Does proactive care in care homes improve survival? A quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: NHS England's 'Enhanced Health in Care Homes' specification aims to make the healthcare of care home residents more proactive. Primary care networks (PCNs) are contracted to provide this, but approaches vary widely: challenges include frailty identification, multidisciplinary team (MDT) capability/capacity and how the process is structured and delivered. AIM: To determine whether a proactive healthcare model could improve healthcare outcomes for care home residents. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quality improvement project involving 429 residents in 40 care homes in a non-randomised crossover cohort design. The headline outcome was 2-year survival. METHOD: All care home residents had healthcare coordinated by the PCN's Older Peoples' Hub. A daily MDT managed the urgent healthcare needs of residents. Proactive healthcare, comprising information technology-assisted comprehensive geriatric assessment (i-CGA) and advanced care planning (ACP), were completed by residents, with prioritisation based on clinical needs.Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was used with patients divided into two groups:Control group: received routine and urgent (reactive) care only.Intervention group: additional proactive i-CGA and ACP. RESULTS: By 2 years, control group survival was 8.6% (n=108), compared with 48.1% in the intervention group (n=321), p<0.001. This represented a 39.6% absolute risk reduction in mortality, 70.2% relative risk reduction and the number needed to treat of 2.5, with little changes when adjusting for confounding variables. CONCLUSION: A PCN with an MDT-hub offering additional proactive care (with an i-CGA and ACP) in addition to routine and urgent/reactive care may improve the 2-year survival in older people compared with urgent/reactive care alone.

IT-assisted comprehensive geriatric assessment for residents in care homes: quasi-experimental longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty interventions such as Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) can provide significant benefits for older adults living with frailty. However, incorporating such proactive interventions into primary care remains a challenge. We developed an IT-assisted CGA (i-CGA) process, which includes advance care planning (ACP). We assessed if, in older care home residents, particularly those with severe frailty, i-CGA could improve access to advance care planning discussions and reduce unplanned hospitalisations. METHOD: As a quality improvement project we progressively incorporated our i-CGA process into routine primary care for older care home residents, and used a quasi-experimental approach to assess its interim impact. Residents were assessed for frailty by General Practitioners. Proactive i-CGAs were completed, including consideration of traditional CGA domains, deprescribing and ACP discussions. Interim analysis was conducted at 1 year: documented completion, preferences and adherence to ACPs, unplanned hospital admissions, and mortality rates were compared for i-CGA and control (usual care) groups, 1-year post-i-CGA or post-frailty diagnosis respectively. Documented ACP preferences and place of death were compared using the Chi-Square Test. Unplanned hospital admissions and bed days were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: At one year, the i-CGA group comprised 196 residents (severe frailty 111, 57%); the control group 100 (severe frailty 56, 56%). ACP was documented in 100% of the i-CGA group, vs. 72% of control group, p < 0.0001. 85% (94/111) of severely frail i-CGA residents preferred not to be hospitalised if they became acutely unwell. For those with severe frailty, mean unplanned admissions in the control (usual care) group increased from 0.87 (95% confidence interval ± 0.25) per person year alive to 2.05 ± 1.37, while in the i-CGA group they fell from 0.86 ± 0.24 to 0.68 ± 0.37, p = 0.22. Preferred place of death was largely adhered to in both groups, where documented. Of those with severe frailty, 55% (62/111) of the i-CGA group died, vs. 77% (43/56) of the control group, p = 0.0013. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive, community-based i-CGA can improve documentation of care home residents' ACP preferences, and may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. In severely frail residents, a mortality reduction was seen in those who received an i-CGA.

The Pathfields Tool: a frailty case-finding tool using primary care IT-implications for population health management.

BACKGROUND: older people living with frailty benefit from targeted interventions which improve health and independence. However, it has been challenging within primary care to systematically identify patients living with frailty. METHODS: primary care IT was re-programmed to create a 'Pathfields High Risk Cohort' (PHRC, patients felt likely to have undiagnosed frailty) and invite clinicians to opportunistically assess and diagnose frailty. Results were compared with NHS England's current approach to frailty identification using Electronic Frailty Index (eFI) to see which approach had the highest diagnostic yield. RESULTS: the Pathfields Tool identified 1,348 patients in PHRC group, of whom 951 (70.5%) were clinically assessed and diagnosed:eFI (moderate and severe) identified 683 patients of whom 598 (87.6%) were clinically assessed and diagnosed:Extrapolated data would estimate frailty prevalence at 22.5% (1,024/4,552) (5.5% severe, 8.8% moderate, and 8.1% mild) in the practice population aged 65+. CONCLUSIONS: the Pathfields Tool identified more patients with clinically confirmed previously undiagnosed frailty than eFI 'moderate and severe frailty' alone.Sub-segmenting frailty by residential status could significantly improve the population health management of older people.