Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) REMOTE study: a remote model of recruitment and assessment of the health, well-being and social circumstances of older people.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care. DATA COLLECTION: Assessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124.

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

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

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

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

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. 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. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

CollAborative care and active surveillance for Screen-Positive EldeRs with subthreshold depression (CASPER): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce the burden of illness and personal suffering associated with depression in older adults have focused on those with more severe depressive syndromes. Less attention has been paid to those with mild disorders/subthreshold depression, but these patients also suffer significant impairments in their quality of life and level of functioning. There is currently no clear evidence-based guidance regarding treatment for this patient group. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care for primary care older adults who screened positive for subthreshold depression. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with a qualitative study embedded within the pilot. Randomisation occurred after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. SETTING: Thirty-two general practitioner (GP) practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 705 participants aged ≥ 75 years during the pilot phase and ≥ 65 years during the main trial with subthreshold depression. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group received a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, which included behavioural activation delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual GP care. Control-arm participants received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was a self-reported measure of depression severity, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items PHQ-9 score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale two-item version, a medication questionnaire and objective data. Participants were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 705 participants were randomised (collaborative care n = 344, usual care n = 361), with 586 participants (83%; collaborative care 76%, usual care 90%) followed up at 4 months and 519 participants (74%; collaborative care 68%, usual care 79%) followed up at 12 months. Attrition was markedly greater in the collaborative care arm. Model estimates at the primary end point of 4 months revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care compared with usual care [mean difference 1.31 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.95 score points; p < 0.001]. The difference equates to a standard effect size of 0.30, for which the trial was powered. Treatment differences measured by the PHQ-9 were maintained at 12 months' follow-up (mean difference 1.33 score points, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.10 score points; p = 0.001). Base-case cost-effectiveness analysis found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9633 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). On average, participants allocated to collaborative care displayed significantly higher QALYs than those allocated to the control group (annual difference in adjusted QALYs of 0.044, 95% bias-corrected CI 0.015 to 0.072; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective for older adults with subthreshold depression and to reduce the proportion of people who go on to develop case-level depression at 12 months. This intervention could feasibly be delivered in the NHS at an acceptable cost-benefit ratio. Important future work would include investigating the longer-term effect of collaborative care on the CASPER population, which could be conducted by introducing an extension to follow-up, and investigating the impact of collaborative care on managing multimorbidities in people with subthreshold depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02202951. 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. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Relationship Between Registered Nurses and Nursing Home Quality: An Integrative Review (2008-2014).

Nursing home care is expensive; second only to acute hospital care for inpatient Medicare costs. The increased focus on costs of care accrued by Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes presents a valuable opportunity for registered nurses (RNs) to further demonstrate quantitatively the value they add to the capacity of the nursing home nursing skill mix to provide cost-effective and efficient quality care. Most of the studies included in this review consistently reported that higher RN staffing and higher ratios of RNs in the nursing skill mix are related to better NH quality. Concerns about the costs of employing more highly skilled RNs and directors of nursing that have the potential to positively influence members of the nursing skill mix will continue to influence nursing home industry hiring practices. For both the advancement of nursing as an applied science and the benefit of society at large, nursing researchers are challenged to better demonstrate how the increased presence of a RN on each shift has the potential to enhance the cost effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of nursing homes.

A changing landscape: mapping provider organisations for community nursing services in England.

AIM(S): To scope the provision of community nursing services in England after implementation of the Transforming Community Services Programme. BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, significant UK policy initiatives have shaped the structure, organisation and responsibilities of community nursing services. Understanding these organisational changes is important in the context of organisations seeking to deliver 'care closer to home'. METHOD(S): A systematic mapping exercise to scope and categorise community nursing service organisation provider models. RESULTS: There are 102 provider organisations representing a range of organisational models. Two-thirds of these organisations have structurally integrated with another NHS Trust. Smaller numbers reorganised to form community trusts or community interest companies. Only a few services have been tendered to an accredited willing provider while a small number have yet to establish their new service model. Local discretion appears to have dominated the choice of organisational form. CONCLUSION(S): National policies have driven the reorganisation of community nursing services and we have been able to describe, for the first time, these 'transformed' structures and organisations. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Providing detail of these 'new' models of service provision, and where these have been introduced, is new information for nurse managers, policy makers and organisational leaders, as well as researchers.

What work do assistant practitioners do and where do they fit in the nursing workforce?

AIM: To understand where assistant practitioners fit in the workforce and examine the roles they are asked to undertake, by comparing their job descriptions with the policy vision. METHOD: A total of 27 job descriptions from three acute trusts were analysed to highlight similarities and differences between the documents. The analysis focused on how clinical tasks related to the level of responsibility APs were expected to assume as part of their role. RESULTS: The analysis revealed the following categories for APs' job descriptions: fully assistive (one description); supportive/assistive (nine); supportive/substitutive (nine); substitutive/autonomous (seven); and fully autonomous (one). This revealed a number of inconsistencies in the form of different organisational expectations about the AP role. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that it is still not clear what managers and workforce planners want from the AP role as it does not have a clearly defined position in the clinical hierarchy, despite being located at level four on the Skills for Health (2006) framework.

Mapping the introduction of assistant practitioner roles in acute NHS (hospital) trusts in England.

AIMS: This mapping study describes current or planned introduction of assistant practitioner roles in English National Health Service Acute Hospital Trusts. BACKGROUND: In the last decade there has been a growth in nursing support workforce numbers and their scope of practice. An important United Kingdom support worker development is the Assistant Practitioner role. METHOD: A national census was carried out (April 2007) via an emailed questionnaire to Directors of Nursing. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-five per cent (143/168) of Directors of Nursing, from all 10 English Strategic Health Authorities, responded. Forty-six per cent (n = 66) of Trusts had introduced assistant practitioners and 22% (n = 31) were planning to implement the role before 2009. There is wide variation in assistant practitioner numbers across and between Strategic Health Authorities, Trusts and clinical areas. Resistance to the role existed in 32% (n = 46) of Trusts. Reasons for resistance included no perceived need for the role, lack of evidence of effectiveness, financial constraints and professional and patient safety concerns. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: These findings, which contribute to the international evidence-base on health care support workers roles, provide nurse managers with numbers of assistant practitioners and their deployment. This is useful for Nurse Managers making workforce decisions.

Assistant or substitute: exploring the fit between national policy vision and local practice realities of assistant practitioner job descriptions.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the extent to which the assistant practitioner role is described as 'assistive' in formal job descriptions and analyse whether the term 'assistive' has been stretched to encompass more 'substitutive' or 'autonomous' characteristics. METHODS: Sixteen AP job descriptions representing all clinical divisions across one UK acute NHS Hospital Trust were both macro- and micro-analysed for broad similarities and differences in line with Hammersley and Atkinson's analytical framework. The analysis specifically focused on how clinical tasks were related to clinical responsibility, from this the job descriptors were then indexed as belonging to one of five discrete categories. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed the following categories: fully assistive (n=1), supportive/assistive (n=7), supportive/substitutive (n=4), substitutive/autonomous (n=3) and fully autonomous (n=1). From this, a number of anomalies manifest in the form of divergent organisational expectations regarding the AP role. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a series of tensions extant between policy vision and implementation of the AP role in practice. Introduction of new healthcare roles requires compromise and negotiation, to shape and define what social space incumbents of these and existing roles will occupy. However the way in which new roles are defined will determine how they become embraced and embedded within future healthcare services.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of respite for caregivers of frail older people.

The proportion of frail elderly people in the industrialized world is increasing. Respite care is a potentially important way of maintaining the quality of life for these people and their caregivers. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their caregivers. To identify relevant studies, 37 databases were searched, and reference checking and citation searches were undertaken. Well-controlled effectiveness studies were eligible for inclusion, with uncontrolled studies admissible only in the absence of higher-quality evidence. Studies assessed the effect of community-based respite on caregivers of frail elderly people relative to usual care or to another support intervention. Eligible economic evaluations also addressed costs. Where appropriate, data were synthesized using standard meta-analytic techniques. Ten randomized, controlled trials, seven quasi-experimental studies and five uncontrolled studies were included in the review. For all types of respite, the effects upon caregivers were generally small, with better-controlled studies finding modest benefits only for certain subgroups, although many studies reported high levels of caregiver satisfaction. No reliable evidence was found that respite care delays entry to residential care or adversely affects frail older people. The economic evaluations all assessed day care, which tended to be associated with similar or higher costs than usual care. Given the increasing numbers of frail elderly people and the lack of up-to-date, good-quality evidence for all types of respite care, better-quality evidence is urgently needed to inform current policy and practice.