The 'Big Five'. Hypothesis generation: a multidisciplinary intervention package reduces disease-specific hospitalisations from long-term care: a post hoc analysis of the ARCHUS cluster-randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: long-term care (LTC) residents have higher hospitalisation rates than non-LTC residents. Rapid decline may follow hospitalisations, hence the importance of preventing unnecessary hospitalisations. Literature describes diagnosis-specific interventions (for cardiac failure, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, pneumonia-termed 'big five' diagnoses), impacting on hospitalisations of older community-dwellers, but few RCTs show reductions in acute admissions from LTC. METHODS: LTC facilities with higher than expected hospitalisations were recruited for a cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) of facility-based complex, non-disease-specific, 9-month intervention comprising gerontology nurse specialist (GNS)-led staff education, facility benchmarking, GNS resident review and multidisciplinary discussion of residents selected using standard criteria. In this post hoc exploratory analysis, the outcome was acute hospitalisations for 'big five' diagnoses. Re-randomisation analyses were used for end points during months 1-14. For end points during months 4-14, proportional hazards models are adjusted for within-facility clustering. RESULTS: we recruited 36 facilities with 1,998 residents (1,408 female; mean age 82.9 years); 1,924 were alive at 3 months. The intervention did not impact overall rates of acute hospitalisations or mortality (previously published), but resulted in fewer 'big five' admissions (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99; P = 0.043) with no significant difference in the rate of other acute admissions. When considering events occurring after 3 months (only), the intervention group were 34.7% (HR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.49-0.88; P = 0.005) less likely to have a 'big five' acute admission than controls, with no differences in likelihood of acute admissions for other diagnoses (P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: this generic intervention may reduce admissions for common conditions which the literature shows are impacted by disease-specific admission reduction strategies.

The Aged Residential Care Healthcare Utilization Study (ARCHUS): a multidisciplinary, cluster randomized controlled trial designed to reduce acute avoidable hospitalizations from long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To assess effect of a complex, multidisciplinary intervention aimed at reducing avoidable acute hospitalization of residents of residential aged care (RAC) facilities. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: RAC facilities with higher than expected hospitalizations in Auckland, New Zealand, were recruited and randomized to intervention or control. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1998 residents of 18 intervention facilities and 18 control facilities. INTERVENTION: A facility-based complex intervention of 9 months' duration. The intervention comprised gerontology nurse specialist (GNS)-led staff education, facility bench-marking, GNS resident review, and multidisciplinary (geriatrician, primary-care physician, pharmacist, GNS, and facility nurse) discussion of residents selected using standard criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was avoidable hospitalizations. Secondary end points were all acute admissions, mortality, and acute bed-days. Follow-up was for a total of 14 months. RESULTS: The intervention did not affect main study end points: number of acute avoidable hospital admissions (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.85-1.36; P = .59) or mortality (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.76-1.61; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: This multidisciplinary intervention, packaging selected case review, and staff education had no overall impact on acute hospital admissions or mortality. This may have considerable implications for resourcing in the acute and RAC sectors in the face of population aging. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12611000187943).

Aged Residential Care Health Utilisation Study (ARCHUS): a randomised controlled trial to reduce acute hospitalisations from residential aged care.

BACKGROUND: For residents of long term care, hospitalisations can cause distress and disruption, and often result in further medical complications. Multi-disciplinary team interventions have been shown to improve the health of Residential Aged Care (RAC) residents, decreasing the need for acute hospitalisation, yet there are few randomised controlled trials of these complex interventions. This paper describes a randomised controlled trial of a structured multi-disciplinary team and gerontology nurse specialist (GNS) intervention aiming to reduce residents' avoidable hospitalisations. METHODS/DESIGN: This Aged Residential Care Healthcare Utilisation Study (ARCHUS) is a cluster- randomised controlled trial (n = 1700 residents) of a complex multi-disciplinary team intervention in long-term care facilities. Eligible facilities certified for residential care were selected from those identified as at moderate or higher risk of resident potentially avoidable hospitalisations by statistical modelling. The facilities were all located in the Auckland region, New Zealand and were stratified by District Health Board (DHB). INTERVENTION: The intervention provided a structured GNS intervention including a baseline facility needs assessment, quality indicator benchmarking, a staff education programme and care coordination. Alongside this, three multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings were held involving a geriatrician, facility GP, pharmacist, GNS and senior nursing staff. OUTCOMES: Hospitalisations are recorded from routinely-collected acute admissions during the 9-month intervention period followed by a 5-month follow-up period. ICD diagnosis codes are used in a pre-specified definition of potentially reducible admissions. DISCUSSION: This randomised-controlled trial will evaluate a complex intervention to increase early identification and intervention to improve the health of residents of long term care. The results of this trial are expected in early 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12611000187943.

Residential aged care in Auckland, New Zealand 1988-2008: do real trends over time match predictions?

BACKGROUND: in Auckland, New Zealand in 1988, 7.7% of those aged over 65 years lived in licenced residential aged care. Age-specific rates approximately doubled for each 5-year age group after the age of 65 years. Even with changes in policies and market forces since 1988, population increases are forecast to drive large growth in demand. This study shows previously unrecognised 20-year trends in rates of care in a geographically defined population. METHODS: four cross-sectional surveys of all facilities (rest homes and hospitals) licenced for long-term care of older people were conducted in Auckland, New Zealand in 1988, 1993, 1998 and 2008. Facility staff completed survey forms for each resident. Numbers of licenced and occupied beds and trends in age-specific and age-standardised rates in residential aged care are reported. RESULTS: over the 20-year period, Auckland's population aged over 65 years increased by 43% (from 91,000 to 130,000) but actual numbers in care reduced slightly. Among those aged over 65 years, the proportion living in care facilities reduced from 1 in 13 to 1 in 18. Age-standardised rates in rest-home level care reduced from 65 to 33 per thousand, and in hospital level care, from 29 to 23 per thousand. Had rates remained stable, over 13,200 people, 74% more than observed, would have been in care in 2008. CONCLUSION: growth predicted in the residential aged care sector is not yet evident. The introduction of standardised needs assessments before entry, increased availability of home-based services, and growth in retirement villages may have led to reduced utilisation.

Twenty-year trends in dependency in residential aged care in Auckland, New Zealand: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in aged care residents' dependency over a 20-year period. DESIGN: All residents in 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2008 were assessed using the same 23-item functional ability survey. SETTING: Residential aged care facilities in Auckland, New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: In 1988 there were 7516 participants (99% response rate), 6972 in 1993 (85% response rate), 5056 in 1998 (65% response rate), and 6828 in 2008 (89% response rate). Data were weighted to accommodate variation in response. MEASUREMENTS: A composite dependency score with 5 ordinal levels was derived from a census-type survey reporting mobility, activities of daily living ability, continence, and cognitive function. RESULTS: The proportion of "apparently independent" residents decreased from 18% in 1988 to 9% in 1993, 5% in 1998, and 4% in 2008, whereas those "highly dependent" increased from 16% in 1988, to 18% in 1993, 19% in 1998, to 21% in 2008. All functional indicators demonstrated increased dependency over the 20-year period (P < .0001). However, between 1998 and 2008 there were significant increases in dependency for continence, mobility, self-care, and orientation, but no significant changes in memory and behavior. CONCLUSION: The increased dependency over 20 years directly affects care requirements for this population.

A complex intervention to support 'rest home' care: a pilot study.

AIMS: To describe an intervention supporting Aged Related Residential Care (ARRC) and to report an initial evaluation. METHODS: The intervention consisted of: medication review by a multidisciplinary team; education programmes for nurses; telephone advice 'hotlines' for nursing and medical staff; Advance Care Planning; and implementing existing community programmes for chronic care management and preventing acute hospital admissions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the multidisciplinary team, rest home nurses and caregivers. Quantitative data were collected on medication changes, hotline use, use of education opportunities and admissions to hospital. RESULTS: Medications were reduced by 21%. Staff noted improvements in the physical and mental state of residents. There was no significant reduction in hospital admissions. Nurses were unable to attend the education offered to them, but it was taken up and valued by caregivers. There was minimal uptake of formal acute and chronic care programmes and Advance Care Planning during the intervention. Hotlines were welcomed and used regularly by the nurses, but not the GP. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of high status specialist support on site was enthusiastically welcomed by ARRC staff. The interventions continue to evolve due to limited uptake or success of some components in the pilot.