CONTACT: a non-randomised feasibility study of bluetooth-enabled wearables for contact tracing in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The need for effective non-pharmaceutical infection prevention measures such as contact tracing in pandemics remains in care homes, but traditional approaches to contact tracing are not feasible in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduces Bluetooth-enabled wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a potential solution for automated contact tracing. Using structured reports and reports triggered by positive COVID-19 cases in homes, we fed contact patterns and trends back to homes to support better-informed infection prevention decisions and reduce blanket application of restrictive measures. This paper reports on the evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention prior to a planned definitive cluster randomised trial of the CONTACT BLE wearable intervention. METHODS: CONTACT was a non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study over 2 months in four English care homes. Recruitment was via care home research networks, with individual consent. Data collection methods included routine data from the devices, case report forms, qualitative interviews (with staff and residents), field observation of care, and an adapted version of the NoMaD survey instrument to explore implementation using Normalisation Process Theory. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach and Normalisation Process Theory. Intervention and study delivery were evaluated against predefined progression criteria. RESULTS: Of 156 eligible residents, 105 agreed to wear a device, with 102 (97%) starting the intervention. Of 225 eligible staff, 82% (n = 178) participated. Device loss and damage were significant: 11% of resident devices were lost or damaged, ~ 50% were replaced. Staff lost fewer devices, just 6%, but less than 10% were replaced. Fob wearables needed more battery changes than card-type devices (15% vs. 0%). Structured and reactive feedback was variably understood by homes but unlikely to be acted on. Researcher support for interpreting reports was valued. Homes found information useful when it confirmed rather than challenged preconceived contact patterns. Staff privacy concerns were a barrier to adoption. Study procedures added to existing work, making participation burdensome. Study participation benefits did not outweigh perceived burden and were amplified by the pandemic context. CONTACT did not meet its quantitative or qualitative progression criteria. CONCLUSION: CONTACT found a large-scale definitive trial of BLE wearables for contact tracing and feedback-informed IPC in care homes unfeasible and unacceptable - at least in the context of shifting COVID-19 pandemic demands. Future research should co-design interventions and studies with care homes, focusing on successful intervention implementation as well as technical effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registration: 11204126 registered 17/02/2021.

'Smart' BLE wearables for digital contact tracing in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic-a process evaluation of the CONTACT feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and mass transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus amongst vulnerable people led to devastating effects from COVID-19 in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduced Bluetooth Low Energy 'smart' wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a basis for automated contact tracing in, and feedback on infection risks and patterns to, care homes to try and improve infection prevention and control (IPC). We planned a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CONTACT. To be feasible, homes had to adopt CONTACT's technology and new ways of working. This paper reports on the process evaluation conducted alongside CONTACT's feasibility study and explains why it lacked the feasibility and acceptability for a definitive RCT. METHODS: This mixed method process evaluation used Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) qualitative (interviews, field notes, study case report forms and documents, and observation) and quantitative (survey instruments, counts of activity) data to plan, implement, and analyse the mechanisms, effects, and contextual factors that shaped the feasibility and acceptability of the CONTACT intervention. RESULTS: Thirteen themes within four core NPT constructs explained CONTACT's lack of feasibility. Coherence: the home's varied in the scale and extent of commitment and understanding of the technology and study procedures. Leadership credibility was important but compromised by competing priorities. Management and direct care staff saw CONTACT differently. Work to promote (cognitive participation) and enact (collective action) CONTACT was burdensome and failed to be prioritised over competing COVID-19-related demands on time and scarce human and cognitive resources. Ultimately, staff appraisal of the value of CONTACT-generated information and study procedures (reflexivity) was that any utility for IPC was insufficient to outweigh the perceived burden and complexity involved. CONCLUSIONS: Despite implementation failure, dismissing BLE wearables' potential for contact tracing is premature. In non-pandemic conditions, with more time, better co-design and integration of theory-driven implementation strategies tailored to care homes' unique contexts, researchers could enhance normalisation in readiness for future pandemic challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registration: 11,204,126 registered 17/02/2021.

Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources.

CONTEXT: Barriers to the use of systematic reviews by policymakers may be overcome by resources that adapt and present the findings in formats more directly tailored to their needs. We performed a systematic scoping review to identify such knowledge-translation resources and evaluations of them. METHODS: Resources were eligible for inclusion in this study if they were based exclusively or primarily on systematic reviews and were aimed at health care policymakers at the national or local level. Resources were identified by screening the websites of health technology assessment agencies and systematic review producers, supplemented by an email survey. Electronic databases and proceedings of the Cochrane Colloquium and HTA International were searched as well for published and unpublished evaluations of knowledge-translation resources. Resources were classified as summaries, overviews, or policy briefs using a previously published classification. FINDINGS: Twenty knowledge-translation resources were identified, of which eleven were classified as summaries, six as overviews, and three as policy briefs. Resources added value to systematic reviews by, for example, evaluating their methodological quality or assessing the reliability of their conclusions or their generalizability to particular settings. The literature search found four published evaluation studies of knowledge-translation resources, and the screening of abstracts and contact with authors found three more unpublished studies. The majority of studies reported on the perceived usefulness of the service, although there were some examples of review-based resources being used to assist actual decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review producers provide a variety of resources to help policymakers, of which focused summaries are the most common. More evaluations of these resources are required to ensure users' needs are being met, to demonstrate their impact, and to justify their funding.

Pro re nata prescribing and administration for neuropsychiatric symptoms and pain in long-term care residents with dementia and memory problems: a cross-sectional study.

Background Prescribing, dispensing and administering pro re nata (PRN; as needed or necessary, as determined by an individual) medicines to people with intermittent or short-term conditions is a potential area for medication errors and inappropriate prescribing and administration. In people with dementia, regular PRN medicines use can demonstrate good practice when appropriate or poor in situations where their use is not recommended. However, the frequency of PRN prescription and administration within long-term care settings (care homes) for people with dementia is largely unknown. A limited number of studies worldwide suggest variation between countries. Objective To describe the prescription and administration rates of PRN medicines for people with dementia in UK care homes. Setting Fifty UK care homes. Method Medication details were collected from review of residents' medicines records within the care home for the previous month. Main outcome measure Prescription and administration of PRN medicines for the treatment of behaviours associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms and pain. Results The most commonly prescribed PRN medicines were analgesics (35.3%), although lower levels of PRN prescription were observed compared to recent studies. The percentage of residents receiving PRN administrations varied, with 20% for antipsychotics, 50% for benzodiazepines, 59% for analgesics, and 85.7% for nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics being administered. Conclusion Further research is needed to understand the decision making in PRN prescription and administration within long-term care. The prescribing of potentially inappropriate medicines remains a problem in long-term care settings and pharmacists have a key role in reducing inappropriate polypharmacy by undertaking medication reviews that consider both regular and PRN medicines.

Systematic review of information and support interventions for caregivers of people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is an important health and social care problem and is one of the main causes of disability in later life. The number of families affected by dementia will dramatically increase over the next five decades. Despite the implications for health and social care services in the future, the overwhelming majority of care for people with dementia takes place away from health care settings. Providing informal care for someone with dementia can be psychologically, physically and financially expensive and a range of health service interventions aimed at supporting and providing information to these carers has developed to help carers meet these demands. This review examines whether information and support interventions improve the quality of life of people caring for someone with dementia. METHODS: A systematic review examining evidence from randomised controlled trials in which technology, individualised or group-based interventions built around the provision of support and/or information were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included in the review. Controlling for the quality of the evidence, we found statistically significant evidence that group-based supportive interventions impact positively on psychological morbidity. However, whilst the improvement was unlikely to be due to chance, the clinical significance of this finding should be interpreted tentatively, due to the difficulties in interpreting the standardised mean difference as a measure of effect and the complex aetiology of depression. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of any other form of intervention on a range of physical and psychological health outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that interventions aimed at supporting and/or providing information to carers of people with dementia are uniformly effective. There is a pressing need to ensure that supportive interventions at the development stage are accompanied by good quality randomised evaluations in which outcomes that are important to clinicians and carers are measured.