Interventions to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living in community dwelling adults who use homecare services: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify interventions that aim to reduce dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) in homecare service users. To determine: content; effectiveness in improving ability to perform ADL; and whether delivery by qualified occupational therapists influences effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, OTseeker, PEDro, Web of Science, CIRRIE, and ASSIA. REVIEW METHODS: We included: randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after studies. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, totalling 4975 participants. Ten (77%) were judged to have risk of bias. Interventions were categorised as those termed 're-ablement' or 'restorative homecare' (n=5/13); and those involving separate components which were not described using this terminology (n=8/13). Content of the intervention and level of health professional input varied within and between studies. Effectiveness on ADL: eight studies included an ADL outcome, five favoured the intervention group, only two with statistical significance, both these were controlled before and after studies judged at high risk of bias. ADL outcome was reported using seven different measures. Occupational therapy: there was insufficient evidence to determine whether involvement of qualified occupational therapists influenced effectiveness. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence that interventions targeted at personal ADL can reduce homecare service users' dependency with activities, the content of evaluated interventions varies greatly.

Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence. METHODS: We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures: • reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these • clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing • holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing • attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dying RESULTS: We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our 'Review of Future Talk'. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers.

Occupational Therapy in HomEcare Re-ablement Services (OTHERS): results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention targeted at activities of daily living (ADL), delivered by an occupational therapist, in homecare reablement. DESIGN: Feasibility parallel group RCT. SETTING: Single-site local authority homecare reablement service. PARTICIPANTS: People referred for homecare reablement with ability to consent. Exclusion criteria were as follows: inability to speak English, receiving other community therapy services, needing two or more to assist transfer and receiving end-of-life care. CONTROL: 'Usual care' was 6 weeks of homecare reablement delivered by social care workers (no routine health professional input). INTERVENTION: A targeted ADL programme, delivered by an occupational therapist incorporating goal setting, teaching/practising techniques, equipment/adaptations and provision of advice/support. This was in addition to usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, intervention delivery, attrition and suitability and sensitivity of outcome measures. Participant outcomes were personal and extended ADL, quality of life, falls and use of health and social care services. RESULTS: 30 participants were recruited, 15 to each arm, which was 60% of those eligible. Data from 22 (73%) were analysed at 6 months. Of the 15 participants, 13 (86%) received the intervention and were able to set one or more ADL goals. There were improvements from baseline in both groups, although overall improvements were greater in the occupational therapy (OT) intervention group. The biggest threat to feasibility was a change in service configuration during the trial, involving additional occupational therapy input, affecting usual care and recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the service reconfiguration, it was feasible to recruit and retain participants, deliver the intervention and collect outcome data that were responsive to change. The choice of primary outcome measure remains unclear. A further powered study is feasible and warranted; however, the design will require careful consideration because of ongoing national changes in service configurations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21710246; Results.

Occupational Therapy in HomEcare Re-ablement Services (OTHERS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Homecare re-ablement services have been developed by local authorities in England in response to the government agenda for health and social care. These services aim to optimize users' independence and ability to cope at home, and reduce the need for ongoing health and social care services. However, there is currently limited evidence and guidance regarding the optimum configuration and delivery of re-ablement services. In particular, the impact of occupational therapy input on service user outcomes has been highlighted as a specific research priority. METHODS/DESIGN: This feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) will recruit 50 people from one local authority led homecare re-ablement service in England. Those who provide informed consent will be randomized to receive either usual homecare re-ablement (without routine occupational therapy input) or usual homecare re-ablement plus an enhanced program targeted at activities of daily living (ADL), delivered by an occupational therapist. The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a further, powered study. The participant outcomes assessed will be independence in personal and extended ADL, health and social care-related quality of life, number of care support hours, falls, acute and residential admissions and use of health and social care services. These will be assessed at two weeks, three months and six months post-discharge from the re-ablement service. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first RCT of occupational therapy in homecare re-ablement services. The results of this study will lay the foundations for a further powered study. The findings will be relevant to researchers, clinicians, commissioners and users of adult social care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials registration number: ISRCTN21710246 (registered on 31March 2014).

Interventions to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living in community-dwelling adults who use homecare services: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing demand for services whereby individuals receive assistance from care workers for personal care within the home. This has led to the development of re-ablement or restorative homecare services that provide time-limited input aimed at reducing dependency in personal activities of daily living, and preventing or delaying the need for further homecare support. However, little is currently known about how such interventions are configured, or how they may affect individuals' ability to carry out personal care independently. METHODS/DESIGN: We will seek to identify studies that compare an intervention designed to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living with routine input or usual care as the control. We will include randomised controlled trials, nonrandomised controlled trials, and controlled before and after studies. We will also include interrupted time series studies. We shall search electronic databases in addition to searching for ongoing and unpublished studies, and where appropriate will contact key authors. Two reviewers will independently screen articles for inclusion; will assess risk of bias using quality assessment tools; and will carry out data extraction using pre-prepared forms. Any disagreements, at any stage, will be resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer if needed. We will produce a narrative summary of the results. A meta-analysis will be conducted if sufficient data are available of appropriate quality and comparability. DISCUSSION: The findings from this review will inform future practice within homecare re-ablement services; will inform policy decisions about the structure, organisation and content of such services; and will identify areas where further research is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review protocol has been registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42013004163).

Teaching and learning communication skills in physiotherapy: what is done and how should it be done?

OBJECTIVES: To survey practice and opinion regarding school-based teaching of communication skills, to summarise relevant research evidence from physiotherapy and beyond, to reflect on practice in light of evidence, and to propose associated recommendations. DESIGN: Survey using customised questionnaires. Basic descriptive statistical analysis and thematic content analysis were used. The results were compared with evidence from systematic reviews to derive recommendations. SURVEY PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Educators in all UK centres delivering physiotherapy qualifying programmes in 2006. RESULTS: A response rate of 69% was achieved. The majority of respondents reported delivering communication-specific modules. Lecturing was common, and more experiential methods were also used. Assessment was mainly by written work. Educators commented on challenges and strategies involved in student engagement, provision of authentic experiences, availability of teaching time and expertise, and physiotherapy-specific teaching resources. Evidence from allied health profession, medical and nursing education research emphasises the importance of experiential teaching, formative feedback, observational assessment and a substantial evidence base on which to ground course content. In physiotherapy, the latter is emerging but incomplete. There are also gaps in direct evidence about advantages or otherwise of stand-alone modules and benefits of pre-qualification communication training. Evidence suggests that effective training requires substantial teaching time, expertise and a body of empirical research on specific communication practices and their effects. CONCLUSION: Curriculum designers and educators should endeavour to maximise the degree to which training in this area is experiential, provide training when students have already had some contact with patients, and assess students by observation if at all possible. Due to gaps in the evidence, some important questions about optimal practice remain unanswered.