Cognitive Functional Therapy compared with usual physiotherapy care in people with persistent low back pain: a mixed methods feasibility randomised controlled trial in the United Kingdom National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of completing a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT), evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) in comparison to usual physiotherapy care (UPC), for people with persistent low back pain (LBP). DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-arm parallel feasibility RCT completed in a United Kingdom (UK) Secondary Care National Health Service (NHS) physiotherapy service. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty adult participants who reported LBP lasting for more than three months, that was not attributable to a serious (e.g. cancer) or specific (e.g. radiculopathy) underlying cause, were invited to participate. Participants were allocated at random to receive CFT or UPC. INTERVENTIONS: Cognitive Functional Therapy and Usual Physiotherapy Care for persistent LBP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the feasibility of completing a definitive RCT, defined by recruitment of at least 5 participants per month, delivery of CFT per protocol and securing relevant and acceptable outcome measures. Data concerning study processes, resources, management and participant reported outcome measures were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty participants (n = 30 CFT and n = 30 UPC) were recruited with 80% (n = 48), 72% (n = 43) and 53% (n = 32) retained at 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up respectively. NHS physiotherapists were trained to competence and delivered CFT with fidelity. CFT was tolerated by participants with no adverse events. Relevant and clinically important outcome data were collected at all time points (0.4%, 3%, 1% and 0.8% of data was missing from the returned outcome measure booklets at baseline and 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up respectively). The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was considered the most suitable primary outcome measure with a proposed sample size of 540 participants for a definitive cluster RCT. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to conduct a randomised study of CFT in comparison to UPC for NHS patients. A future study should incorporate an internal pilot to address aspects of feasibility further, including participant retention strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12965286 CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. CONCLUSION: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. IMPACT: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. REPORTING METHOD: CONSORT and CONSERVE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

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).

A non-randomised feasibility study of the Rehabilitation Potential Assessment Tool (RePAT) in frail older people in the acute healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation potential involves predicting who will benefit from rehabilitation. Decisions about rehabilitation potential must take into account personal, clinical and contextual factors, a process which is complicated in the presence of acute ill-health and frailty. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the Rehabilitation Potential Assessment Tool (RePAT) - a 15 item holistic, person-centred assessment tool and training package - in the acute hospital setting. METHODS: A non-randomised feasibility study with nested semi-structured interviews explored whether RePAT was feasible and acceptable. Feasibility was tested by recruiting physiotherapy and occupational therapy participants delivering the RePAT intervention to patients alongside usual clinical care. Acceptability was tested by conducting semi-structured interviews with staff, patient and carer participants. Staff and patient characteristics were analysed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were analysed thematically. Fidelity of completed RePAT items was assessed against a priori criteria on how closely they matched tool guidance by two researchers. Mean values of the two scores were calculated. RePAT content was analysed and supported with verbatim quotes. RESULTS: Six staff participants were recruited and trained. They assessed 26 patient participants using RePAT. Mean (SD) patient age was 86.16 (±6.39) years. 32% were vulnerable or mildly frail, 42% moderately frail and 26% severely or very severely frail using the Clinical Frailty Scale. Mean (SD) time to complete RePAT was 32.7 (±9.6) minutes. RePAT fidelity was good where 13 out of 15 items achieved a priori fidelity. RePAT was acceptable and tolerated by staff and patients. Staff participants reported RePAT enabled them to consider rehabilitation decisions in a more structured and consistent way. Patients and carer participants, although unable to comment directly on RePAT, reported being satisfied with their rehabilitation assessments which were found to embrace a person-centred approach. CONCLUSIONS: RePAT was found to be acceptable and feasible by staff, carers and patients. It allowed clinicians to make explicit their reasoning behind rehabilitation assessments and encouraged them to become more cognisant of factors which affected their clinical decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID ISRCTN31938453 . Registered 05/10/2021.

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.

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.

A feasibility study to assess the design of a multicentre randomized controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a caregiving intervention for people following hip fracture surgery.

AIMS: This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. METHODS: This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT, recruiting 60 patients following hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomized to usual NHS care, versus usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme will comprise of three, one-hour, one-to-one training sessions for the patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist, or occupational therapist. Training will be delivered in the hospital setting pre-patient discharge. It will include practical skills for rehabilitation such as: transfers and walking; recovery goal setting and expectations; pacing and stress management techniques; and introduction to the HIP HELPER Caregiver Workbook, which provides information on recovery, exercises, worksheets, and goal-setting plans to facilitate a 'good' recovery. After discharge, patients and caregivers will be supported in delivering rehabilitation through three telephone coaching sessions. Data, collected at baseline and four months post-randomization, will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, quality assurance monitoring visit data, and clinical outcomes assessing quality of life, physical, emotional, adverse events, and resource use outcomes. The acceptability of the study intervention and RCT design will be explored through qualitative methods with 20 participants (patients and informal caregivers) and 12 health professionals. DISCUSSION: A multicentre recruitment approach will provide greater external validity across population characteristics in England. The mixed-methods approach will permit in-depth examination of the intervention and trial design parameters. The findings will inform whether and how a definitive trial may be undertaken to test the effectiveness of this caregiver intervention for patients after hip fracture surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):909-920.

A loaded self-managed exercise programme for patellofemoral pain: a mixed methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A novel loaded self-managed exercise programme that includes pain education and self-management strategies may result in better outcomes for people with patellofemoral pain (PFP). However, establishing program feasibility is an essential first step before testing efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a definitive RCT which will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a loaded self-managed exercise programme for people with PFP compared with usual physiotherapy. METHODS: In a mixed methods, pragmatic, randomised controlled feasibility study, 60 participants with PFP (57% female; mean age 29 years) were recruited from a physiotherapy clinic within a large UK teaching hospital. They were randomly allocated to receive either a loaded self-managed exercise programme (n = 30) or usual physiotherapy (n = 30). Feasibility indicators of process, resources, and management were collected through follow-up of standardised questionnaires six months after recruitment and semi-structured interviews with 20 participants and physiotherapists. RESULTS: Recruitment rate was 5 participants per month; consent rate was 99%; adherence to intervention appointments was 87%; completeness of questionnaire data was 100%; and adherence to intervention delivery was 95%. Three exercise diaries were returned at six months (5%). At six months, 25 questionnaire booklets were returned (9 in the loaded self-managed group, 16 in the usual physiotherapy group), with a total retention rate of 42%. At six months, 56% (5/9) of respondents in the loaded self-managed group and 56% (9/16) in the usual physiotherapy group were classified as 'recovered'. Both groups demonstrated improvements in average pain (VAS), kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, general self-efficacy and EQ-5D-5 L from baseline to six months. CONCLUSION: The results of this feasibility study confirm that it is feasible and acceptable to deliver a loaded self-managed exercise programme to adults with PFP in an NHS physiotherapy outpatient setting. However, between group differences in lost to follow up and poor exercise diary completion mean we are uncertain on some feasibility aspects. These methodological issues need addressing prior to conducting a definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 35272486 . Registered 19th December 2016.

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.

Clinical assessment of depth sensor based pose estimation algorithms for technology supervised rehabilitation applications.

Encouraging rehabilitation by the use of technology in the home can be a cost-effective strategy, particularly if consumer-level equipment can be used. We present a clinical qualitative and quantitative analysis of the pose estimation algorithms of a typical consumer unit (Xbox One Kinect), to assess its suitability for technology supervised rehabilitation and guide development of future pose estimation algorithms for rehabilitation applications. We focused the analysis on upper-body stroke rehabilitation as a challenging use case. We found that the algorithms require improved joint tracking, especially for the shoulder, elbow and wrist joints, and exploiting temporal information for tracking when there is full or partial occlusion in the depth data.

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.

Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR).

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fracture is a major health problem in old age, with annual UK health and social care costs of £2.3B. Rehabilitation has the potential to maximise functional recovery and maintain independent living, but evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop an enhanced community-based rehabilitation package following surgical treatment for proximal femoral fracture and to assess acceptability and feasibility for a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation. DESIGN: Phase I - realist review, survey and focus groups to develop the rehabilitation package. Phase II - parallel-group, randomised (using a dynamic adaptive algorithm) feasibility study with focus groups and an anonymised cohort study. SETTING: Recruitment was from orthopaedic wards of three acute hospitals in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, North Wales. The intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who had received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by the clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). Usual care was variable and consisted of multidisciplinary rehabilitation delivered by the acute hospital, community hospital and community services depending on need and availability. The intervention was designed to enhance rehabilitation by improving patients' self-efficacy and increasing the amount and quality of patients' practice of physical exercise and activities of daily living. It consisted of a patient-held information workbook, a goal-setting diary and six additional therapy sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL) index. The secondary outcome measures included the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I), Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and service use measures. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers. RESULTS: Sixty-two participants were recruited (23% of those who were eligible), 61 were randomised (control, n = 32; intervention, n = 29) and 49 (79%) were followed up at 3 months. Compared with the cohort study, a younger, healthier subpopulation was recruited. There were minimal differences in most outcomes between the two groups, including the BADL index, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.5 (Cohen's d = 0.29). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement on the NEADL scale relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d = 0.63). There was a trend for greater improvement in FES-I and HADS in the intervention group, but with small effect sizes, with an adjusted mean difference of 4.2 (Cohen's d = 0.31) and 1.3 (Cohen's d = 0.20), respectively. The cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a possible small relative increase in quality-adjusted life-years in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention, although recruitment was challenging. The NEADL scale was more responsive than the BADL index, suggesting that the intervention could enable participants to regain better levels of independence compared with usual care. This should be tested in a definitive Phase III RCT. There were two main limitations of the study: the feasibility study lacked power to test for differences between the groups and a ceiling effect was observed in the primary measure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22464643. 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. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.

The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency.

Objective: To compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service. Design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study. Settings: Large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Subjects: Frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. Measurements: Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: A total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74­1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934). Conclusion: The CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation. Trial registration: ISRCTN 94393315, 25th April 2013

Comprehensive geriatric assessment on an acute medical unit: a qualitative study of older people's and informal carer's perspectives of the care and treatment received.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study was imbedded in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the addition of geriatricians to usual care to enable the comprehensive geriatric assessment process with older patients on acute medical units. The qualitative study explored the perspectives of intervention participants on their care and treatment. DESIGN: A constructivist study incorporating semi-structured interviews that were conducted in patients' homes within six weeks of discharge from the acute medical unit. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: An acute medical unit in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Older patients ( n = 18) and their informal carers ( n = 6) discharged directly home from an acute medical unit, who had been in the intervention group of the randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: Three core themes were constructed: (1) perceived lack of treatment on the acute medical unit; (2) nebulous grasp of the role of the geriatrician; and (3) on-going health and activities of daily living needs postdischarge. These needs impacted upon the informal carers, who either took over, or helped the patients to complete their activities of daily living. Despite the help received with activities of daily living, a lot of the patients voiced a desire to complete these activities themselves. CONCLUSIONS: The participants perceived they were just monitored and observed on the acute medical unit, rather than receiving active treatment, and spoke of on-going unresolved health and activity of daily living needs following discharge, despite receiving the additional intervention of a geriatrician.

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture. SETTING: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area. INTERVENTION: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers. RESULTS: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22464643; Results.

The Falls In Care Home study: a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the use of a risk assessment and decision support tool to prevent falls in care homes.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of implementing and evaluating the Guide to Action Care Home fall prevention intervention. DESIGN: Two-centre, cluster feasibility randomized controlled trial and process evaluation. SETTING: Purposive sample of six diverse old age/learning disability, long stay care homes in Nottinghamshire, UK. SUBJECTS: Residents aged over 50 years, who had fallen at least once in the past year, not bed-bound, hoist-dependent or terminally ill. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention homes (n = 3) received Guide to Action Care Home fall prevention intervention training and support. Control homes (n = 3) received usual care. OUTCOMES: Recruitment, attrition, baseline and six-month outcome completion, contamination and intervention fidelity, compliance, tolerability, acceptance and impact. RESULTS: A total of 81 of 145 (56%) care homes expressed participatory interest. Six of 22 letter respondent homes (27%) participated. The expected resident recruitment target was achieved by 76% (52/68). Ten (19%) residents did not complete follow-up (seven died, three moved). In intervention homes 36/114 (32%) staff attended training. Two of three (75%) care homes received protocol compliant training. Staff valued the training, but advised greater management involvement to improve intervention implementation. Fall risks were assessed, actioned and recorded in care records. Of 115 recorded falls, 533/570 (93%) of details were complete. Six-month resident fall rates were 1.9 and 4.0 per year for intervention and control homes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Guide to Action Care Home is implementable under trial conditions. Recruitment and follow-up rates indicate that a definitive trial can be completed. Falls (primary outcome) can be ascertained reliably from care records.

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): study protocol for a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture [ISRCTN22464643].

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fracture is a common, major health problem in old age resulting in loss of functional independence and a high-cost burden on society, with estimated health and social care costs of £2.3 billion per year in the UK. Rehabilitation has the potential to maximise functional recovery and maintain independent living, but evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Usual rehabilitation care is delivered by a multi-disciplinary team in the hospital and in the community. An 'enhanced rehabilitation' intervention has been developed consisting of a workbook, goal-setting diary and extra therapy sessions, designed to improve self-efficacy and increase the amount and quality of the practice of physical exercise and activities of daily living. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the design of a phase II study comprising an anonymous cohort of all proximal femoral fracture patients admitted to the three acute hospitals in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board over a 6-month period with a randomised feasibility study comparing the enhanced rehabilitation intervention with usual care. These will assess the feasibility of a future definitive randomised controlled trial and concurrent economic evaluation in terms of recruitment, retention, outcome measure completion, compliance with the intervention and fidelity of delivery, health service use data, willingness to be randomised and effect size for a future sample size calculation. Focus groups will provide qualitative data to contribute to the assessment of the acceptability of the intervention amongst patients, carers and rehabilitation professionals and the feasibility of delivering the planned intervention. The primary outcome measure is function assessed by the Barthel Index. Secondary outcomes measure the ability to perform activities of daily living, anxiety and depression, potential mediators of outcomes such as hip pain, self-efficacy and fear of falling, health utility, health service use, objectively assessed physical function and adverse events. Participants' preference for rehabilitation services will be assessed in a discrete choice experiment. DISCUSSION: Phase II studies are an opportunity to not only assess the feasibility of trial methods but also to compare different methods of outcome measurement and novel methods of obtaining health service use data from routinely collected patient information. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22464643, UKCRN16677.

Health status of UK care home residents: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: UK care home residents are often poorly served by existing healthcare arrangements. Published descriptions of residents' health status have been limited by lack of detail and use of data derived from surveys drawn from social, rather than health, care records. AIM: to describe in detail the health status and healthcare resource use of UK care home residents DESIGN AND SETTING: a 180-day longitudinal cohort study of 227 residents across 11 UK care homes, 5 nursing and 6 residential, selected to be representative for nursing/residential status and dementia registration. METHOD: Barthel index (BI), Mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric index (NPI), Mini-nutritional index (MNA), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), diagnoses and medications were recorded at baseline and BI, NPI, GHQ-12 and EQ-5D at follow-up after 180 days. National Health Service (NHS) resource use data were collected from databases of local healthcare providers. RESULTS: out of a total of 323, 227 residents were recruited. The median BI was 9 (IQR: 2.5-15.5), MMSE 13 (4-22) and number of medications 8 (5.5-10.5). The mean number of diagnoses per resident was 6.2 (SD: 4). Thirty per cent were malnourished, 66% had evidence of behavioural disturbance. Residents had contact with the NHS on average once per month. CONCLUSION: residents from both residential and nursing settings are dependent, cognitively impaired, have mild frequent behavioural symptoms, multimorbidity, polypharmacy and frequently use NHS resources. Effective care for such a cohort requires broad expertise from multiple disciplines delivered in a co-ordinated and managed way.