Enabling health and maintaining independence for older people at home (HomeHealth trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: NHS frailty services commonly target more severely frail older people, despite evidence suggesting frailty can be prevented or reversed when addressed at an earlier stage. HomeHealth is a new home-based, manualised voluntary sector service supporting older people with mild frailty to maintain their independence through behaviour change. Over six appointments, a trained HomeHealth worker discusses what matters to the older person and supports them to set and achieve goals around mobility, nutrition, socialising and/or psychological wellbeing. The service showed promising effects in a feasibility trial. We aimed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HomeHealth for maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty compared with treatment as usual. METHODS: In this single-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial, we recruited community-dwelling older people aged 65 years or older with mild frailty from 27 general practices, community groups and sheltered housing in London, Yorkshire, and Hertfordshire. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either HomeHealth monthly for 6 months or treatment as usual (usual GP and outpatient care, no specific frailty services). Our primary outcome was independence in activities of daily living, measured by blinded outcome assessors using the modified Barthel Index, and analysed using linear mixed models, including 6-month and 12-month data and controlling for baseline Barthel score and site. The study was approved by the Social Care Research Ethics Committee, and all participants provided written or orally recorded informed consent. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN54268283. FINDINGS: This trial took place between Jan 18, 2021, and July 4, 2023. We recruited 388 participants (mean age 81·4 years; 64% female [n=250], 94% White British/European [n=364], 2·5% Asian [n=10], 1·5% Black [n=6], 2·0% other [n=8]). We achieved high retention for 6-month follow-up (89%, 345/388), 12-month follow-up (86%, 334/388), and medical notes data (89%, 347/388). 182 (93%) of 195 participants in the intervention group completed the intervention, attending a mean of 5·6 appointments. HomeHealth had no effect on Barthel Index scores at 12 months (mean difference 0·250, 95% CI -0·932 to 1·432). At 6 months, there was a small reduction in psychological distress (-1·237, -2·127 to -0·348) and frailty (-0·124, -0·232 to -0·017), and at 12 months, we found small positive effects on wellbeing (1·449, 0·124 to 2·775) in those receiving HomeHealth. Other outcomes in analysis to date showed no significant difference. Health economic outcomes (including quality of life, capability, health services use and care needs or burden) are pending. INTERPRETATION: This high-quality trial showed that HomeHealth did not maintain independence in older people with mild frailty, and had limited effects upon secondary outcomes. Future studies need to explore different ways to promote health in this population. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA).

Assessing cognitive decline in Vietnamese older adults using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B) and Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) during the COVID-19 pandemic: A feasibility study.

Objectives: The lack of cognitive assessment tools suitable for people with minimal formal education is a barrier to identify cognitive impairment in Vietnam. Our aims were to (i) evaluate the feasibility of conducting the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B) and Informant Questionnaire On Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) remotely on the Vietnamese older adults, (ii) examine the association between the two tests, (iii) identify demographic factors correlated with these tools. Methods: The MoCA-B was adapted from the original English version, and a remote testing procedure was conducted. One hundred seventy-three participants aged 60 and above living in the Vietnamese southern provinces were recruited via an online platform during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: IQCODE results showed that the proportions of rural participants classified as having mild cognitive impairment and dementia were substantially higher than those in urban areas. Levels of education and living areas were associated with IQCODE scores. Education attainment was also the main predictor of MoCA-B scores (30% of variance explained), with an average of 10.5 points difference between those with no formal education and those who attended university. Conclusions: It is feasible to administer the IQCODE and MoCA-B remotely in the Vietnamese older population. Education attainment played a stronger role in predicting MoCA-B scores than IQCODE, suggesting the influence of this factor on MoCA-B scores. Further study is needed to develop socio-culturally appropriate cognitive screening tests for the Vietnamese population.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a personalised health promotion intervention enabling independence in older people with mild frailty ('HomeHealth') compared to treatment as usual: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is clinically associated with multiple adverse outcomes, including reduced quality of life and functioning, falls, hospitalisations, moves to long-term care and mortality. Health services commonly focus on the frailest, with highest levels of need. However, evidence suggests that frailty is likely to be more reversible in people who are less frail. Evidence is emerging on what interventions may help prevent or reduce frailty, such as resistance exercises and multi-component interventions, but few interventions are based on behaviour change theory. There is little evidence of cost-effectiveness. Previously, we co-designed a new behaviour change health promotion intervention ("HomeHealth") to support people with mild frailty. HomeHealth is delivered by trained voluntary sector support workers over six months who support older people to work on self-identified goals to maintain their independence, such as strength and balance exercises, nutrition, mood and enhancing social engagement. The service was well received in our feasibility randomised controlled trial and showed promising effects upon outcomes. AIM: To test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HomeHealth intervention on maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty in comparison to treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: Single-blind individually randomised controlled trial comparing the HomeHealth intervention to TAU. We will recruit 386 participants from general practices and the community across three English regions. Participants are included if they are community-dwelling, aged 65 + , with mild frailty according to the Clinical Frailty Scale. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive HomeHealth or TAU for 6 months. The primary outcome is independence in activities of daily living (modified Barthel Index) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include instrumental activities of daily living, quality of life, frailty, wellbeing, psychological distress, loneliness, cognition, capability, falls, carer burden, service use, costs and mortality. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models, controlling for baseline Barthel score and site. A health economic analysis and embedded mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home-based, individualised intervention to maintain independence in older people with mild frailty in comparison to TAU, that could be implemented at scale if effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN54268283 . Registered 06/04/2020.

Tibial nerve stimulation compared with sham to reduce incontinence in care home residents: ELECTRIC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents' dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes. PARTICIPANTS: Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance. INTERVENTIONS: Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes - number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use. RESULTS: A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 197; sham stimulation, n = 209); two exclusions occurred post randomisation. Primary outcome data were available for 345 (85%) residents (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 167; sham stimulation, n = 178). Adherence to the intervention protocol was as follows: 78% of the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and 71% of the sham group received the correct stimulation. Primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis indicated a mean change of -5 ml (standard deviation 362 ml) urine leakage from baseline in the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and -66 ml (standard deviation 394 ml) urine leakage in the sham group, which was a statistically significant, but not clinically important, between-group difference of 68-ml urine leakage (95% confidence interval 0 to 136 ml; p = 0.05) in favour of the sham group. Sensitivity analysis supported the primary analysis. No meaningful differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events related to transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation were reported. Economic evaluation assessed the resources used. The training and support costs for the staff to deliver the intervention were estimated at £121.03 per staff member. Estimated costs for delivery of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation during the trial were £81.20 per participant. No significant difference was found between participants' scores over time, or between transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and sham groups at any time point, for resident or proxy quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost-consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context. LIMITATIONS: Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data. FUTURE WORK: Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362. 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. 25, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bladder leakage (urinary incontinence) is common among people living in care homes. Most people wear absorbent pads to contain urine leakage, but this does not treat the cause of incontinence. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a treatment for the type of incontinence associated with a sudden need to use the toilet (urgency incontinence). Two sticky patches applied to the ankle are connected to a small electrical stimulator. The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial looked at whether or not transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can help reduce incontinence for people in care homes. A total of 406 residents from 37 care homes were given transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment or a dummy treatment for 30 minutes, twice per week for 6 weeks. The amount of urine leaked by each resident was measured over 24 hours by collecting all pads used in a sealable plastic bag and weighing the bag. This happened after the final transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or dummy treatment, and again after 3 and 5 months. Residents, family members and care home staff were asked if they thought that the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had any effect and for their views of the treatment. We found no important difference in leakage between residents who had the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and those who had the dummy treatment. There were also no differences in daily pad use, feelings about bladder condition or quality of life. It cost around £120 to train staff to deliver transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and around £80 per person to have transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had no serious side-effects. Care home residents, even those with severe dementia, found the application of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation acceptable. Staff found learning about incontinence helpful, but continence care routines did not change. In summary, the ELECTRIC trial found that for very dependent older people in care homes, transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation did not reduce urinary incontinence. The findings do not support transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation use to reduce urinary incontinence in care home environments.

Understanding the financial impact of a diagnosis of young onset dementia on individuals and families in the United Kingdom: Results of an online survey.

Although literature on postdiagnostic support for people affected by young onset dementia acknowledges financial concerns, this topic has remained underresearched. The aim of this study was to explore the financial impact of a diagnosis of young onset dementia on individuals and families. An online survey, comprising binary yes/no, multiple-response and open-ended questions, was codesigned with people living with young onset dementia. The survey was promoted via networks and online platforms. Data were collected from August to October 2019. Survey respondents across the United Kingdom (n = 55) who had received a diagnosis of young onset dementia were aged between 45 and 64, were at different stages of dementia and had been diagnosed with thirteen different types of dementia. Of the 55 respondents, 71% (n = 39) had received assistance from family members when completing the survey. The main financial impact of a diagnosis of young onset dementia resulted from premature loss of income and reduced and often deferred pension entitlements. In some cases, care-costs became unaffordable. Lack of clarity of processes and procedures around needs assessments, carers' assessments and financial assessments by different organisations resulted in some families having to ask for legal advice and, in some cases, involved lengthy appeal processes. Future research needs to involve Adult Social Care and Third Sector organisations to help codesign and test financial management interventions to support people affected by this progressive health condition.

SEeking AnsweRs for Care Homes during the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID SEARCH).

The care and support of older people residing in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic has created new and unanticipated uncertainties for staff. In this short report, we present our analyses of the uncertainties of care home managers and staff expressed in a self-formed closed WhatsApp™ discussion group during the first stages of the pandemic in the UK. We categorised their wide-ranging questions to understand what information would address these uncertainties and provide support. We have been able to demonstrate that almost one-third of these uncertainties could have been tackled immediately through timely, responsive and unambiguous fact-based guidance. The other uncertainties require appraisal, synthesis and summary of existing evidence, commissioning or provision of a sector- informed research agenda for medium to long term. The questions represent wider internationally relevant care home pandemic-related uncertainties.

Commentary: COVID in care homes-challenges and dilemmas in healthcare delivery.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected care home residents internationally, with 19-72% of COVID-19 deaths occurring in care homes. COVID-19 presents atypically in care home residents and up to 56% of residents may test positive whilst pre-symptomatic. In this article, we provide a commentary on challenges and dilemmas identified in the response to COVID-19 for care homes and their residents. We highlight the low sensitivity of polymerase chain reaction testing and the difficulties this poses for blanket screening and isolation of residents. We discuss quarantine of residents and the potential harms associated with this. Personal protective equipment supply for care homes during the pandemic has been suboptimal and we suggest that better integration of procurement and supply is required. Advance care planning has been challenged by the pandemic and there is a need to for healthcare staff to provide support to care homes with this. Finally, we discuss measures to implement augmented care in care homes, including treatment with oxygen and subcutaneous fluids, and the frameworks which will be required if these are to be sustainable. All of these challenges must be met by healthcare, social care and government agencies if care home residents and staff are to be physically and psychologically supported during this time of crisis for care homes.

Setting Priorities to Inform Assessment of Care Homes' Readiness to Participate in Healthcare Innovation: A Systematic Mapping Review and Consensus Process.

Organisational context is known to impact on the successful implementation of healthcare initiatives in care homes. We undertook a systematic mapping review to examine whether researchers have considered organisational context when planning, conducting, and reporting the implementation of healthcare innovations in care homes. Review data were mapped against the Alberta Context Tool, which was designed to assess organizational context in care homes. The review included 56 papers. No studies involved a systematic assessment of organisational context prior to implementation, but many provided post hoc explanations of how organisational context affected the success or otherwise of the innovation. Factors identified to explain a lack of success included poor senior staff engagement, non-alignment with care home culture, limited staff capacity to engage, and low levels of participation from health professionals such as general practitioners (GPs). Thirty-five stakeholders participated in workshops to discuss findings and develop questions for assessing care home readiness to participate in innovations. Ten questions were developed to initiate conversations between innovators and care home staff to support research and implementation. This framework can help researchers initiate discussions about health-related innovation. This will begin to address the gap between implementation theory and practice.

A group intervention to improve quality of life for people with advanced dementia living in care homes: the Namaste feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with advanced dementia who live and die in nursing homes experience variable quality of life, care and dying. There is a need to identify appropriate, cost-effective interventions that facilitate high-quality end-of-life care provision. OBJECTIVES: To establish the feasibility and acceptability to staff and family of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of the Namaste Care intervention for people with advanced dementia in nursing homes. DESIGN: The study had three phases: (1) realist review and (2) intervention refinement to inform the design of (3) a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial with a process evaluation and economic analysis. Clusters (nursing homes) were randomised in a 3 : 1 ratio to intervention or control (usual care). The nature of the intervention meant that blinding was not possible. SETTING: Nursing homes in England providing care for people with dementia. PARTICIPANTS: Residents with advanced dementia (assessed as having a Functional Assessment Staging Test score of 6 or 7), their informal carers and nursing home staff. INTERVENTION: Namaste Care is a complex group intervention that provides structured personalised care in a dedicated space, focusing on enhancements to the physical environment, comfort management and sensory engagement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The two contender primary outcome measures were Comfort Assessment in Dying - End of Life Care in Dementia for quality of dying (dementia) and Quality of Life in Late Stage Dementia for quality of life. The secondary outcomes were as follows: person with dementia, sleep/activity (actigraphy), neuropsychiatric symptoms, agitation and pain; informal carers, satisfaction with care at the end of life; staff members, person-centred care assessment, satisfaction with care at the end of life and readiness for change; and other data - health economic outcomes, medication/service use and intervention activity. RESULTS: Phase 1 (realist review; 86 papers) identified that a key intervention component was the activities enabling the development of moments of connection. In phase 2, refinement of the intervention enabled the production of a user-friendly 16-page A4 booklet. In phase 3, eight nursing homes were recruited. Two homes withdrew before the intervention commenced; four intervention and two control homes completed the study. Residents with advanced dementia (n = 32) were recruited in intervention (n = 18) and control (n = 14) homes. Informal carers (total, n = 12: intervention, n = 5; control, n = 7) and 97 staff from eight sites (intervention, n = 75; control, n = 22) were recruited over a 6-month period. Recruitment is feasible. Completion rates of the primary outcome questionnaires were high at baseline (100%) and at 4 weeks (96.8%). The Quality of Life in Late Stage Dementia was more responsive to change over 24 weeks. Even where economic data were missing, these could be collected in a full trial. The intervention was acceptable; the dose varied depending on the staffing and physical environment of each care home. Staff and informal carers reported changes for the person with dementia in two ways: increased social engagement and greater calm. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: A subsequent definitive trial is feasible if there are amendments to the recruitment process, outcome measure choice and intervention specification. FUTURE WORK: In a full trial, consideration is needed of the appropriate outcome measure that is sensitive to different participant responses, and of clear implementation principles for this person-centred intervention in a nursing home context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14948133. 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. 24, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Namaste Care is a programme of respectful stimulation for nursing home residents who have advanced dementia. It is person-focused and reflects residents' individual likes and interests. It is claimed that Namaste Care improves quality of life for residents, family and staff, and quality of dying for residents, and can be provided without additional cost. This study explored how feasible it would be to conduct a large study in the future to understand the effects of Namaste Care on people with advanced dementia. Our literature review showed that Namaste Care enables people with advanced dementia to have moments of connection with others. We refined some Namaste Care resources through working with care home staff, family and volunteers to create a user-friendly booklet. Eight care homes were recruited to our 6-month trial; four homes were supported to introduce Namaste Care, two continued as usual and two withdrew. In the four intervention homes, residents with advanced dementia received Namaste Care. Staff used standard measures to assess (1) residents' responses and (2) the economic costs and benefits of Namaste Care. Researchers made observation visits. Records of activity in Namaste Care sessions were completed, and interviews were held with staff and family. Residents wore an ActiGraph (Activinsights Ltd, Kimbolton, UK) device that recorded their levels of sleep and activity. The length and frequency of Namaste Care sessions varied. Nursing homes incurred additional costs but could see ways to reduce those. All residents accepted wearing an ActiGraph device. Staff completed the data collection tools; some measures were more informative than others. Data from interviews showed that most people had positive experiences of Namaste Care. The findings support the view that Namaste Care has benefits for people with advanced dementia in nursing homes. We consider that, with some changes, this trial offers a model for a large study to show whether or not Namaste Care could be promoted more widely.

Health promotion for mild frailty based on behaviour change: Perceptions of older people and service providers.

Mild frailty is common among older people, but it is potentially reversible with health promotion interventions. Behaviour change may be a key to preventing progression of frailty; however, we know little about what interventions work best and how a behaviour change approach would be perceived by this group. The aim of this study was to explore how mildly frail older people perceive health promotion based on behaviour change and what factors affect engagement with this approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 older people with mild frailty who received a pilot home-based behaviour change health promotion service, including a dyad of older person/family carer, and two service providers delivering the service in two diverse areas of South England. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. The concept of goal setting was acceptable to most participants, though the process of goal setting needed time and consideration. Goals on maintaining independence, monitoring of progress and receiving feedback were reported to increase motivation. Physical/mental capability and knowledge/perception of own needs were main determinants of the type of goals chosen by participants as well as the approach used by the project workers. Older people with complex needs benefited from care coordination, with a combination of goal setting and elements of social, practical and emotional support in varying proportions. Mildly frail older people responded well to a behaviour change approach to promote health and well-being. Further consideration is needed of the most effective strategies based on complexity of needs, and how to overcome barriers among people with cognitive impairment.

Engaging 'hard to reach' groups in health promotion: the views of older people and professionals from a qualitative study in England.

BACKGROUND: Older people living in deprived areas, from black and minority ethnic groups (BME) or aged over 85 years (oldest old) are recognised as 'hard to reach'. Engaging these groups in health promotion is of particular importance when seeking to target those who may benefit the most and to reduce health inequalities. This study aimed to explore what influences them practicing health promotion and elicit the views of cross-sector professionals with experiences of working with 'hard to reach' older people, to help inform best practice on engagement. METHODS: 'Hard to reach' older people were recruited through primary care by approaching those not attending for preventative healthcare, and via day centres. Nineteen participated in an interview (n = 15) or focus group (n = 4); including some overlaps: 17 were from a deprived area, 12 from BME groups, and five were oldest old. Cross-sector health promotion professionals across England with experience of health promotion with older people were identified through online searches and snowball sampling. A total of 31 of these 44 professionals completed an online survey including open questions on barriers and facilitators to uptake in these groups. Thematic analysis was used to develop a framework of higher and lower level themes. Interpretations were discussed and agreed within the team. RESULTS: Older people's motivation to stay healthy and independent reflected their everyday behaviour including practicing activities to feel or stay well, level of social engagement, and enthusiasm for and belief in health promotion. All of the oldest old reported trying to live healthily, often facilitated by others, yet sometimes being restricted due to poor health. Most older people from BME groups reported a strong wish to remain independent which was often positively influenced by their social network. Older people living in deprived areas reported reluctance to undertake health promotion activities, conveyed apathy and reported little social interaction. Cross-sector health professionals consistently reported similar themes as the older people, reinforcing the views of the older people through examples. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows some shared themes across the three 'hard-to-reach' groups but also some distinct differences, suggesting that a carefully outlined strategy should be considered to reach successfully the group targeted.

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.

The place for dementia-friendly communities in England and its relationship with epidemiological need.

OBJECTIVES: The dementia-friendly community (DFC) initiative was set up to enable people living with dementia to remain active, engaged, and valued members of society. Dementia prevalence varies nationally and is strongly associated with the age and sex distribution of the population and level of social deprivation. As part of a wider project to evaluate DFCs, we examined whether there is a relationship between provision of DFCs and epidemiological need. METHODS: Dementia-friendly communities were identified through the formal recognition process of DFC status by the Alzheimer's Society and mapped against areas defined by English Clinical Commissioning Groups. We tested whether provision of a DFC was associated with: (1) dementia prevalence, (2) number of known cases, and (3) known plus estimated number of unknown cases. RESULTS: Of the 209 English Clinical Commissioning Group areas, 115 had at least one DFC. The presence of a DFC was significantly associated with number of known dementia cases (mean difference = 577; 95% CI, 249 to 905; P = 0.001) and unknown dementia cases (mean difference = 881; 95% CI, 349 to 1413; P = 0.001) but not prevalence (mean difference = 0.03; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.16; P = 0.61). This remains true when controlling for potential confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that DFC provision is consistent with epidemiological-based need. Dementia-friendly communities are located in areas where they can have the greatest impact. A retrospective understanding of how DFCs have developed in England can inform how equivalent international initiatives might be designed and implemented.

Namaste Care in nursing care homes for people with advanced dementia: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many people living with advanced dementia live and die in nursing care homes. The quality of life, care and dying experienced by these people is variable. Namaste Care is a multisensory programme of care developed for people with advanced dementia. While there is emerging evidence that Namaste Care may be beneficial for people with dementia, there is a need to conduct a feasibility study to establish the optimum way of delivering this complex intervention and whether benefits can be demonstrated in end-of-life care, for individuals and service delivery. The aim of the study is to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a full trial of the Namaste Care intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A feasibility study, comprising a parallel, two-arm, multicentre cluster controlled randomised trial with embedded process and economic evaluation. Nursing care homes (total of eight) who deliver care to those with advanced dementia will be randomly allocated to intervention (delivered at nursing care home level) or control. Three participant groups will be recruited: residents with advanced dementia, informal carers of a participating resident and nursing care home staff. Data will be collected for 6 months. Feasibility objectives concern the recruitment and sampling of nursing homes, residents, informal carers and staff; the selection and timing of primary (quality of dying and quality of life) and secondary clinical outcome measures (person centredness, symptom presence, agitation, quality of life, resource use and costs and residents' activity monitored using actigraphy). Acceptability, fidelity and sustainability of the intervention will be assessed using semistructured interviews with staff and informal carers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 17/WA0378). Dissemination plans include working with a public involvement panel, through a website (http://www.namastetrial.org.uk), social media, academic and practice conferences and via peer reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14948133; Pre-results.

Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models. METHODS: Iterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included. RESULTS: We included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM. CONCLUSIONS: To embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.

How embedded is public involvement in mainstream health research in England a decade after policy implementation? A realist evaluation.

Objectives To explore how embedded patient and public involvement is within mainstream health research following two decades of policy-driven work to underpin health research with patient and public involvement in England. Methods Realist evaluation using Normalization Process Theory as a programme theory to understand what enabled patient and public involvement to be embedded as normal practice. Data were collected through a national scoping and survey, and qualitative methods to track patient and public involvement processes and impact over time within 22 nationally funded research projects. Results In research studies that were able to create reciprocal working relationships and to embed patient and public involvement this was contingent on: the purpose of patient and public involvement being clear; public contributors reflecting research end-beneficiaries; researchers understanding the value of patient and public involvement; patient and public involvement opportunities being provided throughout the research and ongoing evaluation of patient and public involvement. Key contested areas included: whether to measure patient and public involvement impact; seeking public contributors to maintain a balance between being research-aware and an outsider standpoint seen as 'authentically' lay; scaling-up patient and public involvement embedded within a research infrastructure rather than risk token presence and whether patient and public involvement can have a place within basic science. Conclusions While patient and public involvement can be well-integrated within all types of research, policy makers should take account of tensions that must be navigated in balancing moral and methodological imperatives.

Moving upstream in health promoting policies for older people with early frailty in England? A policy analysis.

Objectives Globally, populations are rapidly ageing and countries have developed health promotion and wellbeing strategies to address increasing demand for health care and old-age support. The older population is not homogeneous however, and includes a large group in transition between being active and healthy to being frail, i.e. with early frailty. This review explores the extent to which policy in England has addressed this group with a view to supporting independence and preventing further progression towards frailty. Methods A narrative review was conducted of 157 health and social care policy documents current in 2014-2017 at three levels of the health and social care system in England. Findings We report the policy problem analysis, the shifts over time in language from health promotion to illness prevention, the shift in target populations to mid-life and those most at risk of adverse outcomes through frailty, and changes to delivery mechanisms to incentivize attention to the frailest rather than those with early frailty. We found that older people in general were not identified as a specific population in many of these policies. While this may reflect a welcome lack of age discrimination, it could equally represent omission through ageism. Only at local level did we identify some limited attention to preventative actions with people with early frailty. Conclusion The lack of policy attention to older people with early frailty is a missed opportunity to address some of the demands on health and social care services. Addressing the individual and societal consequences of adverse experiences of those with the greatest frailty should not distract from a more distinct public health perspective which argues for a refocusing upstream to health promotion and illness prevention for those with early frailty.

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. 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. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Managing diabetes in people with dementia: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Dementia and diabetes mellitus are common long-term conditions that coexist in a large number of older people. People living with dementia and diabetes may be at increased risk of complications such as hypoglycaemic episodes because they are less able to manage their diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To identify the key features or mechanisms of programmes that aim to improve the management of diabetes in people with dementia and to identify areas needing further research. DESIGN: Realist review, using an iterative, stakeholder-driven, four-stage approach. This involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop initial programme theories, systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories, and the validation of programme theories with a purposive sample of stakeholders. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six stakeholders (user/patient representatives, dementia care providers, clinicians specialising in dementia or diabetes and researchers) took part in interviews and 24 participated in a consensus conference. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from 1990 to March 2016: MEDLINE (PubMed), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, AgeInfo (Centre for Policy on Ageing - UK), Social Care Online, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) portfolio database, NHS Evidence, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). RESULTS: We included 89 papers. Ten papers focused directly on people living with dementia and diabetes, and the rest related to people with dementia or diabetes or other long-term conditions. We identified six context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations that provide an explanatory account of how interventions might work to improve the management of diabetes in people living with dementia. This includes embedding positive attitudes towards people living with dementia, person-centred approaches to care planning, developing skills to provide tailored and flexible care, regular contact, family engagement and usability of assistive devices. A general metamechanism that emerges concerns the synergy between an intervention strategy, the dementia trajectory and social and environmental factors, especially family involvement. A flexible service model for people with dementia and diabetes would enable this synergy in a way that would lead to the improved management of diabetes in people living with dementia. LIMITATIONS: There is little evidence relating to the management of diabetes in people living with dementia, although including a wider literature provided opportunities for transferable learning. The outcomes in our CMOs are largely experiential rather than clinical. This reflects the evidence available. Outcomes such as increased engagement in self-management are potential surrogates for better clinical management of diabetes, but this is not proven. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that there is a need to prioritise quality of life, independence and patient and carer priorities over a more biomedical, target-driven approach. Much current research, particularly that specific to people living with dementia and diabetes, identifies deficiencies in, and problems with, current systems. Although we have highlighted the need for personalised care, continuity and family-centred approaches, there is much evidence to suggest that this is not currently happening. Future research on the management of diabetes in older people with complex health needs, including those with dementia, needs to look at how organisational structures and workforce development can be better aligned to the needs of people living with dementia and diabetes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020625. FUNDING: The NIHR HTA programme.

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).