third sector and private, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from Sept 2020 to April 2021 DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative interview study using a systems theory approach focussing on the intersections of relationship interdependencies with other organisations. SETTING: Conducted remotely with care home managers and key advisors who had worked since the start of the pandemic in/with care homes for older people across the East Midlands, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 8 care home managers and 2 end-of-life advisors who participated during the second wave of the pandemic from Sept 2020. A total of 18 care home managers participated in the wider study from April 2020 to April 2021 RESULTS: Four organisational relationship interdependencies were identified: care practices, resources governance and wise working. Managers identified changes in their care practices as a shift towards the normalisation of care, with an emphasis on navigating pandemic restrictions to fit the context. Resources such as staffing, clinical reviews, pharmaceutical and equipment supplies were challenged, leading to a sense of precarity and tension. National polices and local guidance were fragmented, complex and disconnected from the reality of managing a care home. As a response a highly pragmatic reflexive style of management was identified which encompassed the use of mastery to navigate and in some cases circumvent official systems and mandates. Managers' experience of persistent and multiple setbacks were viewed as negative and confirmed their views that care homes as a sector ere marginalised by policy makers and statutory bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Interactions with various organisations shaped the ways in which care home managers responded to and sought to maximise residents and staff well-being. Some relationships dissolved over time, such as when local business and schools returned to normal obligations. Other newly formed relationships became more robust including those with other care home managers, families, and hospices. Significantly, most managers viewed their relationship with local authority and national statutory bodies as detrimental to effective working, leading to a sense of increased mistrust and ambiguity. Respect, recognition and meaningful collaboration with the care home sector should underpin any future attempts to introduce practice change in the sector.

Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report our experience using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two reviewers independently applied RoB 2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded the time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored the time taken with regression analysis and summarized our experience of implementing the tool. RESULTS: We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (ß = 22) and reports (ß = 14) per study and experience of the team (ß = -6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently, we developed cut points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan. CONCLUSION: The RoB 2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk of bias implementation. Improved guidance focusing on implementation could assist reviewers.

Does frailty status predict outcome in major trauma in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of major trauma in older people is increasing. Frailty is likely to be a factor that influences the outcomes of trauma. We conducted a systematic review aiming to investigate whether frailty affects major trauma outcomes in older people and whether it is more predictive than age. METHODS: Observational studies investigating frailty, major trauma severity and outcomes were eligible. We searched electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and CINAHL) from 2010 to 01 January 2023. We used Joanna Briggs Institute software to assess the risk of bias and conduct meta-analyses of the relationships between frailty status and outcomes. We used a narrative synthesis to compare the predictive value of frailty and age. RESULTS: Twelve studies were eligible for meta-analyses. In-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05, 1.19), length of stay (OR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.51, 2.56), discharge to home (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.53, 0.63) and in-hospital complications (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.10, 1.24) were all associated with frailty. Frailty was found to be a more consistent predictor of adverse outcomes and mortality in older trauma patients than injury severity and age in six studies that reported multivariate regression analysis. DISCUSSION: Older trauma patients with frailty have higher in-hospital mortality rates, prolonged hospital stays, in-hospital complications and adverse discharge disposition. Frailty is a better predictor of adverse outcomes than age in these patients. Frailty status is likely to be a useful prognostic variable in guiding patient management and stratifying clinical benchmarks and research trials.

The bidirectional relationship between chronic joint pain and frailty: data from the Investigating Musculoskeletal Health and Wellbeing cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pain and frailty are associated, but this relationship is insufficiently understood. We aimed to test whether there is a unidirectional or bidirectional relationship between joint pain and frailty. METHODS: Data were from Investigating Musculoskeletal Health and Wellbeing, a UK-based cohort. Average joint pain severity over the previous month was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Frailty was classified as present/absent using the FRAIL questionnaire. Multivariable regression assessed the association between joint pain and frailty, adjusted for age, sex, and BMI class. Two-wave cross-lagged path modelling permitted simultaneous exploration of plausible causal pathways between pain intensity and frailty at baseline and 1-year. Transitions were assessed using t-tests. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-nine participants were studied, 53% female, with a median age of 73 (range 60 to 95) years. FRAIL classified 176 (15%) participants as frail at baseline. Mean (SD) baseline pain score was 5.2 (2.5). Pain NRS ≥ 4 was observed in 172 (99%) of frail participants. Pain severity was associated with frailty at baseline (aOR 1.72 (95%CI 1.56 to 1.92)). In cross-lagged path analysis, higher baseline pain predicted 1-year frailty [ß = 0.25, (95%CI 0.14 to 0.36), p < 0.001] and baseline frailty predicted higher 1-year pain [ß = 0.06, (95%CI 0.003 to 0.11), p = 0.040]. Participants transitioning to frailty over one year had higher mean pain scores (6.4 (95%CI 5.8 to 7.1)) at baseline than those who remained non-frail (4.7 (95%CI 4.5 to 4.8)), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The bidirectional relationship between pain and frailty could lead to a vicious cycle in which each accelerates the other's progression. This justifies attempts to prevent frailty by addressing pain and to include pain measures as an outcome in frailty studies.

Chronic pain in people living with dementia: challenges to recognising and managing pain, and personalising intervention by phenotype.

Pain is common in people with dementia, and pain can exacerbate the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Effective pain management is challenging, not least in people with dementia. Impairments of cognition, communication and abstract thought can make communicating pain unreliable or impossible. It is unclear which biopsychosocial interventions for pain management are effective in people with dementia, and which interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia are effective in people with pain. The result is that drugs, physical therapies and psychological therapies might be either underused or overused. People with dementia and pain could be helped by assessment processes that characterise an individual's pain experience and dementia behaviours in a mechanistic manner, phenotyping. Chronic pain management has moved from a 'one size fits all' approach, towards personalised medicine, where interventions recommended for an individual depend upon the key mechanisms underlying their pain, and the relative values they place on benefits and adverse effects. Mechanistic phenotyping through careful personalised evaluation would define the mechanisms driving pain and dementia behaviours in an individual, enabling the formulation of a personalised intervention strategy. Central pain processing mechanisms are particularly likely to be important in people with pain and dementia, and interventions to accommodate and address these may be particularly helpful, not only to relieve pain but also the symptoms of dementia.

Sustaining interventions in care homes initiated by quality improvement projects: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate and varied quality of care in care homes has led to a proliferation of quality improvement (QI) projects. This study examined the sustainability of interventions initiated by such projects. METHOD: This qualitative study explored the sustainability of seven interventions initiated by three QI projects between 2016 and 2018 in UK care homes and explored the perceived influences to the sustainability of interventions. QI projects were followed up in 2019. Staff leading QI projects (n=9) and care home (n=21, from 13 care homes) and healthcare (n=2) staff took part in semi-structured interviews. Interventions were classified as sustained if the intervention was continued at the point of the study. Thematic analysis of interview data was performed, drawing on the Consolidated Framework for Sustainability (CFS), a 40-construct model of sustainability of interventions. RESULTS: Three interventions were sustained and four interventions were not. Seven themes described perceptions around what influenced sustainability: monitoring outcomes and regular check-in; access to replacement intervention materials; staff willingness to dedicate time and effort towards interventions; continuity of staff and thorough handover/inductions in place for new staff; ongoing communication and awareness raising; perceived effectiveness; and addressing care home priorities. All study themes fell within 18 of the 40 CFS constructs. DISCUSSION: Our findings resonate with the CFS and are also consistent with implementation theories, suggesting sustainability is best addressed during implementation rather than treated as a separate process which follows implementation. Commissioning and funding QI projects should address these considerations early on, during implementation.

A realist evaluation of a multifactorial falls prevention programme in care homes.

BACKGROUND: falls in care homes are common, costly and hard to prevent.Multifactorial falls programmes demonstrate clinical and cost-effectiveness, but the heterogeneity of the care home sector is a barrier to their implementation. A fuller appreciation of the relationship between care home context and falls programme delivery will guide development and support implementation. METHODS: this is a multi-method process evaluation informed by a realist approach.Data include fidelity observations, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, documentary review and falls-rate data. Thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics are synthesised to generate care home case studies. RESULTS: data were collected in six care homes where a falls programme was trialled. Forty-four interviews and 11 focus groups complemented observations and document review.The impact of the programme varied. Five factors were identified: (i) prior practice and (ii) training may inhibit new ways of working; (iii) some staff may be reluctant to take responsibility for falls; (iv) some may feel that residents living with dementia cannot be prevented from falling; and, (v) changes to management may disturb local innovation.In some care homes, training and improved awareness generated a reduction in falls without formal assessments being carried out. CONCLUSIONS: different aspects of the falls programme sparked different mechanisms in different settings, with differing impact upon falls.The evaluation has shown that elements of a multifactorial falls programme can work independently of each other and that it is the local context (and local challenges faced), which should shape how a falls programme is implemented.

Association of pain and risk of falls in community-dwelling adults: a prospective study in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE).

PURPOSE: To investigate the longitudinal associations between pain and falls risks in adults. METHODS: Prospective cohort study on data from 40,636 community-dwelling adults ≥ 50 years assessed in Wave 5 and 6 in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Socio-demographic and clinical information was collected at baseline (Wave 5). At 2-year follow-up (Wave 6), falls in the previous 6 months were recorded. The longitudinal associations between pain intensity, number of pain sites and pain in specific anatomic sites, respectively, and falls risk were analysed by binary logistic regression models; odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. All analyses were adjusted for socio-demographic and clinical factors and stratified by sex. RESULTS: Mean age was 65.8 years (standard deviation 9.3; range 50-103); 22,486 (55.3%) participants were women. At follow-up, 2805 (6.9%) participants reported fall(s) in the previous 6 months. After adjustment, participants with moderate and severe pain at baseline had an increased falls risk at follow-up of 1.35 (1.21-1.51) and 1.52 (1.31-1.75), respectively, compared to those without pain (both p < 0.001); mild pain was not associated with falls risk. Associations between pain intensity and falls risk were greater at younger age (p for interaction < 0.001). Among participants with pain, pain in ≥ 2 sites or all over (multisite pain) was associated with an increased falls risk of 1.29 (1.14-1.45) compared to pain in one site (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate, severe and multisite pain were associated with an increased risk of subsequent falls in adults.

Can the Clinical Frailty Scale on admission predict 30-day survival, postoperative complications, and institutionalization in patients with fragility hip fracture? : a cohort study of 1,255 patients.

AIMS: We assessed the value of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in the prediction of adverse outcome after hip fracture. METHODS: Of 1,577 consecutive patients aged > 65 years with a fragility hip fracture admitted to one institution, for whom there were complete data, 1,255 (72%) were studied. Clinicians assigned CFS scores on admission. Audit personnel routinely prospectively completed the Standardised Audit of Hip Fracture in Europe form, including the following outcomes: 30-day survival; in-hospital complications; length of acute hospital stay; and new institutionalization. The relationship between the CFS scores and outcomes was examined graphically and the visual interpretations were tested statistically. The predictive values of the CFS and Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) to predict 30-day mortality were compared using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Significant non-linear associations between CFS and outcomes were observed. Risk of death within 30 days rose linearly for CFS 1 to 5, but plateaued for CFS > 5. The incidence of complications and length of stay rose linearly for CFS 1 to 4, but plateaued for CFS > 4. In contrast, the risk of new institutionalization rose linearly for CFS 1 to 8. The AUCs for 30-day mortality for the CFS and NHFS were very similar: CFS AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.69) and NHFS AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.69). CONCLUSION: Use of the CFS may provide useful information on outcomes for fitter patients presenting with hip fracture, but completion of the CFS by the admitting orthopaedic team does not appear successful in distinguishing between higher CFS categories, which define patients with frailty. This makes a strong case for the role of the orthogeriatrician in the early assessment of these patients. Further work is needed to understand why patients assessed as being of mild, moderate, and severe frailty do not result in different outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):980-986.