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.

Rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled study (the Getting out of the House Study).

BACKGROUND: One-third of stroke patients are dependent on others to get outside their homes. This can cause people to become housebound, leading to increased immobility, poor health, isolation and misery. There is some evidence that outdoor mobility rehabilitation can reduce these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention for stroke patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with two groups allocated at a 1 : 1 ratio plus qualitative participant interviews. SETTING: Fifteen UK NHS stroke services throughout England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 568 stroke patients who wished to get out of the house more often, mean age of 71 years: 508 reached the 6-month follow-up and 10 were interviewed. INTERVENTION: Control was delivered prior to randomisation to all participants, and consisted of verbal advice and transport and outdoor mobility leaflets. Intervention was a targeted outdoor mobility rehabilitation programme delivered by 29 NHS therapists to 287 randomly chosen participants for up to 12 sessions over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was participant health-related quality of life, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (Social Function domain), 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mobility, number of journeys (from monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility (SWOM), psychological well-being and resource use [health care and Personal Social Services (PSS)] 6 months after baseline. Carer well-being was recorded. All outcome measures were collected by post and repeated 12 months after baseline. Outcomes for the groups were compared using statistical significance testing and adjusted for multiple membership to account for the effect of multiple therapists at different sites. Interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenology to explore confidence. RESULTS: A median of seven intervention sessions [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7 sessions], median duration of 369 minutes (IQR 170-691.5 minutes) per participant was delivered. There was no significant difference between the groups on health-related quality of life (social function). There were no significant differences between groups in functional ability, psychological well-being or SWOM at 6- or 12-month follow-ups. There was a significant difference observed for travel journeys with the intervention group being 42% more likely to make a journey compared with the control group [rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.67] at 6 months and 76% more likely (rate ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.95) at 12 months. The number of journeys was affected by the therapist effect. The mean incremental cost (total NHS and PSS cost) of the intervention was £3413.75 (95% CI -£448.43 to £7121.00), with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of -0.027 (95% CI -0.060 to 0.007) according to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and -0.003 (95% CI -0.016 to 0.006) according to the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions. At baseline, 259 out of 281 (92.2%) participants in the control group were dissatisfied with outdoor mobility but at the 6-month assessment this had reduced to 77.7% (181/233), a 15% reduction. The corresponding reduction in the intervention group was slightly greater (21%) than 268 out of 287 (93.4%) participants dissatisfied with outdoor mobility at baseline to 189 out of 261 (72.4%) at 6 months. Participants described losing confidence after stroke as being detrimental to outdoor mobility. Recruitment and retention rates were high. The intervention was deliverable by the NHS but had a neutral effect in all areas apart from potentially increasing the number of journeys. This was dependent on the therapist effect, meaning that some therapists were more successful than others. The control appeared to affect change. CONCLUSIONS: The outdoor mobility intervention provided in this study to these stroke patients was not clinically effective or cost-effective. However, the provision of personalised information and monthly diaries should be considered for all people who wish to get out more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58683841. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.