How can we improve Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for older people living with frailty in primary care and community settings? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: With advancing age comes the increasing prevalence of frailty and increased risk of adverse outcomes (eg, hospitalisation). Evidence for comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), a multidimensional holistic model of care, is mixed in community settings. Uncertainties remain, such as the key components of CGA, who delivers it, and the use of technology. This study aimed to understand the perspectives, beliefs and experiences, of both older people and health professionals, to improve the current CGA and explore factors that may impact on CGA delivery in community settings. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study was conducted with older people and healthcare professionals (HCPs) identified using a maximum variation strategy. Data were analysed using an abductive analysis approach. The non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework and the theoretical framework of acceptability guided the categorisation of the codes and identified categories were mapped to the two frameworks. SETTING: England, UK. RESULTS: 27 people were interviewed, constituting 14 older people and 13 HCPs. We identified limitations in the current CGA: a lack of information sharing between different HCPs who deliver CGA; poor communication between older people and their HCPs and a lack of follow-up as part of CGA. When we discussed the potential for CGA to use technology, HCPs and older people varied in their readiness to engage with it. CONCLUSIONS: Viable solutions to address gaps in the current delivery of CGA include the provision of training and support to use digital technology and a designated comprehensive care coordinator. The next stage of this research will use these findings, existing evidence and stakeholder engagement, to develop and refine a model of community-based CGA that can be assessed for feasibility and acceptability.

Personalising psychotherapies for depression using a novel mixed methods approach: an example from Morita therapy.

BACKGROUND: Current quantitative methods for personalising psychotherapies for depression are unlikely to be able to inform clinical decision-making for hundreds of years. Novel alternative methods to generate hypotheses for prospective testing are therefore required, and we showcase mixed methods as one such approach. By exploring patients' perspectives in depth, and integrating qualitative and quantitative data at the level of the individual, we may identify new potential psychosocial predictors of psychotherapy outcomes, potentially informing the personalisation of depression treatment in a shorter timeframe. Using Morita therapy (a Japanese psychotherapy) as an exemplar, we thus explored how Morita therapy recipients' views on treatment acceptability explain their adherence and response to treatment. METHODS: The Morita trial incorporated a pilot randomised controlled trial of Morita therapy versus treatment as usual for depression, and post-treatment qualitative interviews. We recruited trial participants from general practice record searches in Devon, UK, and purposively sampled data from 16 participants for our mixed methods analysis. We developed typologies of participants' views from our qualitative themes, and integrated these with quantitative data on number of sessions attended and whether participants responded to treatment in a joint typologies and statistics display. We enriched our analysis using participant vignettes to demonstrate each typology. RESULTS: We demonstrated that (1) participants who could identify with the principles of Morita therapy typically responded to treatment, regardless of how many sessions they attended, whilst those whose orientation towards treatment was incompatible with Morita therapy did not respond to treatment, again regardless of treatment adherence and (2) participants whose personal circumstances impeded their opportunity to engage in Morita therapy attended the fewest sessions, though still benefitted from treatment if the principles resonated with them. CONCLUSIONS: We identified new potential relationships between "orientation" and outcomes, and "opportunity" and adherence, which could not have been identified using existing non-integrative methods. This mixed methods approach warrants replication in future trials and with other psychotherapies to generate hypotheses, based on typologies (or profiles) of patients for whom a treatment is more or less likely to be suitable, to be tested in prospective trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN17544090. Registered on 23 July 2015.

The effects and costs of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduces hospitalizations in patients with heart failure, but international uptake of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure remains low. DESIGN AND METHODS: The aim of this multicentre randomized trial was to compare the REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronicHeart Failure) intervention, a facilitated self-care and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme to usual care for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The study primary hypothesis was that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention to usual care would improve disease-specific HRQoL (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ)) at 12 months compared with usual care alone. RESULTS: The study recruited 216 participants, predominantly men (78%), with an average age of 70 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%. Overall, 185 (86%) participants provided data for the primary outcome. At 12 months, there was a significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference in the MLHFQ score of -5.7 points (95% confidence interval -10.6 to -0.7) in favour of the REACH-HF intervention group ( p = 0.025). With the exception of patient self-care ( p < 0.001) there was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including clinical events ( p > 0.05) at follow-up compared with usual care. The mean cost of the REACH-HF intervention was £418 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The novel REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFrEF was clinically superior in disease-specific HRQoL at 12 months and offers an affordable alternative to traditional centre-based programmes to address current low cardiac rehabilitation uptake rates for heart failure.

Morita Therapy for depression (Morita Trial): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To address uncertainties prior to conducting a fully powered randomised controlled trial of Morita Therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU alone, or to determine that such a trial is not appropriate and/or feasible. DESIGN: Pilot parallel group randomised controlled feasibility trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants aged ≥18 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV major depressive disorder, with or without DSM-IV anxiety disorder(s), recruited from general practice record searches in Devon, UK. INTERVENTIONS: We randomised participants on a 1:1 basis stratified by symptom severity, concealing allocation using a secure independent web-based system, to receive TAU (control) or 8-12 sessions of Morita Therapy, a Japanese psychological therapy, plus TAU (intervention). OUTCOMES: Rates of recruitment, retention and treatment adherence; variance and estimated between-group differences in follow-up scores (on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) (depressive symptoms); Generalised Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire 7 (anxiety symptoms); Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire/Work and Social Adjustment Scale (quality of life); Morita Attitudinal Scale for Arugamama (attitudes)) and their correlation with baseline scores. RESULTS: We recruited 68 participants, 5.1% (95% CI 3.4% to 6.6%) of those invited (34 control; 34 intervention); 64/68 (94%; 95% CI 88.3% to 99.7%) provided 4-month follow-up data. Participants had a mean age of 49 years and mean PHQ-9 score of 16.8; 61% were female. Twenty-four of 34 (70.6%) adhered to the minimum treatment dose. The follow-up PHQ-9 (future primary outcome measure) pooled SD was 6.4 (95% CI 5.5 to 7.8); the magnitude of correlation between baseline and follow-up PHQ-9 scores was 0.42 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.61). Of the participants, 66.7% and 30.0% recovered in the intervention and control groups, respectively; 66.7% and 13.3% responded to treatment in the intervention and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A large-scale trial of Morita Therapy would require 133 participants per group and is feasible with minor modifications to the pilot trial protocol. Morita Therapy shows promise in treating depression and may provide patients with a distinct alternative to current treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17544090; Pre-results.

Fundamental nursing care: A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of nursing care interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of nursing interventions for people's nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. BACKGROUND: Patient experience of health care is sensitive to nursing quality. A refocus on fundamental nursing care is undermined by lack of evidence of effectiveness for interventions in core areas such as elimination, nutrition, mobility and hygiene. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched for and included experimental studies on interventions by professionally qualified and unregistered nurses that addressed participants' nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. We extracted data on scope, quality and results of studies followed by descriptive narrative synthesis of included study outcomes using a novel form of harvest plots. RESULTS: We included 149 studies, 35 nutrition, 56 elimination, 16 mobility, 39 hygiene and three addressing two or more areas simultaneously (67 randomised controlled trials, 32 non-randomised controlled trials and 50 uncontrolled trials). Studies into interventions on participant self-management of nutrition (n = 25), oral health (n = 26), catheter care (n = 23) and self-management of elimination (n = 21) were the most prevalent. Most studies focussed their outcomes on observational or physiological measures, with very few collecting patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, experience or self-reported symptoms. All but 13 studies were of low quality and at significant risk of bias. The majority of studies did not define primary outcomes, included multiple measures of identical concepts, used inappropriate analyses and did not conform to standard reporting quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence for fundamental nursing care interventions is sparse, of poor quality and unfit to provide evidence-based guidance to practising nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Researchers in nursing internationally should now undertake a programme of work to produce evidence for clinical practice in the fundamentals of care that is reliable, replicable and robust.

Morita therapy for depression and anxiety (Morita Trial): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Morita Therapy, a psychological therapy for common mental health problems, is in sharp contrast to established western psychotherapeutic approaches in teaching that undesired symptoms are natural features of human emotion rather than something to control or eliminate. The approach is widely practiced in Japan, but untested and little known in the UK. A clinical trial of Morita Therapy is required to establish the effectiveness of Morita Therapy for a UK population. However, a number of methodological, procedural and clinical uncertainties associated with such a trial first require addressing. METHODS/DESIGN: The Morita Trial is a mixed methods study addressing the uncertainties associated with an evaluation of Morita Therapy compared with treatment as usual for depression and anxiety. We will undertake a pilot randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Sixty participants with major depressive disorder, with or without anxiety disorders, will be recruited predominantly from General Practice record searches and randomised to receive Morita Therapy plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Morita Therapy will be delivered by accredited psychological therapists. We will collect quantitative data on depressive symptoms, general anxiety, attitudes and quality of life at baseline and four month follow-up to inform future sample size calculations; and rates of recruitment, retention and treatment adherence to assess feasibility. We will undertake qualitative interviews in parallel with the trial, to explore people's views of Morita Therapy. We will conduct separate and integrated analyses on the quantitative and qualitative data. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of this study will prepare the ground for the design and conduct of a fully-powered evaluation of Morita Therapy plus treatment as usual versus treatment as usual alone, or inform a conclusion that such a trial is not feasible and/or appropriate. We will obtain a more comprehensive understanding of these issues than would be possible from either a quantitative or qualitative approach alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17544090 registered on 23 July 2015.