Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study.

Background: There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services. Objectives: This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated. Design and setting: The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model. Participants: People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders. Results: The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services. Limitations: There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model. Conclusions: Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Health problems are common among single people who are homeless, but there is little evidence of the best ways to deliver primary health care to them. This study evaluated four types of services (models) that are in existence: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres); (2) Mobile Teams that provide health care in hostels and day centres; (3) Specialist GPs that have some services exclusively for patients who are homeless; and (4) Usual Care GPs providing health care to all patients, with no special services for people who are homeless. The study concentrated on single people (not homeless families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation and on the streets. Overall, 363 patients at these practices who had been homeless in the previous 12 months participated, and information was collected from them over a 12-month period. We examined the extent to which screening for different health conditions was undertaken, and to which treatment and follow-up care were provided for participants with chronic respiratory problems, depression, alcohol problems and drug problems. Information was gathered from their medical records about use of health and social care services over 12 months. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were more favourable. They had staff working specifically with patients who were homeless; provided flexible 'drop-in' services instead of requiring patients to book appointments; and worked closely with mental health, alcohol and drug services, and with hostels, day centres and street outreach teams. Participants were also more satisfied with the health care they received from the specialist models, and were more likely to say that they had confidence and trust in doctors and nurses at these sites. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.

The association between social care expenditure and multiple-long term conditions: A population-based area-level analysis.

Background: Multiple long-term health conditions (MLTCs) are common and increasing among older people, yet there is limited understanding of their prevalence and association with social care expenditure. Aim: To estimate the prevalence of MTLCs and association with English social care expenditure. Methods: Our study population included those aged ≥ 65 who died in England in the year 2018 with any of the following long-term conditions recorded on their death certificate: diabetes; cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) including hypertension; dementia; stroke; respiratory; and chronic kidney diseases (CKDs). Prevalence was based on the proportion of death reported for older people with MTLCs (≥ 2) in each of the 152 English Local Authorities (LAs). Ordinary least square regression (OLS) was used to assess the relationship between prevalence of MTLCs and adult social care expenditure, adjusting for LA characteristics. Results: Of the 409551 deaths reported, 19.9% (n = 81395) had ≥ 2 MTLCs, of which the combination of CVDs-diabetes was the most prevalent. Hospitals were the leading place of death for those with MTLCs. Results from the OLS regression model showed that an increased prevalence of MLTCs is associated with higher LA social care expenditure. A percentage point increase in prevalence of MLTCs is associated with an increase of about £8.13 in per capita LA social care expenditure. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the increased prevalence of MTLCs is associated with increased LA social care expenditure. It is important for future studies to further explore the mechanisms or link between LA social care expenditure and the prevalence of MTLCs.

Protocol for the feasibility and implementation study of a model of best practice in primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care: PriDem.

INTRODUCTION: Care is often inadequate and poorly integrated after a dementia diagnosis. Research and policy highlight the unaffordability and unsustainability of specialist-led support, and instead suggest a task-shared model, led by primary care. This study is part of the PriDem primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care research programme and will assess delivery of an evidence-informed, primary care based, person-centred intervention. The intervention involves Clinical Dementia Leads (CDLs) working in primary care to develop effective dementia care systems that build workforce capacity and support teams to deliver tailored support to people living with dementia and their carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a 15-month mixed-methods feasibility and implementation study, situated in four National Health Service (NHS) primary care networks in England. The primary outcome is adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices, assessed through a patient records audit. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and retention; appropriateness and acceptability of outcome measures; acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components. People living with dementia (n=80) and carers (n=66) will be recruited through participating general practices and will complete standardised measures of health and well-being. Participant service use data will be extracted from electronic medical records. A process evaluation will explore implementation barriers and facilitators through methods including semistructured interviews with people living with dementia, carers and professionals; observation of CDL engagement with practice staff; and a practice fidelity log. Process evaluation data will be analysed qualitatively using codebook thematic analysis, and quantitatively using descriptive statistics. Economic analysis will determine intervention cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received favourable ethical opinion from Wales REC4. NHS Confidentiality Advisory Group support allows researchers preconsent access to patient data. Results will inform intervention adaptations and a future large-scale evaluation. Dissemination through peer-review journals, engagement with policy-makers and conferences will inform recommendations for dementia services commissioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11677384.

The economic case for hospital discharge services for people experiencing homelessness in England: An in-depth analysis with different service configurations providing specialist care.

There are long-standing concerns that people experiencing homelessness may not recover well if left unsupported after a hospital stay. This study reports on a study investigating the cost-effectiveness of three different 'in patient care coordination and discharge planning' configurations for adults experiencing homelessness who are discharged from hospitals in England. The first configuration provided a clinical and housing in-reach service during acute care and discharge coordination but with no 'step-down' care. The second configuration provided clinical and housing in-reach, discharge coordination and 'step-down' intermediate care. The third configuration consisted of housing support workers providing in-reach and discharge coordination as well as step-down care. These three configurations were each compared with 'standard care' (control, defined as one visit by the homelessness health nurse before discharge during which patients received an information leaflet on local services). Multiple sources of data and multi-outcome measures were adopted to assess the cost utility of hospital discharge service delivery for the NHS and broader public perspective. Details of 354 participants were collated on service delivery costs (salary, on-costs, capital, overheads and 'hotel' costs, advertising and other indirect costs), the economic consequences for different public services (e.g. NHS, social care, criminal justice, housing, etc.) and health utilities (quality-adjusted-life-years, QALYs). Findings were complex across the configurations, but, on the whole, there was promising evidence suggesting that, with delivery costs similar to those reported for bed-based intermediate care, step-down care secured better health outcomes and improved cost-effectiveness (compared with usual care) within NICE cost-effectiveness recommendations.

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.

Adult safeguarding managers' understandings of self-neglect and hoarding.

Self-neglect and hoarding are behaviours that are hard to define, measure and address. They are more prevalent among older people because of bio-psycho-social factors, which may be exacerbated by advancing age. This paper aims to further understandings of self-neglect and hoarding in England's Care Act 2014 context, drawing on a study involving qualitative interviews with local authority adult safeguarding managers who play an important role in determining interventions with individuals who self-neglect and/or hoard. Online interviews were conducted with adult safeguarding leads and managers from 31 English local authorities in 2021. Interview data were subject to thematic analysis. This paper explores the commonalities and differences in adult safeguarding managers' understandings of the causes and consequences of self-neglect and/or hoarding among older people, which are likely to have tangible impacts on service provision in their local authority, and influencing of wider changes to policies and procedures. Most participants understood these phenomena as caused by a range of bio-psycho-social factors, including chronic physical conditions, bereavement, isolation. A minority took a more clinical or psycho-medical perspective, focusing on mental ill-health, or referred to the social construction of norms of cleanliness and tidiness. Whatever their understanding, by the time such behaviours are brought to the attention of safeguarding professionals a crisis response may be all that is offered. The implications of the findings are that other agencies should be encouraged to provide more early help to older people at risk of self-neglect and/or of developing harmful hoarding behaviours, and that sustained engagement with those affected may help to understand some of the causes of these behaviours to enable effective support or practice interventions.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months. METHODS: A randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator. DISCUSSION: Increasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.

Hospital readmission among people experiencing homelessness in England: a cohort study of 2772 matched homeless and housed inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Inpatients experiencing homelessness are often discharged to unstable accommodation or the street, which may increase the risk of readmission. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of 2772 homeless patients discharged after an emergency admission at 78 hospitals across England between November 2013 and November 2016. For each individual, we selected a housed patient who lived in a socioeconomically deprived area, matched on age, sex, hospital, and year of discharge. Counts of emergency readmissions, planned readmissions, and Accident and Emergency (A&E) visits post-discharge were derived from national hospital databases, with a median of 2.8 years of follow-up. We estimated the cumulative incidence of readmission over 12 months, and used negative binomial regression to estimate rate ratios. RESULTS: After adjusting for health measured at the index admission, homeless patients had 2.49 (95% CI 2.29 to 2.70) times the rate of emergency readmission, 0.60 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.68) times the rate of planned readmission and 2.57 (95% CI 2.41 to 2.73) times the rate of A&E visits compared with housed patients. The 12-month risk of emergency readmission was higher for homeless patients (61%, 95% CI 59% to 64%) than housed patients (33%, 95% CI 30% to 36%); and the risk of planned readmission was lower for homeless patients (17%, 95% CI 14% to 19%) than for housed patients (30%, 95% CI 28% to 32%). While the risk of emergency readmission varied with the reason for admission for housed patients, for example being higher for admissions due to cancers than for those due to accidents, the risk was high across all causes for homeless patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital patients experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency readmission that are not explained by health. This highlights the need for discharge arrangements that address their health, housing and social care needs.

Implementing post diagnostic dementia care in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Concentrating post-diagnostic dementia care in primary care may lead to better and more cost-effective care closer to home. We aimed to assess which intervention components and contextual factors may contribute to the successful delivery and implementation of primary care-led post-diagnostic dementia care. METHODS: Mixed-methods systematic review. We searched five databases (inception-March 2019) with reference list screening and citation tracking. We included studies evaluating post-diagnostic dementia care interventions where primary care had a significant role in dementia care, which assessed one or more implementation elements (acceptability, feasibility, adoption, sustainability, reach, costs, appropriateness or fidelity). Two authors independently critically appraised studies. RESULTS: Out of 4528 unique references, we screened 380 full texts and included 49 evaluations of services collecting implementation process data. Most services had high acceptability ratings. The most acceptable components were information provision, social and emotional support and links to community organisations. Feasibility was chiefly influenced by provider engagement and leadership, building dementia care capacity, sufficient resources/funding and collaboration. Care quality was maximised through adding capacity from a dementia-specific health professional. On the basis of limited data, costs for various primary care-led models did not substantially differ from each other. CONCLUSION: A range of primary care-led dementia care models appear feasible and acceptable. Future services should: add dementia-focussed health professionals into primary care, develop primary care leadership and provide sufficient funding and collaboration opportunities. Information, community service links and social and ongoing support should be part of services. Further exploration of service reach and formalised fidelity assessment are needed.

Physical health monitoring in dementia and associations with ethnicity: a descriptive study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Good physical health monitoring can increase quality of life for people with dementia, but the monitoring may vary and ethnic inequalities may exist. AIM: To investigate UK primary care routine physical health monitoring for people with dementia by: (a) ethnic groups, and (b) comorbidity status. DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using electronic primary care records in the UK. METHOD: Physical health monitoring was compared in people with dementia from white, black, and Asian ethnic groups and compared those with ≥1 comorbidity versus no comorbidity, from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. Using the Dementia : Good Care Planning framework and expert consensus, good care was defined as receiving, within 1 year: a dementia review; a blood pressure (BP) check (at least one); a GP consultation (at least one); a weight and/or body mass index (BMI) recording (at least one); and an influenza vaccination. RESULTS: Of 20 821 people with dementia, 68% received a dementia review, 80% at least one BP recording, 97% at least one GP contact, 48% a weight and/or BMI recording, and 81% an influenza vaccination in 1 year. Compared with white people, black people were 23% less likely and Asian people 16% less likely to have weight recorded (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.60 to 0.98/0.84, 0.71 to 1.00). People without comorbidities were less likely to have weight recorded (adjusted IRR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.79) and BP monitored (adjusted IRR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.75). CONCLUSION: Ethnic group was not associated with differences in physical health monitoring, other than weight monitoring. Comorbidity status was associated with weight and BP monitoring. Physical health monitoring in dementia, in particular nutrition, requires improvement.

What works in managing complex conditions in older people in primary and community care? A state-of-the-art review.

The number of older people living with complex health conditions is increasing, with the majority of these managed in primary and community settings. Many models of care have been developed to support them, however, there is mixed evidence on their value and they include multiple overlapping components. We aimed to synthesise the evidence to learn what works for managing complex conditions in older people in primary and community care. We carried out a state-of-the-art review of systematic reviews. We searched three databases (January 2009 to July 2019) for models of primary and community care for long-term conditions, frailty, multimorbidity and complex neurological conditions common to older people such as dementia. We narratively synthesised review findings to summarise the evidence for each model type and identify components which influenced effectiveness. Out of 2,129 unique titles and abstracts, 178 full texts were reviewed and 54 systematic reviews were included. We found that the models of care were more likely to improve depressive symptoms and mental health outcomes than physical health or service use outcomes. Interventions including self-management, patient education, assessment with follow-up care procedures, and structured care processes or pathways had greater evidence of effectiveness. The level of healthcare service integration appeared to be more important than inclusion of specific professional types within a team. However, more experienced and qualified nurses were associated with better outcomes. These conclusions are limited by the overlap between reviews, reliance on vote counting within some included reviews and the quality of study reports. In conclusion, primary and community care interventions for complex conditions in older people should include: (a) clear intervention targets; (b) explicit theoretical underpinnings; and (c) elements of self-management and patient education, structured collaboration between healthcare professionals and professional support. Further work needs to determine the optimal intensity, length, team composition and role of technology in interventions.

Effectiveness of different post-diagnostic dementia care models delivered by primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Global policy recommendations suggest a task-shifted model of post-diagnostic dementia care, moving towards primary and community-based care. It is unclear how this may best be delivered. AIM: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary care-based models of post-diagnostic dementia care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of trials and economic evaluations of post-diagnostic dementia care interventions where primary care was substantially involved in care plan decision making. METHOD: Searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL (from inception to March 2019). Two authors independently critically appraised studies and inductively classified interventions into types of care models. Random effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis was conducted for each model where appropriate. RESULTS: From 4506 unique references and 357 full texts, 23 papers were included from 10 trials of nine interventions, delivered in four countries. Four types of care models were identified. Primary care provider (PCP)-led care (n = 1) led to better caregiver mental health and reduced hospital and memory clinic costs compared with memory clinics. PCP-led care with specialist consulting support (n = 2) did not have additional effects on clinical outcomes or costs over usual primary care. PCP-case management partnership models (n = 6) offered the most promise, with impact on neuropsychiatric symptoms, caregiver burden, distress and mastery, and healthcare costs. Integrated primary care memory clinics (n = 1) had limited evidence for improved quality of life and cost-effectiveness compared with memory clinics. CONCLUSION: Partnership models may impact on some clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. More rigorous evaluation of promising primary care-led care models is needed.

Skill mix: The potential for personal assistants to undertake health-related tasks for people with personal health budgets.

Personal health budgets (PHBs) are being promoted in England as expanding the benefits of choice and control to individuals with healthcare needs. National Health Service (NHS) money is provided to eligible people to use as set out in approved care plans, including direct employment of personal assistants (PAs). The government plans to increase NHS-funded PHBs and to further introduce integrated personal budgets (IPBs). This potentially creates more demand for directly employed or self-employed PAs with health-related skills. The objective of this paper is to report findings from interviews with PAs (n = 105) and key informants (n = 26) from across England, undertaken between October 2016 and August 2017, about the potential for the PA workforce to undertake 'health-related' tasks as facilitated by the introduction of PHBs. PAs were purposefully recruited to ensure the sample included participants from different geographical locations. Key informants were purposefully selected based on their knowledge of policy and community services. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. This paper focuses on reporting qualitative findings, which are set within the theoretical framework of normalisation process theory to explore implementation challenges of PHBs. The majority (64%) of PAs confirmed that they saw their current roles as congruent with PHBs, were willing to engage with PHBs and undertake health-related tasks. However, 74% of PAs said they would need additional training if enacting such roles. Key informant interviews appraised the development of PHBs as complex, noting incongruences arising from NHS and social care-funded PAs carrying out similar roles within different organisational systems. We conclude the current PA workforce is willing to take on PHB work and is likely to interweave this with work funded by PBs and self-funding care users. Implications include the need for careful consideration of training requirements and delivery for PHB-funded PAs.

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.

The nature of gambling-related harm for adults with health and social care needs: an exploratory study of the views of key informants.

AIM: To explore the views of professionals working within health, care and other agencies about harmful gambling among adults with health and social care needs. BACKGROUND: Gambling is increasingly seen as a public health rather than an individual problem. Opportunities to gamble have grown in England in the last decade since the liberalisation of the gambling industry meaning that gambling is widely available, accessible and advertised within society. An estimated two million people in the UK are at risk of developing a gambling problem, some of whom may be adults with health and social care needs. METHODS: Twenty-three key informants from primary care, social care services and third sector organisations in England were interviewed about their understanding of the risks to adults with health and social care needs from gambling participation. FINDINGS: Thematic analysis revealed four themes: (1) gambling-related harm as a public health problem; (2) identification of groups of adults with health and social care needs who may be vulnerable to gambling-related harm; (3) factors potentially impeding the identification of gambling-related harm among adults with health and social care needs and subsequent help-seeking behaviour and (4) calls for professional development activities. Informants reported a perceived lack of awareness of gambling-related harm and a lack of a clear pathway or guidance which they could follow when supporting individuals experiencing gambling-related harm. Interviewees called for professional development activities to improve their knowledge and expertise in this area.

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.