Bathing Adaptations in the Homes of Older Adults (BATH-OUT-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic evaluation and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The onset of disability in bathing is particularly important for older adults as it can be rapidly followed by disability in other daily activities; this may represent a judicious time point for intervention in order to improve health, well-being and associated quality of life. An important environmental and preventative intervention is housing adaptation, but there are often lengthy waiting times for statutory provision. In this randomised controlled trial (RCT), we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bathing adaptations compared to no adaptations and to explore the factors associated with routine and expedited implementation of bathing adaptations. METHODS: BATH-OUT-2 is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group RCT. Adults aged 60 and over who are referred to their local authority for an accessible level access shower will be randomised, using pairwise randomisation, 1:1, to receive either an expedited provision of an accessible shower via the local authority or a usual care control waiting list. Participants will be followed up for a maximum of 12 months and will receive up to four follow-ups in this duration. The primary outcome will be the participant's physical well-being, assessed by the Physical Component Summary score of the Short Form-36 (SF-36), 4 weeks after the intervention group receives the accessible shower. The secondary outcomes include the Mental Component Summary score of the SF-36, self-reported falls, health and social care resource use, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), social care-related quality of life (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)), fear of falling (Short Falls Efficacy Scale), independence in bathing (Barthel Index bathing question), independence in daily activities (Barthel Index) and perceived difficulty in bathing (0-100 scale). A mixed-methods process evaluation will comprise interviews with stakeholders and a survey of local authorities with social care responsibilities in England. DISCUSSION: The BATH-OUT-2 trial is designed so that the findings will inform future decisions regarding the provision of bathing adaptations for older adults. This trial has the potential to highlight, and then reduce, health inequalities associated with waiting times for bathing adaptations and to influence policies for older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN48563324. Prospectively registered on 09/04/2021.

Implementing early rehabilitation and mobilisation for children in UK paediatric intensive care units: the PERMIT feasibility study.

Background: Early rehabilitation and mobilisation encompass patient-tailored interventions, delivered within intensive care, but there are few studies in children and young people within paediatric intensive care units. Objectives: To explore how healthcare professionals currently practise early rehabilitation and mobilisation using qualitative and quantitative approaches; co-design the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions, with primary and secondary patient-centred outcomes; explore feasibility and acceptability of implementing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual within three paediatric intensive care units. Design: Mixed-methods feasibility with five interlinked studies (scoping review, survey, observational study, codesign workshops, feasibility study) in three phases. Setting: United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units. Participants: Children and young people aged 0-16 years remaining within paediatric intensive care on day 3, their parents/guardians and healthcare professionals. Interventions: In Phase 3, unit-wide implementation of manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation. Main outcome measures: Phase 1 observational study: prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3. Phase 3 feasibility study: acceptability of early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention; adverse events; acceptability of study design; acceptability of outcome measures. Data sources: Searched Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, PEDro, Open grey and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Review methods: Narrative synthesis. Results: In the scoping review we identified 36 full-text reports evaluating rehabilitation initiated within 7 days of paediatric intensive care unit admission, outlining non-mobility and mobility early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions from 24 to 72 hours and delivered twice daily. With the survey, 124/191 (65%) responded from 26/29 (90%) United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units; the majority considered early rehabilitation and mobilisation a priority. The observational study followed 169 patients from 15 units; prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3 was 95.3%. We then developed a manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention informed by current evidence, experience and theory. All three sites implemented the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual successfully, recruited to target (30 patients recruited) and followed up the patients until day 30 or discharge; 21/30 parents consented to complete additional outcome measures. Limitations: The findings represent the views of National Health Service staff but may not be generalisable. We were unable to conduct workshops and interviews with children, young people and parents to support the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual development due to pandemic restrictions. Conclusions: A randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention. Future work: A definitive cluster randomised trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation in paediatric intensive care requires selection of outcome measure and health economic evaluation. Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019151050. The Phase 1 observational study is registered Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04110938 (Phase 1) (registered 1 October 2019) and the Phase 3 feasibility study is registered NCT04909762 (Phase 3) (registered 2 June 2021). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/21/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Early rehabilitation and mobilisation, within the first week of intensive care admission, can improve the speed of recovery from illness or injury in adults. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether critically unwell children benefit from early rehabilitation and mobilisation. We aimed to identify which patients may benefit from early rehabilitation and mobilisation. Also, to develop and test a manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation using the best evidence and expertise ­ called the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual. Then evaluate whether the manual could be implemented safely in paediatric intensive care units and was acceptable to staff and families. We undertook in respect of early rehabilitation and mobilisation: review of existing research; national survey of practice (124 staff); gathered information about current conduct (15 paediatric intensive care units, 169 patients); spoke to experts (18 people); developed the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual to guide paediatric intensive care unit staff; Tested the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual in three paediatric intensive care units with 30 patients; gathered feedback from healthcare professionals via weekly 'debriefs' (47), interviews (13) and surveys (118), and from parents via parent-completed questionnaires (21) and interviews (14). Despite being regarded as important, currently early rehabilitation and mobilisation practice is inconsistent, not considered 'early' enough and often focuses on low-risk activities conducted on the bed. Introducing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual as part of a trial was acceptable and feasible and helps standardise delivery to unwell children. Measuring child and parent reported outcomes was acceptable but follow-up at 30 days was incomplete. A larger trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation, involving more paediatric intensive care units, is feasible and required to demonstrate benefit to children.

Powered mobility interventions for very young children with mobility limitations to aid participation and positive development: the EMPoWER evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: One-fifth of all disabled children have mobility limitations. Early provision of powered mobility for very young children (aged < 5 years) is hypothesised to trigger positive developmental changes. However, the optimum age at which to introduce powered mobility is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to synthesise existing evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of powered mobility for very young children, compared with the more common practice of powered mobility provision from the age of 5 years. REVIEW METHODS: The study was planned as a mixed-methods evidence synthesis and economic modelling study. First, evidence relating to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility and anticipated outcomes of paediatric powered mobility interventions was reviewed. A convergent mixed-methods evidence synthesis was undertaken using framework synthesis, and a separate qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken using thematic synthesis. The two syntheses were subsequently compared and contrasted to develop a logic model for evaluating the outcomes of powered mobility interventions for children. Because there were insufficient published data, it was not possible to develop a robust economic model. Instead, a budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of increased powered mobility provision for very young children, using cost data from publicly available sources. DATA SOURCES: A range of bibliographic databases [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index (SCI; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index™ (SSCI; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH; Clarivate Analytics), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and OpenGrey] was systematically searched and the included studies were quality appraised. Searches were carried out in June 2018 and updated in October 2019. The date ranges searched covered from 1946 to September 2019. RESULTS: In total, 89 studies were included in the review. Only two randomised controlled trials were identified. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No conclusive evidence was found about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of powered mobility in children aged either < 5 or ≥ 5 years. However, strong support was found that powered mobility interventions have a positive impact on children's movement and mobility, and moderate support was found for the impact on children's participation, play and social interactions and on the safety outcome of accidents and pain. 'Fit' between the child, the equipment and the environment was found to be important, as were the outcomes related to a child's independence, freedom and self-expression. The evidence supported two distinct conceptualisations of the primary powered mobility outcome, movement and mobility: the former is 'movement for movement's sake' and the latter destination-focused mobility. Powered mobility should be focused on 'movement for movement's sake' in the first instance. From the budget impact analysis, it was estimated that, annually, the NHS spends £1.89M on the provision of powered mobility for very young children, which is < 2% of total wheelchair service expenditure. LIMITATIONS: The original research question could not be answered because there was a lack of appropriately powered published research. CONCLUSIONS: Early powered mobility is likely to have multiple benefits for very young children, despite the lack of robust evidence to demonstrate this. Age is not the key factor; instead, the focus should be on providing developmentally appropriate interventions and focusing on 'movement for movement's sake'. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on developing, implementing, evaluating and comparing different approaches to early powered mobility. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018096449. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The aim of this study was to find out the benefits and costs of providing very young children, aged < 5 years, with powered mobility devices. Examples of powered mobility devices are electrically powered wheelchairs and modified ride-on toys. We looked at many research papers about children and powered mobility. We found many benefits of powered mobility. We then combined all of the information to see if using powered mobility before the age of 5 years had any specific benefits for children. The evidence tells us that powered mobility has a positive effect on children's movement, and it can boost children's social interactions with other people, and their independence. Children using powered mobility were able to go to their friends by themselves, move around a play space as they wanted and take part in physical activities and games. We found that the fit between the child, the powered mobility device and the child's everyday environment was important. When the fit was not good, children experienced a lot of problems. Some children and families felt that powered mobility did not suit their needs, leading to children using a manual wheelchair instead and thereby missing out on education, social opportunities and play. Barriers to powered mobility were found in the physical environment (e.g. inaccessible buildings) and the social environment (e.g. adults supervising children too closely) and often affected children's independence. We found that the advantages and disadvantages of powered mobility were similar in younger and older children, even though the activities they took part in were different. We also found that each year the NHS spends < 2% of its wheelchair service budget on powered mobility for very young children. In conclusion, powered mobility can benefit very young children, but it requires a good fit with the child's environment.