RCT-based Social Return on Investment (SROI) of a Home Exercise Program for People With Early Dementia Comparing In-Person and Blended Delivery Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Regular exercise and community engagement may slow the rate of function loss for people with dementia. However, the evidence is uncertain regarding the cost-effectiveness and social return on investment (SROI) of home exercise with community referral for people with dementia. This study aimed to compare the social value generated from the in-person PrAISED program delivered before March 2020 with a blended PrAISED program delivered after March 2020. SROI methodology compared in-person and blended delivery formats of a home exercise program. Stakeholders were identified, a logic model was developed, outcomes were evidenced and valued, costs were calculated, and SROI ratios were estimated. Five relevant and material outcomes were identified: 3 outcomes for patient participants (fear of falling, health-related quality of life, and social connection); 1 outcome for carer participants (carer strain), and 1 outcome for the National Health Service (NHS) (health service resource use). Data were collected at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The in-person PrAISED program generated SROI ratios ranging from £0.58 to £2.33 for every £1 invested. In-person PrAISED patient participants gained social value from improved health-related quality of life, social connection, and less fear of falling. In-person PrAISED carer participants acquired social value from less carer strain. The NHS gained benefit from less health care service resource use. However, the blended PrAISED program generated lower SROI ratios ranging from a negative ratio to £0.08:£1. Compared with the blended program, the PrAISED in-person program generated higher SROI ratios for people with early dementia. An in-person PrAISED intervention with community referral is likely to provide better value for money than a blended one with limited community referral, despite the greater costs of the former.Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15320670.

Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report our experience using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two reviewers independently applied RoB 2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded the time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored the time taken with regression analysis and summarized our experience of implementing the tool. RESULTS: We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (ß = 22) and reports (ß = 14) per study and experience of the team (ß = -6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently, we developed cut points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan. CONCLUSION: The RoB 2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk of bias implementation. Improved guidance focusing on implementation could assist reviewers.

New horizons in evidence-based care for older people: individual participant data meta-analysis.

Evidence-based decisions on clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions are ideally informed by meta-analyses of intervention trial data. However, when undertaken, such meta-analyses in ageing research have typically been conducted using standard methods whereby summary (aggregate) data are extracted from published trial reports. Although meta-analysis of aggregate data can provide useful insights into the average effect of interventions within a selected trial population, it has limitations regarding robust conclusions on which subgroups of people stand to gain the greatest benefit from an intervention or are at risk of experiencing harm. Future evidence synthesis using individual participant data from ageing research trials for meta-analysis could transform understanding of the effectiveness of interventions for older people, supporting evidence-based and sustainable commissioning. A major advantage of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it enables examination of characteristics that predict treatment effects, such as frailty, disability, cognitive impairment, ethnicity, gender and other wider determinants of health. Key challenges of IPDMA relate to the complexity and resources needed for obtaining, managing and preparing datasets, requiring a meticulous approach involving experienced researchers, frequently with expertise in designing and analysing clinical trials. In anticipation of future IPDMA work in ageing research, we are establishing an international Ageing Research Trialists collective, to bring together trialists with a common focus on transforming care for older people as a shared ambition across nations.

The Combined Oral Stable Isotope Assessment of Muscle (COSIAM) reveals D-3 creatine derived muscle mass as a standout cross-sectional biomarker of muscle physiology vitality in older age.

Validated diagnostics of skeletal muscle vitality could benefit clinical and basic science in terms of mechanistic insights and in determining the efficacy of interventions, e.g. exercise/pharmaceuticals/nutrients. We recently developed a Combined Oral Assessment of Muscle (COSIAM) that can be used to simultaneously quantify whole-body muscle mass (WBMM), muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and muscle protein breakdown (MPB). Here, we aimed to establish, in a cross-sectional fashion, links between COSIAM parameters and established aspects of muscle function. We recruited 37 healthy older adults (male (M):female (F) (21/16); 72 ± 5 y)) into a 3-day trial. Subjects consumed D3-creatine (D3-Cr dilution to assess WBMM), D2O (MPS by incorporation of alanine) and D3-3-methylhistidine (D3-MH dilution to assess MPB). A biopsy at day 3 was used to determine MPS, and blood/urine samples were collected to determine D3-Cr/D3-MH dilution for WBMM and MPB. Physiological measures of muscle mass (e.g. DXA/ultrasound) and function (e.g. handgrip strength, maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), one-repetition maximum (1-RM)) were ascertained. A stepwise linear regression approach was used to address links between facets of COSIAM (MPS, MPB, WBMM) and muscle physiology. Despite expected differences in muscle mass, there were no significant differences in MPS or MPB between sexes. WBMM as measured using D3-Cr positively correlated with DXA-derived lean body mass (LBM) and appendicular LBM (ABLM). Stepwise linear regression was used to assess which combination of MPS, MPB, D3-Cr and absolute synthesis rate (ASR) best predicted physiological measures of muscle health in these older adults. D3-Cr WBMM alone was the best predictor of handgrip, 1RM and MVC, and outperformed more traditional measures of muscle mass by DXA. The COSIAM approach substantiates D3-Cr as a robust biomarker of multiple muscle physiology health biomarkers. Future work using COSIAM should focus upon how and which parameters it can inform upon in relation to disease progression and the efficacy of interventions.

A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and difficult to prevent. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme. DESIGN: A multicentre, cluster, parallel, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Care homes were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the GtACH programme or usual care using a secure web-based randomisation service. Research assistants, participating residents and staff informants were blind to allocation at recruitment; research assistants were blind to allocation at follow-up. NHS Digital data were extracted blindly. SETTING: Older people's care homes from 10 UK sites. PARTICIPANTS: Older care home residents. INTERVENTION: The GtACH programme, which includes care home staff training, systematic use of a multidomain decision support tool and implementation of falls prevention actions, compared to usual falls prevention care. OUTCOMES: The primary trial outcome was the rate of falls per participating resident occurring during the 90-day period between 91 and 180 days post randomisation. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was the cost per fall averted, and the primary outcome for the cost-utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year. Secondary outcomes included the rate of falls over days 0-90 and 181-360 post randomisation, activity levels, dependency and fractures. The number of falls per resident was compared between arms using a negative binomial regression model (generalised estimating equation). RESULTS: A total of 84 care homes were randomised: 39 to the GtACH arm and 45 to the control arm. A total of 1657 residents consented and provided baseline measures (mean age 85 years, 32% men). GtACH programme training was delivered to 1051 staff (71% of eligible staff) over 146 group sessions. Primary outcome data were available for 630 GtACH participants and 712 control participants. The primary outcome result showed an unadjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; p < 0.01) in favour of the GtACH programme. Falls rates were lower in the GtACH arm in the period 0-90 days. There were no other differences between arms in the secondary outcomes. Care home staff valued the training, systematic strategies and specialist peer support, but the incorporation of the GtACH programme documentation into routine care home practice was limited. No adverse events were recorded. The incremental cost was £20,889.42 per Dementia Specific Quality of Life-based quality-adjusted life-year and £4543.69 per quality-adjusted life-year based on the EuroQol-5 dimensions, five-level version. The mean number of falls was 1.889 (standard deviation 3.662) in the GtACH arm and 2.747 (standard deviation 7.414) in the control arm. Therefore, 0.858 falls were averted. The base-case incremental cost per fall averted was £190.62. CONCLUSION: The GtACH programme significantly reduced the falls rate in the study care homes without restricting residents' activity levels or increasing their dependency, and was cost-effective at current thresholds in the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Future work should include a broad implementation programme, focusing on scale and sustainability of the GtACH programme. LIMITATIONS: A key limitation was the fact that care home staff were not blinded, although risk was small because of the UK statutory requirement to record falls in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN34353836. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and hard to prevent. We tested whether or not the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme was effective in preventing falls. In this programme, care home staff were systematically trained and supported in the assessment of residents' risk of falling and the generation of a falls reduction care plan. We undertook a randomised controlled trial comparing the GtACH programme with usual care, which does not involve this systematic attention to falls prevention. We also undertook a process evaluation, observing organisational and care processes, and an economic study to evaluate value for money. A total of 39 care homes were randomly allocated to the GtACH programme and 45 care homes were randomly allocated to usual care, involving a total of 1657 residents. The main comparison between the two arms was the rate of falls during months 4­6 after randomisation, when we expected any effect to be at its peak. We also assessed the falls rates before and 6 months after this period. We measured activity and dependency levels, as it was important to be sure that any reduction in the rate of falls was not achieved through restrictive care practices. We saw a 43% reduction in the falls rates of the GtACH programme participants during months 4­6, without observing any reduction in residents' activity or dependency. Care home staff and relatives were positive about the GtACH programme. The GtACH programme was good value for money, as it was likely to be cost-effective. The effect of the programme waned over months 6­12, which may be because some staff did not embed the GtACH programme in their usual practice routines, and awareness levels may have dropped.

Multifactorial falls prevention programme compared with usual care in UK care homes for older people: multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a multifactorial fall prevention programme compared with usual care in long term care homes. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Long term care homes in the UK, registered to care for older people or those with dementia. PARTICIPANTS: 1657 consenting residents and 84 care homes. 39 were randomised to the intervention group and 45 were randomised to usual care. INTERVENTIONS: Guide to Action for Care Homes (GtACH): a multifactorial fall prevention programme or usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was fall rate at 91-180 days after randomisation. The economic evaluation measured health related quality of life using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the five domain five level version of the EuroQoL index (EQ-5D-5L) or proxy version (EQ-5D-5L-P) and the Dementia Quality of Life utility measure (DEMQOL-U), which were self-completed by competent residents and by a care home staff member proxy (DEMQOL-P-U) for all residents (in case the ability to complete changed during the study) until 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were falls at 1-90, 181-270, and 271-360 days after randomisation, Barthel index score, and the Physical Activity Measure-Residential Care Homes (PAM-RC) score at 91, 180, 270, and 360 days after randomisation. RESULTS: Mean age of residents was 85 years. 32% were men. GtACH training was delivered to 1051/1480 staff (71%). Primary outcome data were available for 630 participants in the GtACH group and 712 in the usual care group. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio for falls between 91 and 180 days was 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.71, P<0.001) in favour of the GtACH programme (GtACH: six falls/1000 residents v usual care: 10 falls/1000). Barthel activities of daily living indices and PAM-RC scores were similar between groups at all time points. The incremental cost was £108 (95% confidence interval -£271.06 to 487.58), incremental QALYs gained for EQ-5D-5L-P was 0.024 (95% confidence interval 0.004 to 0.044) and for DEMQOL-P-U was 0.005 (-0.019 to 0.03). The incremental costs per EQ-5D-5L-P and DEMQOL-P-U based QALY were £4544 and £20 889, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The GtACH programme was associated with a reduction in fall rate and cost effectiveness, without a decrease in activity or increase in dependency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34353836.

Combined in vivo muscle mass, muscle protein synthesis and muscle protein breakdown measurement: a 'Combined Oral Stable Isotope Assessment of Muscle (COSIAM)' approach.

Optimising approaches for measuring skeletal muscle mass and turnover that are widely applicable, minimally invasive and cost effective is crucial in furthering research into sarcopenia and cachexia. Traditional approaches for measurement of muscle protein turnover require infusion of expensive, sterile, isotopically labelled tracers which limits the applicability of these approaches in certain populations (e.g. clinical, frail elderly). To concurrently quantify skeletal muscle mass and muscle protein turnover i.e. muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and muscle protein breakdown (MPB), in elderly human volunteers using stable-isotope labelled tracers i.e. Methyl-[D3]-creatine (D3-Cr), deuterium oxide (D2O), and Methyl-[D3]-3-methylhistidine (D3-3MH), to measure muscle mass, MPS and MPB, respectively. We recruited 10 older males (71 ± 4 y, BMI: 25 ± 4 kg.m2, mean ± SD) into a 4-day study, with DXA and consumption of D2O and D3-Cr tracers on day 1. D3-3MH was consumed on day 3, 24 h prior to returning to the lab. From urine, saliva and blood samples, and a single muscle biopsy (vastus lateralis), we determined muscle mass, MPS and MPB. D3-Cr derived muscle mass was positively correlated to appendicular fat-free mass (AFFM) estimated by DXA (r = 0.69, P = 0.027). Rates of cumulative myofibrillar MPS over 3 days were 0.072%/h (95% CI, 0.064 to 0.081%/h). Whole-body MPB over 6 h was 0.052 (95% CI, 0.038 to 0.067). These rates were similar to previous literature. We demonstrate the potential for D3-Cr to be used alongside D2O and D3-3MH for concurrent measurement of muscle mass, MPS, and MPB using a minimally invasive design, applicable for clinical and frail populations.

Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining independence is a primary goal of community health and care services for older people, but there is currently insufficient guidance about which services to implement. Therefore, we aim to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people, including the effect of frailty, and group interventions to identify the best configurations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people living at home (mean age ≥65 years), compared with usual care or another complex intervention. We will search MEDLINE (1946 to September 2020), Embase (1947 to September 2020), CINAHL (1981 to September 2020), PsycINFO (1806 to September 2020), CENTRAL and clinical trial registries from inception to September 2020, without date/language restrictions, and scan included papers' reference lists. Main outcomes were: living at home, activities of daily living (basic/instrumental), home-care services usage, hospitalisation, care home admission, costs and cost effectiveness. Additional outcomes were: health status, depression, loneliness, falls and mortality. Interventions will be coded, summarised and grouped. An NMA using a multivariate random-effects model for each outcome separately will determine the relative effects of different complex interventions. For each outcome, we will produce summary effect estimates for each pair of treatments in the network, with 95% CI, ranking plots and measures, and the borrowing of strength statistic. Inconsistency will be examined using a 'design-by-treatment interaction' model. We will assess risk of bias (Cochrane tool V.2) and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for NMA approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will use aggregated, anonymised, published data. Findings will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. They will be disseminated to policy-makers, commissioners and providers, and via conferences and scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019162195.

Ethnic disparity in access to the memory assessment service between South Asian and white British older adults in the United Kingdom: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Equality of access to memory assessment services by older adults from ethnic minorities is both an ethical imperative and a public health priority. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether timeliness of access to memory assessment service differs between older people of white British and South Asian ethnicity. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort. SETTING: Nottingham Memory Study; outpatient secondary mental healthcare. SUBJECTS: Our cohort comprised 3654 white British and 32 South Asian older outpatients. METHODS: The criterion for timely access to memory assessment service was set at 90 days from referral. Relationships between ethnicity and likelihood of timely access to memory assessment service were analysed using binary logistic regression. Analyses were adjusted for socio-demographic factors, deprivation and previous access to rapid response mental health services. RESULTS: Among white British outpatients, 2272 people (62.2%) achieved timely access to memory assessment service. Among South Asian outpatients, fourteen people (43.8%) achieved timely access to memory assessment service. After full adjustment, South Asian outpatients had a 0.47-fold reduced likelihood of timely access, compared to white British outpatients (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.95, P value = .035). The difference became non-significant when restricting analyses to outpatients reporting British nationality or English as first language. Older age, lower index of deprivation and previous access to rapid response mental health services were associated with reduced likelihood of timely access, while gender was not. CONCLUSIONS: In a UK mental healthcare service, older South Asian outpatients are less likely to access dementia diagnostic services in a timely way, compared to white British outpatients.

Role of comprehensive geriatric assessment in healthcare of older people in UK care homes: realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) may be a way to deliver optimal care for care home residents. We used realist review to develop a theory-driven account of how CGA works in care homes. DESIGN: Realist review. SETTING: Care homes. METHODS: The review had three stages: first, interviews with expert stakeholders and scoping of the literature to develop programme theories for CGA; second, iterative searches with structured retrieval and extraction of the literature; third, synthesis to refine the programme theory of how CGA works in care homes.We used the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychInfo, PubMed, Google Scholar, Greylit, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: 130 articles informed a programme theory which suggested CGA had three main components: structured comprehensive assessment, developing a care plan and working towards patient-centred goals. Each of these required engagement of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Most evidence was available around assessment, with tension between structured assessment led by a single professional and less structured assessment involving multiple members of an MDT. Care planning needed to accommodate visiting clinicians and there was evidence that a core MDT often used care planning as a mechanism to seek external specialist support. Goal-setting processes were not always sufficiently patient-centred and did not always accommodate the views of care home staff. Studies reported improved outcomes from CGA affecting resident satisfaction, prescribing, healthcare resource use and objective measures of quality of care. CONCLUSION: The programme theory described here provides a framework for understanding how CGA could be effective in care homes. It will be of use to teams developing, implementing or auditing CGA in care homes. All three components are required to make CGA work-this may explain why attempts to implement CGA by interventions focused solely on assessment or care planning have failed in some long-term care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017062601.

Improving community support for older people's needs through commissioning third sector services: a qualitative study.

AIM: This exploratory study of commissioning third sector services for older people aimed to explore whether service data was fed back to commissioners and whether this could improve intelligence about the population and hence inform future commissioning decisions. BACKGROUND: Third sector services are provided through charities and non-profit community organizations, and over recent years services have developed that assess and advise people for self-management or provide wellbeing support in the community. Third sector services have an opportunity to reach vulnerable populations and to provide intelligence about them. Some third sector services are state funded (commissioned) in the United Kingdom. While evidence is available about the commissioning of statutory health and social care, as well as private providers, there is limited evidence about how third sector health services are funded. METHODS: Participants were recruited from commissioner organizations and third sector organizations, both with an interest in supporting the independence, self-management and wellbeing of older people. Organizations were recruited from five purposively selected sites within one region of England (East Midlands). Semi-structured interviews explored the relationships between commissioners and providers and the nature of funding arrangements, including co-production. Interviews also explored collection of data within the service and how data were fed back to commissioners. Focus groups were held with older people with the potential to benefit from wellbeing services. RESULTS: Commissioning arrangements were varied, sometimes complex, and often involved co-production with the third sector. Commissioners valued third sector organizations for their engagement with the local community, value for money, outreach services and ability to provide information about the community. Assessing the needs and outcomes of individuals was integral to delivery of support and advice to older people. Diverse approaches were used to assess an individual's needs and outcomes, although there were concerns that some assessment questionnaires may be too complex for this vulnerable group. Assessment and outcomes data were also used to monitor the service contract and there was potential for the data to be summarized to inform commissioning strategies, but commissioners did not report using assessment data in this way, in practice. While the policy context encouraged partnerships with third sector organizations and their involvement in decision making, the relationship with third sector organizations was not valued within contract arrangements, and may have been made more difficult by the tendering process and the lack of analysis of service data. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study has demonstrated a diversity of commissioning arrangements for third sector services across one region of England. Most commissioners invited co-production; that is, the commissioners sought input from the third sector while specifying details of the service. Service data, including assessments of needs and outcomes, were reported to commissioners, however commissioners did not appear to use this to full advantage to inform future commissioning decisions. This may indicate a need to improve measurement of needs and outcomes in order to improve the credibility of the commissioning process.

Growing research in geriatric medicine.

Academic geriatric medicine activity lags behind the scale of clinical activity in the specialty. A meeting of UK academic geriatricians was convened in March 2018 to consider causes and solutions to this problem. The meeting highlighted a lack of research-active clinicians, a perception that research is not central to the practice of geriatric medicine and a failure to translate discovery science to clinical studies. Solutions proposed included better support for early-career clinical researchers, schemes to encourage non-University clinicians to be research-active, wider collaboration with organ specialists to broaden the funding envelope, and the need to co-produce research programmes with end-users. Solutions to grow academic geriatric medicine are essential if we are to provide the best care for the growing older population.

A randomised controlled trial of an exercise intervention promoting activity, independence and stability in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia (PrAISED) - A Protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia progressively lose cognitive and functional abilities. Interventions promoting exercise and activity may slow decline. We developed a novel intervention to promote activity and independence and prevent falls in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia. We successfully undertook a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to refine the intervention and research delivery. We are now delivering a multi-centred RCT to evaluate its clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We will recruit 368 people with MCI or early dementia (Montreal Cognitive Assessment score 13-25) and a family member or carer from memory assessment clinics, other community health or social care venues or an online register (the National Institute for Health Research Join Dementia Research). Participants will be randomised to an individually tailored activity and exercise programme delivered using motivational theory to promote adherence and continued engagement, with up to 50 supervised sessions over one year, or a brief falls prevention assessment (control). The intervention will be delivered in participants' homes by trained physiotherapists, occupational therapists and therapy assistants. We will measure disabilities in activities of daily living, physical activity, balance, cognition, mood, quality of life, falls, carer strain and healthcare and social care use. We will use a mixed methods approach to conduct a process evaluation to assess staff training and delivery of the intervention, and to identify individual- and context-level mechanisms affecting intervention engagement and activity maintenance. We will undertake a health economic evaluation to determine if the intervention is cost-effective. DISCUSSION: We describe the protocol for a multi-centre RCT that will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a therapy programme designed to promote activity and independence amongst people living with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15320670. Registered on 4 September 2018.

Scaling the Peaks Research Protocol: understanding the barriers and drivers to providing and using dementia-friendly community services in rural areas-a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Scaling the Peaks is a cross-disciplinary research study that draws on medical ethnography, human geography and Geospatial Information Science (GIS) to address the issues surrounding the design and delivery of dementia-friendly services in rural communities. The research question seeks to understand the barriers and drivers to the development of relevant, robust, reliable and accessible services that make a difference among older rural families affected by dementia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed methods study recruits both families affected by dementia who reside within the Peak District National Park, Derbyshire, and their service providers. The study explores the expectations and experiences of rural dementia by adopting a three-part approach 1 : longitudinal ethnographic enquiry with up to 32 families affected by dementia (aged 70 years plus) who identify themselves as rural residents 2 ; ethnographic semistructured interviews and systematic observations of a range of statutory, third sector, private and local community initiatives that seek to support older people living with dementia 3 ; and geospatial visual mapping of the qualitative and quantitative data. The ethnographic data will be used to explore the ideas of belonging in a community, perceptions of place and identity to determine the factors that influence everyday decisions about living well with dementia and, for the providers, working in a rural community. The geospatial component of the study seeks to incorporate quantitative and qualitative data, such as types, locations and allocation of services to produce an interactive web-based map for local communities to determine the future design and delivery of services when considering dementia-friendly services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Leeds and Humberside Health Research Authority 16/YH/0163. The study is also approved by other participating organisations as required by their own governance procedures. The study includes people with dementia and as such adheres to the ethical considerations when including people with dementia. A publicly available interactive visual map of the findings will be produced in relation to current services related to location and, by default, identify gaps in provision. Formal reports and dissemination activities will be undertaken in collaboration with the study advisory group members. STUDY PROGRESS: The recruitment began in September 2016. The data analysis commenced June 2017, using 59 provider interviews and 27 family participants. Data collection will be completed June 2018. NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY: Please note that the term 'families affected by dementia' is the preferred term of usage by the family members of the Scaling the Peaks Study Advisory Group. The group wish to emphasise that they consider this term to be more representative of their lives than the term living with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NIHR IRAS 188103; Pre-results.

A development study and randomised feasibility trial of a tailored intervention to improve activity and reduce falls in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia progressively lose abilities and are prone to falling. Exercise- and activity-based interventions hold the prospect of increasing abilities, reducing falls, and slowing decline in cognition. Current falls prevention approaches are poorly suited to people with dementia, however, and are of uncertain effectiveness. We used multiple sources, and a co-production approach, to develop a new intervention, which we will evaluate in a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), with embedded adherence, process and economic analyses. METHODS: We will recruit people with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia from memory assessment clinics, and a family member or carer. We will randomise participants between a therapy programme with high intensity supervision over 12 months, a therapy programme with moderate intensity supervision over 3 months, and brief falls assessment and advice as a control intervention. The therapy programmes will be delivered at home by mental health specialist therapists and therapy assistants. We will measure activities of daily living, falls and a battery of intermediate and distal health status outcomes, including activity, balance, cognition, mood and quality of life. The main aim is to test recruitment and retention, intervention delivery, data collection and other trial processes in advance of a planned definitive RCT. We will also study motivation and adherence, and conduct a process evaluation to help understand why results occurred using mixed methods, including a qualitative interview study and scales measuring psychological, motivation and communication variables. We will undertake an economic study, including modelling of future impact and cost to end-of-life, and a social return on investment analysis. DISCUSSION: In this study, we aim to better understand the practicalities of both intervention and research delivery, and to generate substantial new knowledge on motivation, adherence and the approach to economic analysis. This will enable us to refine a novel intervention to promote activity and safety after a diagnosis of dementia, which will be evaluated in a definitive randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874300; ISRCTN 10550694.

Withdrawal of antihypertensive therapy in people with dementia: feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the feasibility of a randomised controlled withdrawal trial of antihypertensive medication in normotensive people with dementia. Feasibility aspects included response, recruitment, exclusion and drop-out rates, suitability of outcome measures, acceptability of study procedures and an indicative economic evaluation for a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: A cohort study attempting the withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs where appropriate and a feasibility study of home-based blood pressure monitoring, in people with dementia treated for hypertension, was undertaken. Interviews with participants and carers and an indicative economic evaluation were also undertaken. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-two primary care practices in the East Midlands were contacted of which only 41 (11% (95%CI 8-15%)) agreed to support the study. These 41 practices posted 940 letters to potential participants. Thirty participants were enrolled in the cohort study of whom 9 were eligible for the antihypertensive withdrawal programme, 20 participated in a home blood pressure monitoring sub-group analysis and 12 took part in an interview study. Twenty-two of those enrolled in the cohort study were followed up at 6 months. The withdrawal programme was acceptable to participants and general practitioners (GPs). The study procedures including assessments and home blood pressure monitoring were acceptable to the participants and their carers. The economic evaluation was not possible. CONCLUSION: A withdrawal trial of antihypertensive medication in normotensive people with dementia may not be feasible in the UK because of low recruitment rates.

Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with vertebral fragility fractures: a systematic review.

Background: the complex management for patients presenting to hospital with vertebral fragility fractures provides justification for the development of specific services for them. A systematic review was undertaken to determine the incidence of hospital admission, patient characteristics and health outcomes of vertebral fragility fracture patients to inform the development of such a service. Methods: non-randomised studies of vertebral fragility fracture in hospital were included. Searches were conducted using electronic databases and citation searching of the included papers. Results: a total of 19 studies were included. The incidence of hospital admission varied from 2.8 to 19.3 per 10,000/year. The average patient age was 81 years, the majority having presented with a fall. A diagnosis of osteoporosis or previous fragility fracture was reported in around one-third of patients. Most patients (75% men and 78% women) had five or more co-pathologies. Most patients were managed non-operatively with a median hospital length of stay of 10 days. One-third of patients were started on osteoporosis treatment. Inpatient and 1-year mortality was between 0.9 and 3.5%, and 20 and 27%, respectively, between 34 and 50% were discharged from hospital to a care facility. Many patients were more dependent with activities of daily living on discharge compared to their pre-admission level. Older age and increasing comorbidities was associated with longer hospital stay and higher mortality. Conclusion: these findings indicate that specific hospital services for patients with vertebral fragility fractures should take into consideration local hospitalisation rates for the condition, and should be multifaceted-providing access to diagnostic, therapeutic, surgical and rehabilitation interventions.

Using comprehensive geriatric assessment for quality improvements in healthcare of older people in UK care homes: protocol for realist review within Proactive Healthcare of Older People in Care Homes (PEACH) study.

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are relatively high users of healthcare resources and may have complex needs. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) may benefit care home residents and improve efficiency of care delivery. This is an approach to care in which there is a thorough multidisciplinary assessment (physical and mental health, functioning and physical and social environments) and a care plan based on this assessment, usually delivered by a multidisciplinary team. The CGA process is known to improve outcomes for community-dwelling older people and those in receipt of hospital care, but less is known about its efficacy in care home residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Realist review was selected as the most appropriate method to explore the complex nature of the care home setting and multidisciplinary delivery of care. The aim of the realist review is to identify and characterise a programme theory that underpins the CGA intervention. The realist review will extract data from research articles which describe the causal mechanisms through which the practice of CGA generates outcomes. The focus of the intervention is care homes, and the outcomes of interest are health-related quality of life and satisfaction with services; for both residents and staff. Further outcomes may include appropriate use of National Health Service services and resources of older care home residents. The review will proceed through three stages: (1) identifying the candidate programme theories that underpin CGA through interviews with key stakeholders, systematic search of the peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed evidence, (2) identifying the evidence relevant to CGA in UK care homes and refining the programme theories through refining and iterating the systematic search, lateral searches and seeking further information from study authors and (3) analysis and synthesis of evidence, involving the testing of the programme theories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The PEACH project was identified as service development following submission to the UK Health Research Authority and subsequent review by the University of Nottingham Research Ethics Committee. The study protocols have been reviewed as part of good governance by the Nottinghamshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. We aim to publish this realist review in a peer-reviewed journal with international readership. We will disseminate findings to public and stakeholders using knowledge mobilisation techniques. Stakeholders will include the Quality Improvement Collaboratives within PEACH study. National networks, such as British Society of Gerontology and National Care Association will be approached for wider dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The realist review has been registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017062601).

Early discharge hospital at home.

BACKGROUND: Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care. This is an update of a Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to 9 January 2017: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit. We searched clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care for adults. We excluded obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials (N = 4746), six of them new for this update, mainly conducted in high-income countries. We judged most of the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was delivered by hospital outreach services (17 trials), community-based services (11 trials), and was co-ordinated by a hospital-based stroke team or physician in conjunction with community-based services in four trials.Studies recruiting people recovering from strokeEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality at three to six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.48, N = 1114, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hospital readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66, N = 345, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in institutional setting at six months (RR 0.63, 96% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 574, 4 trials, low-certainty evidence) and might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 795, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably reduces hospital length of stay, as moderate-certainty evidence found that people assigned to hospital at home are discharged from the intervention about seven days earlier than people receiving inpatient care (95% CI 10.19 to 3.17 days earlier, N = 528, 4 trials). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people with a mix of medical conditionsEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; N = 1247, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there was insufficient information to determine the effect of these two approaches on mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12, N = 496, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably increases the risk of hospital readmission in a mix of medical conditions, although the results are also compatible with no difference and a relatively large increase in the risk of readmission (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.58, N = 1276, 9 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). Early discharge hospital at home may decrease the risk of readmission for people with COPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, N = 496, 5 trials low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in an institutional setting (RR 0.69, 0.48 to 0.99; N = 484, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 900, low-certainty evidence). The effect of early discharge hospital at home on hospital length of stay for older patients with a mix of conditions ranged from a reduction of 20 days to a reduction of less than half a day (moderate-certainty evidence, N = 767). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people undergoing elective surgeryThree studies did not report higher rates of mortality with hospital at home compared with inpatient care (data not pooled, N = 856, low-certainty evidence; mainly orthopaedic surgery). Hospital at home may lead to little or no difference in readmission to hospital for people who were mainly recovering from orthopaedic surgery (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). We could not establish the effects of hospital at home on the risk of living in institutional care, due to a lack of data. The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). People recovering from orthopaedic surgery allocated to early discharge hospital at home were discharged from the intervention on average four days earlier than people allocated to usual inpatient care (4.44 days earlier, 95% CI 6.37 to 2.51 days earlier, , N = 411, 4 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a less expensive alternative to inpatient care, this review provides insufficient evidence of economic benefit (through a reduction in hospital length of stay) or improved health outcomes.