CELPI: trial protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a Carer End of Life Planning Intervention in people dying with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a leading cause of death in developed nations. Despite an often distressing and symptom laden end of life, there are systematic barriers to accessing palliative care in older people dying of dementia. Evidence exists that 70% of people living with severe dementia attend an emergency department (ED) in their last year of life. The aim of this trial is to test whether a Carer End of Life Planning Intervention (CELPI), co-designed by consumers, clinicians and content specialists, improves access to end of life care for older people with severe dementia, using an ED visit as a catalyst for recognising unmet needs and specialist palliative care referral where indicated. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) enrolling at six EDs across three states in Australia will be conducted, enrolling four hundred and forty dyads comprising a person with severe dementia aged ≥ 65 years, and their primary carer. Participants will be randomly allocated to CELPI or the control group. CELPI incorporates a structured carer needs assessment and referral to specialist palliative care services where indicated by patient symptom burden and needs assessment. The primary outcome measure is death of the person with dementia in the carer-nominated preferred location. Secondary outcomes include carer reported quality of life of the person dying of dementia, hospital bed day occupancy in the last 12 months of life, and carer stress. An economic evaluation from the perspective of a health funder will be conducted. DISCUSSION: CELPI seeks to support carers and provide optimal end of life care for the person dying of dementia. This trial will provide high level evidence as to the clinical and cost effectiveness of this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622000611729 registered 22/04/2022.

RESPOND: a programme to prevent secondary falls in older people presenting to the emergency department with a fall: protocol for an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Falls remain common for community-dwelling older people and impose a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. RESPOND is a novel falls prevention programme that aims to reduce secondary falls and fall injuries among older people who present to a hospital emergency department (ED) with a fall. The present protocol describes a prospective economic evaluation examining the incremental cost-effectiveness of the RESPOND programme, compared with usual care practice, from the Australian health system perspective. METHODS AND DESIGN: This economic evaluation will recruit 528 participants from two major tertiary hospital EDs in Australia and will be undertaken alongside a multisite randomised controlled trial. Outcome and costing data will be collected for all participants over the 12-month trial. It will compare the RESPOND falls prevention programme with usual care practice (current community-based falls prevention practices) to determine its incremental cost-effectiveness according to three intermediate clinical outcomes: (1) falls prevented, (2) fall injuries prevented and (3) injurious falls prevented. In addition, utilities will be derived from a generic quality-of-life measure (EQ-5D-5L) and used to calculate the 'incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years gained'. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide healthcare decision makers with evidence to assist with setting spending thresholds for preventive health programmes and inform selection of emergency and community service models of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol for this study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000336684); Pre-results.

RESPOND: a patient-centred programme to prevent secondary falls in older people presenting to the emergency department with a fall-protocol for a mixed methods programme evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Programme evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have potential to enhance understanding of trial outcomes. This paper describes a multi-level programme evaluation to be conducted alongside an RCT of a falls prevention programme (RESPOND). OBJECTIVES: (1) To conduct a process evaluation in order to identify the degree of implementation fidelity and associated barriers and facilitators. (2) To evaluate the primary intended impact of the programme: participation in fall prevention strategies and the factors influencing participation. (3) To identify the factors influencing RESPOND RCT outcomes: falls, fall injuries and emergency department (ED) re-presentations. METHODS/DESIGN: 528 community-dwelling adults aged 60-90 years presenting to two EDs with a fall will be recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention or standard care group. All RESPOND participants and RESPOND clinicians will be included in the evaluation. A mixed methods design will be used and a programme logic model will frame the evaluation. Data will be sourced from interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, clinician case notes, recruitment records, participant-completed calendars, hospital administrative datasets and audio-recordings of intervention contacts. Quantitative data will be analysed via descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative data will be interpreted using thematic analysis. DISCUSSION: The RESPOND programme evaluation will provide information about contextual and influencing factors related to the RESPOND RCT outcomes. The results will assist researchers, clinicians and policy makers regarding decisions about future falls prevention interventions. Insights gained may be applicable to a range of chronic conditions where similar preventive intervention approaches are indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This programme evaluation is linked to the RESPOND RCT which is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000336684).

Survey of Australasian geriatricians' satisfaction with, and preferences for, continuing professional development.

BACKGROUND: Continuing professional development (CPD) is an obligation for all Australasian geriatricians; however, there are no systematic data regarding Australian and New Zealand geriatricians' satisfaction with, and preferences for, CPD. AIMS: To inform understanding of Australasian geriatricians' satisfaction with, and preferences for, CPD. METHODS: An electronic survey to collect data relating to demographics, current CPD activities, preferred CPD activities and perceived major barriers to CPD was distributed to 706 geriatricians in Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen (30%) responses were received. Respondents commonly reported CPD through participation in conferences (n = 205 (96%)) and research/educational activity (n = 146 (70%)). Most respondents agreed that the annual scientific meeting (n = 168 (79%)) and state-based meetings (n = 135 (63%)) are valuable for their CPD. Respondents perceived their professional (n = 155 (73%)) and non-professional (n = 21 (57%)) commitments as the major barriers to quality CPD. Respondents supported additional electronic CPD resources being made available, improved integration of assessment in CPD activities and flexible methods of CPD participation to meet the diverse needs of geriatricians. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents perceived the face-to-face CPD opportunities currently available to them as valuable for their CPD but seek additional, flexible products to enable CPD participation based on individual needs and preferences.

Medication appropriateness tool for co-morbid health conditions in dementia: consensus recommendations from a multidisciplinary expert panel.

BACKGROUND: Medication management for people living with dementia is a complex task as it is unclear what constitutes optimal medication management in this population due to the shifting focus of health priorities and the balance between the benefits and harms of medications. AIM: This study sought expert opinion to create a consensus list to define appropriate medication management of co-morbidities for people with dementia. METHODS: This study used the Delphi technique. We invited multidisciplinary experts in geriatric therapeutics including pharmacists, doctors, nurse practitioners, a patient advocate and a psychologist to participate. Participants were asked to engage into three or more rounds of questioning. Round 1 was a questionnaire comprised of one question defining dementia and seven open-ended questions about appropriate management of co-morbidities in people with dementia. Two investigators qualitatively analysed the responses to questions from Round 1 using thematic analysis. The results of this analysis were provided to participants as statements in the Round 2 survey. The participants were asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated for the responses to each statement. Consensus was pre-specified as an IQR less than or equal to 1. Statements where consensus was not achieved were presented to participants in Round 3. The Round 2 median and IQR values were provided and participants were again asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The statements where participants agreed or strongly agreed were included in the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Co-morbid Health conditions in Dementia criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-seven experts agreed to participate in the study, of whom 58% were pharmacists and 36% were medical practitioners. Fifty-five participants completed the Round 1 (95% response rate). A total of 128 statements was included in the Round 2 survey. Consensus was reached on 93 statements in Round 2 (n = 48 responders, 84% response rate) and on 18 statements in Round 3 (n = 43 responders, 75% response rate). The participants reached consensus on 111 of 128 statements. Of these statements, 67 statements were included in the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Co-morbid Health conditions in Dementia criteria. The statements were in the broad themes of preventative medication, symptom management, disease progression, psychoactive medication, treatment goals, principles of medication use, side-effects and medication reviews. DISCUSSION: This research provides consensus-based guidance for clinicians who manage co-morbid health conditions in people with dementia.

RESPOND--A patient-centred programme to prevent secondary falls in older people presenting to the emergency department with a fall: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Participation in falls prevention activities by older people following presentation to the emergency department (ED) with a fall is suboptimal. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will test the RESPOND programme, an intervention designed to improve older persons' participation in falls prevention activities through delivery of patient-centred education and behaviour change strategies. DESIGN AND SETTING: A RCT at two tertiary referral EDs in Melbourne and Perth, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 528 community-dwelling people aged 60-90 years presenting to the ED with a fall and discharged home will be recruited. People who require an interpreter or hands-on assistance to walk; live in residential aged care or >50 km from the trial hospital; have terminal illness, cognitive impairment, documented aggressive behaviour or a history of psychosis; are receiving palliative care or are unable to use a telephone will be excluded. METHODS: Participants will be randomly allocated to the RESPOND intervention or standard care control group. RESPOND incorporates (1) a home-based risk factor assessment; (2) education, coaching, goal setting and follow-up telephone support for management of one or more of four risk factors with evidence of effective interventions and (3) healthcare provider communication and community linkage delivered over 6 months. Primary outcomes are falls and fall injuries per person-year. DISCUSSION: RESPOND builds on prior falls prevention learnings and aims to help individuals make guided decisions about how they will manage their falls risk. Patient-centred models have been successfully trialled in chronic and cardiovascular disease; however, evidence to support this approach in falls prevention is limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol for this study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000336684).

Health in Men Study: is frailty a predictor of medication-related hospitalization?

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at high risk of medication-related hospitalizations. Frailty is a phenotype commonly observed in older people due to declining physiological functions. AIM: To examine the association of frailty with medication-related hospitalization among community dwelling older men. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted among community dwelling older men (mean age 75.6 years SD 5.9) from Western Australia (4324) who participated in the Health in Men Study. Participants were followed-up at 12 and 24 months to determine adverse drug event-related hospitalization, hospitalizations for other causes and mortality. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The prevalence of frailty was 13.2%. At baseline, frailty was associated with exposure to polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medication use and potential adverse drug-drug interactions with unadjusted odds ratios; [4.13 (3.48-4.89) P < 0.001], [2.46 (1.91-3.17) P < 0.001], [3.85 (3.03-4.90) P < 0.001], respectively. In unadjusted models, frail men were more likely to have non-accidental falls [OR 3.16 (2.51-3.99) P < 0.001], acute kidney injury [OR 3.37 (2.35-4.82) P < 0.001], ADE-related hospitalizations at 12 months [OR 6.83 (4.91-9.51)] and non-ADE-related hospitalizations [OR 2.63 (2.01-3.45)], or to be dead at 12 months [OR 2.97 (1.79-4.92)] and at 24 months [OR 3.14 (2.28-4.33)] when compared with non-frail men. After adjusting for age, living alone, cognitive decline, smoking status and comorbidity, frailty remained associated with ADE-related hospitalization [OR 3.60 (2.41-5.37)], non-ADE-related hospitalizations [OR 1.74 (1.29-2.36)] and death [OR 1.67 (1.15-2.41)]. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that frailty is a predictor of medication-related harm with poorer clinical outcomes including mortality.