Interactions that support older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with falls prevention in hospitals: An ethnographic study.

AIMS: To explore the nature of interactions that enable older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with hospital staff on falls prevention. DESIGN: Ethnographic study. METHODS: Ethnographic observations on orthopaedic and older person wards in English hospitals (251.25 h) and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 50 staff, 28 patients and three carers. Findings were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Interactions were often informal and personalised. Staff qualities that supported engagement in falls prevention included the ability to empathise and negotiate, taking patient perspectives into account. Although registered nurses had limited time for this, families/carers and other staff, including engagement workers, did so and passed information to nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Some older inpatients with cognitive impairments engaged with staff on falls prevention. Engagement enabled them to express their needs and collaborate, to an extent, on falls prevention activities. To support this, we recommend wider adoption in hospitals of engagement workers and developing the relational skills that underpin engagement in training programmes for patient-facing staff. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Interactions that support cognitively impaired inpatients to engage in falls prevention can involve not only nurses, but also families/carers and non-nursing staff, with potential to reduce pressures on busy nurses and improve patient safety. REPORTING METHOD: The paper adheres to EQUATOR guidelines, Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient/public contributors were involved in study design, evaluation and data analysis. They co-authored this manuscript.

The extent of anticholinergic burden across an older Welsh population living with frailty: cross-sectional analysis of general practice records.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic medicines are associated with adverse outcomes for older people. However, little is known about their use in frailty. The objectives were to (i) investigate the prevalence of anticholinergic prescribing for older patients, and (ii) examine anticholinergic burden according to frailty status. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of Welsh primary care data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank including patients aged ≥65 at their first GP consultation between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Frailty was identified using the electronic Frailty Index and anticholinergic burden using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scale. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were conducted to (i) describe the type and frequency of anticholinergics prescribed; and (ii) to estimate the association between frailty and cumulative ACB score (ACB-Sum). RESULTS: In this study of 529,095 patients, 47.4% of patients receiving any prescription medications were prescribed at least one anticholinergic medicine. Adjusted regression analysis showed that patients with increasing frailty had higher odds of having an ACB-Sum of >3 compared with patients who were fit (mild frailty, adj OR 1.062 (95%CI 1.061-1.064), moderate frailty, adj OR 1.134 (95%CI 1.131-1.136), severe frailty, adj OR 1.208 (95%CI 1.203-1.213)). CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergic prescribing was high in this older population. Older people with advancing frailty are exposed to the highest anticholinergic burden despite being the most vulnerable to the associated adverse effects. Older people with advancing frailty should be considered for medicines review to prevent overaccumulation of anticholinergic medications, given the risks of functional and cognitive decline that frailty presents.

Exploring variation in implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. In England national guidance recommends delivery of a multifactorial falls risk assessment (MFRA) and interventions tailored to address individual falls risk factors. However, there is variation in how these practices are implemented. This study aimed to explore the variation by examining what supports or constrains delivery of MFRAs and tailored interventions in acute hospitals. METHODS: A realist review of literature was conducted with searches completed in three stages: (1) to construct hypotheses in the form of Context, Mechanism, Outcome configurations (CMOc) about how MFRAs and interventions are delivered, (2) to scope the breadth and depth of evidence available in Embase to test the CMOcs, and (3) following prioritisation of CMOcs, to refine search strategies for use in multiple databases. Citations were managed in EndNote; titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, with 10% independently screened by two reviewers. RESULTS: Two CMOcs were prioritised for testing labelled: Facilitation via MFRA tools, and Patient Participation in interventions. Analysis indicated that MFRA tools can prompt action, but the number and type of falls risk factors included in tools differ across organisations leading to variation in practice. Furthermore, the extent to which tools work as prompts is influenced by complex ward conditions such as changes in patient condition, bed swaps, and availability of falls prevention interventions. Patient participation in falls prevention interventions is more likely where patient directed messaging takes individual circumstances into account, e.g., not wanting to disturb nurses by using the call bell. However, interactions that elicit individual circumstances can be resource intensive and patients with cognitive impairment may not be able to participate despite appropriately directed messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Organisations should consider how tools can be developed in ways that better support consistent and comprehensive identification of patients' individual falls risk factors and the complex ward conditions that can disrupt how tools work as facilitators. Ward staff should be supported to deliver patient directed messaging that is informed by their individual circumstances to encourage participation in falls prevention interventions, where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020184458.

Medication management in Minority, Asian and Black ethnic older people in the United Kingdom: A mixed-studies systematic review.

WHAT IS NEW AND OBJECTIVES: Older people from ethnic minorities experience the intersectionality of age and ethnicity in relation to complex medication management and polypharmacy. Minority ethnic groups in the United Kingdom are at risk of poor medication management because factors such as cultural beliefs, language barriers, lack of knowledge of how the healthcare system works may affect their ability to safely manage their medications. The aim of this systematic review was to review the literature focussing on medication management in the older population amongst ethnic minority communities in United Kingdom. METHODS: The review was conducted and reported according to methods in the Cochrane Handbook and in the PRISMA 2020 statement using databases such as EMBASE, ASSIA, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and others. Studies conducted in the United Kingdom on individuals over 60 years of age and from a minority ethnic background were included. A thematic analysis was used to synthesize the results. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Nine studies (eight from initial searches, one from a search update in 2021) met the inclusion criteria. Three main themes were identified: misbeliefs around medications, poor health literacy, communication and education as possible intervention to improve medication management. Misbeliefs around long-term illnesses exert a negative impact on medication management. Poor health literacy around medications influences patients' adherence to treatments. Poor communication is perceived as barrier to successful medication management. Despite extensive searching, the team identified a limited number of studies and a lack of intersectional studies focussing on minority ethnic groups and the older population. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest tailored education as a possible intervention to improve medication management amongst these minority groups. Future research should look at recruiting participants from specific ethnic groups and from rural as well as urban areas to explore how medication management operates in different areas of the United Kingdom.

Towards an understanding of the burdens of medication management affecting older people: the MEMORABLE realist synthesis.

BACKGROUND: More older people are living in the community with multiple diagnoses and medications. Managing multiple medications produces issues of unrivalled complexity for those involved. Despite increasing literature on the subject, gaps remain in understanding how, why and for whom complex medication management works, and therefore how best to improve practice and outcomes. MEMORABLE, MEdication Management in Older people: Realist Approaches Based on Literature and Evaluation, aimed to address these gaps. METHODS: MEMORABLE used realism to understand causal paths within medication management. Informed by RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: and Evolving Standards) guidelines, MEMORABLE involved three overlapping work packages: 1) Realist Review of the literature (24 articles on medication management exploring causality); 2) Realist Evaluation (50 realist-informed interviews with older people, family carers and health and care practitioners, explaining their experiences); and 3) data synthesis and theorising from 1) and 2). RESULTS: Medication management was viewed from the perspective of 'implementation' and structured into five stages: identifying a problem (Stage 1), getting a diagnosis and/or medications (Stage 2), starting, changing or stopping medications (Stage 3), continuing to take medications (Stage 4), and reviewing/reconciling medications (Stage 5). Three individual stages (1, 3 and 4) are conducted by the older person sometimes with family carer support when they balance routines, coping and risk. Stages 2 and 5 are interpersonal where the older person works with a practitioner-prescriber-reviewer, perhaps with carer involvement. Applying Normalisation Process Theory, four steps were identified within each stage: 1) sense making: information, clarification; 2) action: shared-decision-making; 3) reflection/monitoring; and 4) enduring relationships, based on collaboration and mutual trust. In a detailed analysis of Stage 5: Reviewing/reconciling medications, adopting the lens of 'burden', MEMORABLE identified five burdens amenable to mitigation: ambiguity, concealment, unfamiliarity, fragmentation and exclusion. Two initial improvement propositions were identified for further research: a risk screening tool and individualised information. CONCLUSIONS: Older people and family carers often find medication management challenging and burdensome particularly for complex regimens. Practitioners need to be aware of this potential challenge, and work with older people and their carers to minimise the burden associated with medication management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016043506.

Klüver-Bucy Syndrome Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Synthesis and Review of Pharmacological Treatment From Cases in Adolescents and Adults.

Klüver-Bucy syndrome (KBS) is a rare clinical presentation following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Symptoms include visual agnosia, placidity, hyperorality, sexual hyperactivity, changes in dietary behavior, and hypermetamorphosis. The purpose of this article was to identify and synthesize the available evidence from case reports and case series on the treatment profile of KBS among adolescents and adults after TBI. Four bibliographic databases (MEDLINE OVID, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS) were searched for relevant literature. No date or language restrictions were applied. All case reports containing original data on KBS following TBI among adolescents and adults were included. Articles were evaluated, and data were extracted according to predefined criteria. The literature search identified 24 case reports of KBS post-TBI published between 1968 and 2017. Most case subjects were male (70.1%), and the mean age at injury was 25.1 years (range, 13-67 years). Injury to one or both temporal lobes occurred in most cases. Inappropriate sexual hyperactivity was the most common KBS symptom, followed by a change in dietary behavior and hyperorality. Visual agnosia was the least reported. In 50% of cases, the patient fully recovered from KBS. One-half of all participants described pharmacological management; the most common medication prescribed was carbamazepine. Overall, there was a lack of data available on pharmacotherapy initiation and duration. The complex presentation of KBS presents challenges in terms of treatment options. Although overall individuals who were prescribed carbamazepine had positive outcomes, given the reliance on case reports, it is difficult to make a definitive recommendation to guide clinical practice.

Benzodiazepines for catatonia in people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illnesses.

BACKGROUND: Catatonia is a debilitating disorder of movement and volition associated with schizophrenia and some other mental illnesses. People with catatonia are more likely to require hospitalisation and highly supervised care than those without the disorder. They also have an increased risk of secondary complications such as pneumonia, malnutrition and dehydration. The mainstay of treatment has been drug therapies and electroconvulsive therapy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of benzodiazepines with other drugs, placebo or electroconvulsive therapy for catatonia in people with schizophrenia or other similar serious mental illnesses (SMIs). SEARCH METHODS: We updated our previous search (28 February 2007) by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (9 November 2016; 6 February 2019). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. We also manually searched reference lists from studies selected by the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled clinical trials that randomised people who have schizophrenia or other similar SMI and experiencing catatonia to receive benzodiazepines or another relevant treatment. We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported usable data. We excluded those not meeting our inclusion criteria or those not reporting usable data. We contacted authors when we required further information; and if we received no response, we put those studies aside as 'awaiting assessment'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a fixed-effect model. We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included study and generated a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: The searches found 130 citations, from which we could identify 22 possibly relevant studies. From these, we could only include one study. This study had a relatively small sample size of 17 participants who received lorazepam or oxazepam and were drug free for one week before the trial started. The only usable data reported by this study were clinically important change in symptoms of catatonia measured as 50% improvement on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). There was no difference in the numbers of participants showing a clinically important change in their catatonic symptoms (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.16; participants = 17; studies = 1; very low quality evidence).No data were reported for other important outcomes of hospital stay, clinically important change in satisfaction with care, global state, adverse effects or general functioningWe did find a few studies meeting our inclusion criteria but they reported no usable data. We had to exclude these. Although poorly reported, these studies do illustrate that relevant studies have been undertaken - they are not impossible to design and conduct. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the results from this review, which was a head-to-head comparison of two benzodiazepine monotherapies, does not show a clear difference in effect. No data were available for benzodiazepines compared to placebo or standard care. The lack of usable data and very low quality of data available makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions and further studies with a high-quality methodology and reporting are required in order to determine more definitively the outcomes associated with benzodiazepine use in the clinical management of catatonia in persons with schizophrenia and other SMI.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

BACKGROUND: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with other pharmacological agents, is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation when compared with placebo, other pharmacological agents (alone or in combination) or non-pharmacological approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012, 20 August 2015 and 3 August 2016), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies, and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people who were aggressive or agitated due to psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If there was heterogeneity, this was explored using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials including 695 participants are now included in the review. The trials compared benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines plus an antipsychotic with placebo, antipsychotics, antihistamines, or a combination of these. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low due to very small sample size of included studies and serious risk of bias (randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not well conducted in the included trials, 30% of trials (six out of 20) were supported by pharmaceutical institutes). There was no clear effect for most outcomes.Benzodiazepines versus placeboOne trial compared benzodiazepines with placebo. There was no difference in the number of participants sedated at 24 hours (very low quality evidence). However, for the outcome of global state, clearly more people receiving placebo showed no improvement in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). Benzodiazepines versus antipsychoticsWhen compared with haloperidol, there was no observed effect for benzodiazepines for sedation by 16 hours (n = 434, 8 RCTs, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.54, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term (n = 188, 5 RCTs, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11, low quality evidence). However, one small study found fewer participants improved when receiving benzodiazepines compared with olanzapine (n = 150, 1 RCT, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.18, very low quality evidence). People receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects in the medium term compared to people receiving haloperidol (n = 233, 6 RCTs, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41, low quality evidence).Benzodiazepines versus combined antipsychotics/antihistaminesWhen benzodiazepine was compared with combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (haloperidol plus promethazine), there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving benzodiazepines in the medium term (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.05, low quality evidence). However, for sedation, the results were controversial between two groups: lorazepam may lead to lower risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, low quality evidence); while, midazolam may lead to higher risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, low quality evidence).Other combinationsData comparing benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any results with clear differences; all were very low quality evidence. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 185, 4 RCTs, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, low quality evidence), but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67,very low quality evidence). Only one study compared combined benzodiazepine/antipsychotics with antipsychotics; however, this study did not report our primary outcomes. One small study compared combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics with combined antihistamines/antipsychotics. Results showed a higher risk of no clinical improvement (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) and sedation status (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.66 to 86.59, very low quality evidence) in the combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from RCTs for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively few good data. Most trials were too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high-quality research is still needed in this area.

Structured medication reviews for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is common among individuals with multimorbidity, often leading to inappropriate medication use and is associated with an increased risk of frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Structured medication reviews (SMRs) have emerged as a promising method for optimising medication use. However, research examining their efficacy is limited. This review aims to evaluate the impact of SMRs on improving outcomes for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care settings. Additionally, this review seeks to identify prevailing patterns and trends in the mode of delivery of SMRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (1997-present). Primary outcomes will include medication-related measures such as dose, frequency and dosage form. Secondary outcomes under investigation will include physical, mental, functional and health service outcomes, as reported. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in tabular format. The risk of bias in the articles will be assessed using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on the design of the studies retrieved. Subgroup analysis will be performed using demographic variables and modes of delivery where the data supports. If appropriate, a meta-analysis of the data extracted will be conducted to determine the impact of the SMRs on reported outcomes. If a meta-analysis is not possible due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis approach will be adopted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This proposed review is exempt from ethical approval as it aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and patient-led lay summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023454965.

Strategies used by nurse leaders to support the delivery of falls prevention practices in hospitals.

Despite prevention efforts, falls in hospital are a common and ongoing safety concern, with older people more likely to fall and experience harm as a result of falls. Clinical guidelines recommend multifactorial falls risk assessment and multidomain, personalised interventions to reduce falls risks in hospitals. This article reflects on findings from a multi-site study on the implementation of multifactorial falls prevention practices that informed the development of actionable guidance. The discussion focuses on strategies used by nurse leaders, at different levels of seniority, that shaped practice on orthopaedic and older person wards. While falls risk assessment documentation was monitored routinely by senior leaders, in practice falls prevention often relied on risk screening and enhanced patient supervision. Findings suggest that nurses need to be empowered to lead practices that modify and mitigate individual falls risks where possible, with greater multidisciplinary and patient and carer involvement.

Talking about falls: a qualitative exploration of spoken communication of patients' fall risks in hospitals and implications for multifactorial approaches to fall prevention.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient falls are the most common safety incident reported by hospitals worldwide. Traditionally, responses have been guided by categorising patients' levels of fall risk, but multifactorial approaches are now recommended. These target individual, modifiable fall risk factors, requiring clear communication between multidisciplinary team members. Spoken communication is an important channel, but little is known about its form in this context. We aim to address this by exploring spoken communication between hospital staff about fall prevention and how this supports multifactorial fall prevention practice. METHODS: Data were collected through semistructured qualitative interviews with 50 staff and ethnographic observations of fall prevention practices (251.25 hours) on orthopaedic and older person wards in four English hospitals. Findings were analysed using a framework approach. FINDINGS: We observed staff engaging in 'multifactorial talk' to address patients' modifiable risk factors, especially during multidisciplinary meetings which were patient focused rather than risk type focused. Such communication coexisted with 'categorisation talk', which focused on patients' levels of fall risk and allocating nursing supervision to 'high risk' patients. Staff negotiated tensions between these different approaches through frequent 'hybrid talk', where, as well as categorising risks, they also discussed how to modify them. CONCLUSION: To support hospitals in implementing multifactorial, multidisciplinary fall prevention, we recommend: (1) focusing on patients' individual risk factors and actions to address them (a 'why?' rather than a 'who' approach); (2) where not possible to avoid 'high risk' categorisations, employing 'hybrid' communication which emphasises actions to modify individual risk factors, as well as risk level; (3) challenging assumptions about generic interventions to identify what individual patients need; and (4) timing meetings to enable staff from different disciplines to participate.

Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.

Background: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions, but implementation is variable. Aim: To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England. Design: Realist review and multisite case study. (1) Systematic searches to identify stakeholders' theories, tested using empirical data from primary studies. Review of falls prevention policies of acute Trusts. (2) Theory testing and refinement through observation, staff interviews (n = 50), patient and carer interviews (n = 31) and record review (n = 60). Setting: Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each. Results: Seventy-eight studies were used for theory construction and 50 for theory testing. Four theories were explored. (1) Leadership: wards had falls link practitioners but authority to allocate resources for falls prevention resided with senior nurses. (2) Shared responsibility: a key falls prevention strategy was patient supervision. This fell to nursing staff, constraining the extent to which responsibility for falls prevention could be shared. (3) Facilitation: assessments were consistently documented but workload pressures could reduce this to a tick-box exercise. Assessment items varied. While individual patient risk factors were identified, patients were categorised as high or low risk to determine who should receive supervision. (4) Patient participation: nursing staff lacked time to explain to patients their falls risks or how to prevent themselves from falling, although other staff could do so. Sensitive communication could prevent patients taking actions that increase their risk of falling. Limitations: Within the realist review, we completed synthesis for only two theories. We could not access patient records before observations, preventing assessment of whether care plans were enacted. Conclusions: (1) Leadership: There should be a clear distinction between senior nurses' roles and falls link practitioners in relation to falls prevention; (2) shared responsibility: Trusts should consider how processes and systems, including the electronic health record, can be revised to better support a multidisciplinary approach, and alternatives to patient supervision should be considered; (3) facilitation: Trusts should consider how to reduce documentation burden and avoid tick-box responses, and ensure items included in the falls risk assessment tools align with guidance. Falls risk assessment tools and falls care plans should be presented as tools to support practice, rather than something to be audited; (4) patient participation: Trusts should consider how they can ensure patients receive individualised information about risks and preventing falls and provide staff with guidance on brief but sensitive ways to talk with patients to reduce the likelihood of actions that increase their risk of falling. Future work: (1) Development and evaluation of interventions to support multidisciplinary teams to undertake, and involve patients in, multifactorial falls risk assessment and selection and delivery of tailored interventions; (2) mixed method and economic evaluations of patient supervision; (3) evaluation of engagement support workers, volunteers and/or carers to support falls prevention. Research should include those with cognitive impairment and patients who do not speak English. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020184458. 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: NIHR129488) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Many accidental falls by older people in hospitals could be avoided. There are guidelines to prevent falls, but some hospitals are better at following them than others. This study aimed to find out why. First, we looked at research and hospitals' falls policies for ideas about what stops falls. With advice from service users, we tested these ideas in four hospitals in England, watching how falls were prevented on wards for older people and people who need bone care, and talking to 50 staff, 28 patients and 3 carers. We found the following: Falls leadership: wards had staff called falls link practitioners who supported falls prevention, but senior nurses, not link practitioners, made the most important decisions. Sharing responsibility: patients with falls risks were monitored to try to stop falls. Because only nursing teams were always present to monitor patients, they had most responsibility for preventing falls. This limited sharing responsibility with other staff. Computer tools: nurses used computers to record prevention work, but high workloads could make this a 'tick-box' exercise. Computer tools reminded them to do this, although tools varied. Patients had individual falls plans, but they were also ranked more generally as high or low risk of falling, with 'high-risk' patients being monitored. Patient involvement: nursing staff did not have time to explain to patients how to prevent falls, but other staff could have such conversations. Many patients had problems like dementia and found it difficult to follow safety advice, although some could take steps to keep safe, with sensitive staff support. We need to involve patients, carers and different staff in falls prevention. Hospitals could develop computer systems to support this, think how to involve more ward staff, and provide guidance on helpful ways to talk with patients about falls.

Has a national recruitment scheme created a positive intervention for Black, Asian or other Minority Ethnic pharmacy trainees?

OBJECTIVES: A National Recruitment Scheme (NRS) for Pharmacy trainees was introduced in England and Wales in 2017, standardising recruitment processes on behalf of employers and with the aim of reducing bias for candidates applying to training posts within the National Health Service (NHS). This research attempted to identify whether the introduction of the NRS had an impact on the recruitment of Black, Asian, or other Minority Ethnic applicants into the most sought-after posts within the Scheme (hospital posts). METHODS: An observational study was undertaken. Anonymised pharmacist trainee recruitment data between the cohort intakes of 2015-16 and 2020-21 was obtained from the pharmacy regulator the General Pharmaceutical Council and a comparison of proportional representations of ethnicities was undertaken, to ascertain whether a greater proportion of applicants from minority backgrounds attained the most sought-after posts in the NHS after the NRS was introduced. A robust generalised linear model was then used to analyse the data using binomial as the variance function and logit as a link function, where the proportion of hospital recruitment was an outcome with a two-way interaction between intervention and ethnicity after adjusting for overall proportion. KEY FINDINGS: The statistical analysis of 18 283 pharmacy trainees in total, of whom 4446 were in hospital, shows a significant overall impact of intervention, with a significant positive change in the proportions of Asian-Pakistani applicants (P-value < 0.001) and Black-African applicants (P-value < 0.001) recruited to hospital posts. CONCLUSIONS: Since the introduction of the NRS there has been a statistically significant impact on the correlation between the overall number of Black, Asian or other Minority Ethnic applicants and their proportion in hospital. That is, not only is the makeup of the hospital cohort increasingly reflecting the diversity of the overall cohort, but also a larger percentage of each ethnic cohort is attaining hospital training places.

Working together: reflections on how to make public involvement in research work.

BACKGROUND: The importance of involving members of the public in the development, implementation and dissemination of research is increasingly recognised. There have been calls to share examples of how this can be done, and this paper responds by reporting how professional and lay researchers collaborated on a research study about falls prevention among older patients in English acute hospitals. It focuses on how they worked together in ways that valued all contributions, as envisaged in the UK standards for public involvement for better health and social care research. METHODS: The paper is itself an example of working together, having been written by a team of lay and professional researchers. It draws on empirical evidence from evaluations they carried out about the extent to which the study took patient and public perspectives into account, as well as reflective statements they produced as co-authors, which, in turn, contributed to the end-of-project evaluation. RESULTS: Lay contributors' deep involvement in the research had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay contributors focusing the project on areas that matter most to patients and their families, improving the quality and relevance of outcomes by contributing to data analysis, and feeling they were 'honouring' their personal experience of the subject of study. Negative impacts included the potential for lay people to feel overwhelmed by the challenges involved in achieving the societal or organisational changes necessary to address research issues, which can cause them to question their rationale for public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes with practical recommendations for working together effectively in research. These cover the need to discuss the potential emotional impacts of such work with lay candidates during recruitment and induction and to support lay people with these impacts throughout projects; finding ways to address power imbalances and practical challenges; and tips on facilitating processes within lay groups, especially relational processes like the development of mutual trust.

Involving members of the public in all stages of research as equal partners is a powerful way to make research more relevant. This paper shares an example of such involvement, from a study about falls prevention in English hospitals. Developed by a team of lay people and professional researchers, the paper looks at how we worked together, drawing on evaluations we carried out about how the study took patient and public perspectives into account, and on personal reflections we wrote. Public involvement had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay people ensuring the study focused on what mattered most to patients and their families and feeling they had done right by their personal experience of the study's subject. Negative impacts included the potential for people to feel overwhelmed by the changes in organisations or in wider society needed to address the issues being explored by a research study, which could cause them to question why they became involved in the first place. The paper ends with practical recommendations about working together, covering things such as helping lay people with the emotional impact of involvement from the beginning to the end of projects; finding ways to ensure everybody is treated in the same way and solving practical problems; and tips on leading and supporting groups of this kind, especially with personal issues like trusting each other.

Family carers' experiences of managing older relative's medications: Insights from the MEMORABLE study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the burdens experienced by family carers who support older relatives to manage their medications at home. METHODS: This study, based on a larger UK medication management study: MEdication Management in Older people: Realist Approaches Based on Literature and Evaluation (MEMORABLE), reports on findings from family carer interviews (n = 16). The five stages of medication management, identified in MEMORABLE, were used to inform the analysis. RESULTS: Family carers described being involved in some or all five of the MEMORABLE stages to help manage older relatives' medications. Their capacity to undertake this role was sometimes limited by the complex workload involved as well personal circumstances such as time, distance and relationships. Family carers perceived that their knowledge and skills in medication management improved with experience, but also described stress associated with information lag and gaps, risk and responsibility, and loss. They described medication management burdens that needed mitigation: ambiguity, concealment, unfamiliarity, fragmentation and in particular exclusion, conflicted interests and expectation of coping. CONCLUSION: To help mitigate these burdens, family carers should receive better information, training and support for this role. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Continued reliance on family carers for medication management requires strategic recognition in policy, funding and practice.

Designing health IT to support falls prevention in hospitals: Findings from a realist review.

Inpatient falls are an international patient safety concern, accounting for 30-40% of reported safety incidents in acute hospitals. They can cause both physical (e.g. hip fractures) and non-physical harm (e.g. reduced confidence) to patients. We used an approach known as a realist review to identify theories about what interventions might work for whom in what contexts, focusing on what supports and constrains effective use of multifactorial falls risk assessment and falls prevention interventions. One of these theories suggested that staff will integrate recommended practices into their work routines if falls risk assessment tools, including health IT, are quick and easy to use and facilitate existing work routines. Synthesis of empirical studies undertaken in the process of testing and refining this theory has implications for the design of health IT, suggesting that while health IT can support falls prevention through automation, such tools should also allow for incorporation of clinical judgement.

Rapid realist review of the role of community pharmacy in the public health response to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Community pharmacists and their teams have remained accessible to the public providing essential services despite immense pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have successfully expanded the influenza vaccination programme and are now supporting the delivery of the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out. AIM: This rapid realist review aims to understand how community pharmacy can most effectively deliver essential and advanced services, with a focus on vaccination, during the pandemic and in the future. METHOD: An embryonic programme theory was generated using four diverse and complementary documents along with the expertise of the project team. Academic databases, preprint services and grey literature were searched and screened for documents meeting our inclusion criteria. The data were extracted from 103 documents to develop and refine a programme theory using a realist logic of analysis. Our analysis generated 13 context-mechanism-outcome configurations explaining when, why and how community pharmacy can support public health vaccination campaigns, maintain essential services during pandemics and capitalise on opportunities for expanded, sustainable public health service roles. The views of stakeholders including pharmacy users, pharmacists, pharmacy teams and other healthcare professionals were sought throughout to refine the 13 explanatory configurations. RESULTS: The 13 context-mechanism-outcome configurations are organised according to decision makers, community pharmacy teams and community pharmacy users as key actors. Review findings include: supporting a clear role for community pharmacies in public health; clarifying pharmacists' legal and professional liabilities; involving pharmacy teams in service specification design; providing suitable guidance, adequate compensation and resources; and leveraging accessible, convenient locations of community pharmacy. DISCUSSION: Community pharmacy has been able to offer key services during the pandemic. Decision makers must endorse, articulate and support a clear public health role for community pharmacy. We provide key recommendations for decision makers to optimise such a role during these unprecedented times and in the future.

Associations Between Anticholinergic Medication Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes in Older People with Frailty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There are robust associations between use of anticholinergic medicines and adverse effects in older people. However, the nature of these associations for older people living with frailty is yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to identify and investigate associations between anticholinergics and adverse outcomes in older people living with frailty and to investigate whether exposure is associated with greater risks according to frailty status. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched to 1 August 2019. Observational studies reporting associations between anticholinergics and outcomes in older adults (average age ≥ 65 years) that reported frailty using validated measures were included. Primary outcomes were physical impairment, cognitive dysfunction, and change in frailty status. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was undertaken where appropriate. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (21,516 participants) were included (ten community, one residential aged-care facility and two hospital studies). Observed associations included reduced ability for chair standing, slower gait speeds, poorer physical performance, increased risk of falls and mortality. Conflicting results were reported for grip strength, timed up and go test, cognition and activities of daily living. No associations were observed for transitions between frailty states, psychological wellbeing or benzodiazepine-related adverse reactions. There was no clear evidence of differences in risks according to frailty status. CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergics are associated with adverse outcomes in older people living with frailty; however, the literature has significant methodological limitations. There is insufficient evidence to suggest greater risks based on frailty, and there is an urgent need to evaluate this further in well-designed studies stratifying by frailty.

What supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals? Protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Falls are the most common type of safety incident reported by acute hospitals and can cause both physical (eg, hip fractures) and non-physical harm (eg, reduced confidence) to patients. It is recommended that, in order to prevent falls in hospital, patients should receive a multifactorial falls risk assessment and be provided with a multifactorial intervention, tailored to address the patient's identified individual risk factors. It is estimated that such an approach could reduce the incidence of inpatient falls by 25%-30% and reduce the annual cost of falls by up to 25%. However, there is substantial unexplained variation between hospitals in the number and type of assessments undertaken and interventions implemented. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review will be undertaken to construct and test programme theories regarding (1) what supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals; and (2) how, why, in what contexts and for whom tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions lead to a reduction in patients' falls risk. We will first identify stakeholders' theories concerning these two topics, searching Medline (1946-present) and Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Health Management Information Consortium (1983-present) and CINAHL (1981-present). We will then test these theories systematically, using primary studies to determine whether empirical evidence supports, refutes or suggests a revision or addition to the identified theories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study does not require ethical approval. The review will provide evidence for how to implement multifactorial falls risk assessment and prevention strategies in acute hospital settings. This will be disseminated to academic and clinical audiences and will provide the basis for a future multi-site study through which the theories will be further refined. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020184458.

Association between Statins Prescribed for Primary and Secondary Prevention and Major Adverse Cardiac Events among Older Adults with Frailty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Statins reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), however their clinical benefit for primary and secondary prevention among older adults with frailty is uncertain. This systematic review investigates whether statins prescribed for primary and secondary prevention are associated with reduced MACE among adults aged ≥ 65 years with frailty. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 1 January 1952 and 1 January 2019 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases. Studies that investigated the effect of statins on MACE among adults ≥ 65 years of age with a validated frailty assessment were included. Data were extracted from the papers as per a prepublished protocol, PROSPERO: CRD42019127486. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tool. RESULTS: Six cohort studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria; there were no randomised clinical trials. Among studies evaluating the association between statins for primary and secondary prevention and mortality, one study found statins were associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.93), while another study found they were not (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61-1.08). Furthermore, one study of statins used for secondary prevention found they were associated with reduced mortality (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.21-0.39). No studies investigated the effect of statins for primary prevention or the effect of statins on the frequency of MACE. CONCLUSION: This review identified only observational evidence that among older people with frailty, statins are associated with reduced mortality when prescribed for secondary prevention, and an absence of evidence evaluating statin therapy for primary prevention. Randomised trial data are needed to better inform the use of statins among older adults living with frailty.