Clinical Frailty Scale at presentation to the emergency department: interrater reliability and use of algorithm-assisted assessment.

PURPOSE: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) allows health care providers to quickly stratify older patients, to support clinical decision-making. However, few studies have evaluated the CFS interrater reliability (IRR) in Emergency Departments (EDs), and the freely available smartphone application for CFS assessment was never tested for reliability. This study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) ratings between experienced and unexperienced staff (ED clinicians and a study team (ST) of medical students supported by a smartphone application to assess the CFS), and to determine the feasibility of CFS assignment in patients aged 65 or older at triage. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using consecutive sampling of ED patients aged 65 or older. We compared assessments by ED clinicians (Triage Clinicians (TC) and geriatric ED trained nurses (geriED-TN)) and a study team (ST) of medical students using a smartphone application for CFS scoring. The study is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05400707). RESULTS: We included 1349 patients aged 65 and older. Quadratic-weighted kappa values for ordinal CFS levels showed a good IRR between TC and ST (Ï° = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), similarly to that between TC and geriED-TN (Ï° = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) and between the ST and geriED-TN (Ï° = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.81). A CFS rating was assigned to 972 (70.2%) patients at triage. CONCLUSION: We found good IRR in the assessment of frailty with the CFS in different ED providers and a team using a smartphone application to support rating. A CFS assessment occurred in more than two-thirds (70.2%) of patients at triage.

Variability of neonatal premedication practices for endotracheal intubation and LISA in the UK (NeoPRINT survey).

OBJECTIVE: The NeoPRINT Survey was designed to assess premedication practices throughout UK NHS Trusts for both neonatal endotracheal intubation and less invasive surfactant administration (LISA). DESIGN: An online survey consisting of multiple choice and open answer questions covering preferences of premedication for endotracheal intubation and LISA was distributed over a 67-day period. Responses were then analysed using STATA IC 16.0. SETTING: Online survey distributed to all UK Neonatal Units (NNUs). PARTICIPANTS: The survey evaluated premedication practices for endotracheal intubation and LISA in neonates requiring these procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The use of different premedication categories as well as individual medications within each category was analysed to create a picture of typical clinical practice across the UK. RESULTS: The response rate for the survey was 40.8 % (78/191). Premedication was used in all hospitals for endotracheal intubation but overall, 50 % (39/78) of the units that have responded, use premedications for LISA. Individual clinician preference had an impact on premedication practices within each NNU. CONCLUSION: The wide variability on first-line premedication for endotracheal intubation noted in this survey could be overcome using best available evidence through consensus guidance driven by organisations such as British Association of Perinatal |Medicine (BAPM). Secondly, the divisive view around LISA premedication practices noted in this survey requires an answer through a randomised controlled trial.

A comparison between the clinical frailty scale and the hospital frailty risk score to risk stratify older people with emergency care needs.

BACKGROUND: Older adults living with frailty who require treatment in hospitals are increasingly seen in the Emergency Departments (EDs). One quick and simple frailty assessment tool-the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)-has been embedded in many EDs in the United Kingdom (UK). However, it carries time/training and cost burden and has significant missing data. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) can be automated and has the potential to reduce costs and increase data availability, but has not been tested for predictive accuracy in the ED. The aim of this study is to assess the correlation between and the ability of the CFS at the ED and HFRS to predict hospital-related outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from Leicester Royal Infirmary hospital during the period from 01/10/2017 to 30/09/2019. We included individuals aged + 75 years as the HFRS has been only validated for this population. We assessed the correlation between the CFS and HFRS using Pearson's correlation coefficient for the continuous scores and weighted kappa scores for the categorised scores. We developed logistic regression models (unadjusted and adjusted) to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) and Confidence Intervals (CIs), so we can assess the ability of the CFS and HFRS to predict 30-day mortality, Length of Stay (LOS) > 10 days, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Twelve thousand two hundred thirty seven individuals met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 84.6 years (SD 5.9) and 7,074 (57.8%) were females. Between the CFS and HFRS, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.36 and weighted kappa score was 0.15. When comparing the highest frailty categories to the lowest frailty category within each frailty score, the ORs for 30-day mortality, LOS > 10 days, and 30-day readmission using the CFS were 2.26, 1.36, and 1.64 and for the HFRS 2.16, 7.68, and 1.19. CONCLUSION: The CFS collected at the ED and the HFRS had low/slight agreement. Both frailty scores were shown to be predictors of adverse outcomes. More research is needed to assess the use of historic HFRS in the ED.

Association between frailty and C-terminal agrin fragment with 3-month mortality following ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between frailty, evaluated by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and FRAIL scale, and C-terminal agrin fragment (CAF) levels with 3-month mortality following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This was a prospective observational study that included patients over the age of 18 years with STEMI admitted to the coronary intensive care unit. Within 48 h of admission, the CFS and FRAIL scale were applied and blood samples collected for serum CAF evaluation. Patients were followed for 3 months after hospital discharge, and mortality was recorded. One hundred and eleven patients were included; mean age was 62.3 ±â€¯12.4 years, 61.3% were male and 11.7% died during the 3 months of follow-up. According to the CFS, 79.3% of the patients were classified as not frail, 12.6% as pre-frail and 8.1% as frail. According to the FRAIL scale, 31.5% of the patients were classified as not frail, 53.2% as pre-frail and 15.3% as frail. In univariate analysis, the CFS but not FRAIL scale was associated with mortality. In multiple logistic regression analysis, pre-frail/frail according to CFS (odds ratio [OR]: 6.118; CI 95%: 1.344-27.848; p = 0.019) and CAF levels (OR: 0.943; CI 95%: 0.896-0.992; p = 0.024) were associated with increased 3-month mortality. In a sub-analysis of 53 patients ≥65 years, CFS and CAF levels were associated with 3-month mortality. In conclusion, CAF levels and frailty determined by the CFS were associated with 3-month mortality after STEMI in the general and older population.

Talking about frailty: The role of stigma and precarity in older peoples' constructions of frailty.

The clinical identification of frailty is increasingly thought to be important in countries with ageing populations. Understanding how older people labelled as frail make sense of this categorisation is therefore important. A number of recent studies have reported negative perceptions of the term among older people themselves. Building on this, we focus on how and why those assessed to be frail make sense of frailty as they do. We draw on 26a discourse analysis of situated interviews with 30 older people accessing emergency care in an English NHS hospital. Three interpretive repertoire pairs (Frailty is 26a bodily issue/frailty is about mind-set; Frailty is 26a negative experience/frailty is an inevitable experience; I'm not frail/I feel frail), identified across the participants' talk, are outlined and discussed in relation to discourses of the fourth age and precarity. We conclude that frailty is often seen in terms what others have referred to as 'real' old age and is linked to discourses of dependence and precarity.

Frailty as biographical disruption.

Biographical disruption positions the onset of chronic illness as a major life disruption in which changes to body, self and resources occur (Sociology of Health & Illness, 4, 1982, 167-182). The concept has been used widely in medical sociology. It has also been subject to critique and development by numerous scholars. In this paper, we build on recent developments of the concept, particularly those taking a phenomenological approach, to argue that it can also help in understanding other disruptive health-related experiences across the life course, in this case the onset of frailty. We draw on the findings of 30 situated interviews with frail older people, relating their experiences of frailty to the concept of biographical disruption. We show that frailty shares many similarities with the experience of chronic illness. Using the lens of biographical disruption to understand frailty also offers insights relevant to recent debates around both concepts, and on the continued relevance of the idea of biographical disruption given changing experiences of health and illness, including the circumstances in which biographical disruption is more and less likely to be experienced. Finally, we reflect on the potentials and limitations of applying the concept to a health-related condition that cannot be categorised as a disease.

New Horizons in Understanding Appropriate Prehospital Identification and Trauma Triage for Older Adults.

Caring for older people is an important part of prehospital practice, including appropriate triage and transportation decisions. However, prehospital triage criteria are designed to predominantly assess injury severity or high-energy mechanism which is not the case for older people who often have injuries compounded by multimorbidity and frailty. This has led to high rates of under-triage in this population. This narrative review aimed to assess aspects other than triage criteria to better understand and improve prehospital triage decisions for older trauma patients. This includes integrating frailty assessment in prehospital trauma triage, which was shown to predict adverse outcomes for older trauma patients. Furthermore, determining appropriate outcome measures and the benefits of Major Trauma Centers (MTCs) for older trauma patients should be considered in order to direct accurate and more beneficial prehospital trauma triage decisions. It is still not clear what are the appropriate outcome measures that should be applied when caring for older trauma patients. There is also no strong consensus about the benefits of MTC access for older trauma patients with regards to survival, in-hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, and complications. Moreover, looking into factors other than triage criteria such as distance to MTCs, patient or relative choice, training, unfamiliarity with protocols, and possible ageism, which were shown to impact prehospital triage decisions but their impact on outcomes has not been investigated yet, should be more actively assessed and investigated for this population. Therefore, this paper aimed to discuss the available evidence around frailty assessment in prehospital care, appropriate outcome measures for older trauma patients, the benefits of MTC access for older patients, and factors other than triage criteria that could adversely impact accurate prehospital triage decisions for older trauma patients. It also provided several suggestions for the future.

Emergency department management of older people living with frailty: a guide for emergency practitioners.

Emergency Departments (EDs) are increasingly seeing more seriously unwell older people living with frailty. In the context of limited resources and increasing demand it's the ED practitioner's challenge to unpick this constellation of physical, psychological, functional and social issues.To properly assess older people living with frailty at the ED it is crucial to use an holistic approach. This consists of triage with algorithms sensitive to the higher risk of older people living with frailty, a frailty assessment, and an assessment with the help of the principles of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Multi-disciplinary care, a tailor-made treatment plan, based on what the person values most, will help the ED practitioner to deliver appropriate and valuable care during the ED stay, but also in transition from hospital to home.

How quality improvement collaboratives work to improve healthcare in care homes: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together multidisciplinary teams in a structured process to improve care quality. How QICs can be used to support healthcare improvement in care homes is not fully understood. METHODS: A realist evaluation to develop and test a programme theory of how QICs work to improve healthcare in care homes. A multiple case study design considered implementation across 4 sites and 29 care homes. Observations, interviews and focus groups captured contexts and mechanisms operating within QICs. Data analysis classified emerging themes using context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how NHS and care home staff work together to design and implement improvement. RESULTS: QICs will be able to implement and iterate improvements in care homes where they have a broad and easily understandable remit; recruit staff with established partnership working between the NHS and care homes; use strategies to build relationships and minimise hierarchy; protect and pay for staff time; enable staff to implement improvements aligned with existing work; help members develop plans in manageable chunks through QI coaching; encourage QIC members to recruit multidisciplinary support through existing networks; facilitate meetings in care homes and use shared learning events to build multidisciplinary interventions stepwise. Teams did not use measurement for change, citing difficulties integrating this into pre-existing and QI-related workload. CONCLUSIONS: These findings outline what needs to be in place for health and social care staff to work together to effect change. Further research needs to consider ways to work alongside staff to incorporate measurement for change into QI.

Does the Clinical Frailty Scale at Triage Predict Outcomes From Emergency Care for Older People?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether the Clinical Frailty Scale applied at emergency department (ED) triage is associated with important service- and patient-related outcomes. METHODS: We undertook a single-center, retrospective cohort study examining hospital-related outcomes and their associations with frailty scores assessed at ED triage. Participants were aged 65 years or older, registered on their first ED presentation during the study period at a single, centralized ED in the United Kingdom. Baseline data included age, sex, Clinical Frailty Scale score, National Early Warning Score-2 and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score; outcomes included length of stay, readmissions (any future admissions), and mortality (inhospital or out of hospital) up to 2 years after ED presentation. Survival analysis methods (standard and competing risks) were applied to assess associations between ED triage frailty scores and outcomes. Unadjusted incidence curves and adjusted hazard ratios are presented. RESULTS: A total of 52,562 individuals representing 138,328 ED attendances were included; participants' mean age was 78.0 years, and 55% were women. Initial admission rates generally increased with frailty. Mean length of stay after 30- or 180-day follow-up was relatively low; all Clinical Frailty Scale categories included patients who experienced zero days' length of stay (ie, ambulatory care) and patients with relatively high numbers of inhospital days. Overall, 46% of study participants were readmitted by the 2-year follow-up. Readmissions increased with Clinical Frailty Scale score up until a score of 6 and then attenuated. Mortality rates increased with increasing frailty; the adjusted hazard ratio was 3.6 for Clinical Frailty Scale score 7 to 8 compared with score 1 to 3. CONCLUSION: Frailty assessed at ED triage (with the Clinical Frailty Scale) is associated with adverse outcomes in older people. Its use in ED triage might aid immediate clinical decisionmaking and service configuration.

Quality improvement in long-term care settings: a scoping review of effective strategies used in care homes.

PURPOSE: We conducted a scoping review of quality improvement in care homes. We aimed to identify participating occupational groups and methods for evaluation. Secondly, we aimed to describe resident-level interventions and which outcomes were measured. METHODS: Following extended PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews, we conducted systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and ASSIA (2000-2019). Furthermore, we searched systematic reviews databases including Cochrane Library and JBI, and the grey literature database, Greylit. Four co-authors contributed to selection and data extraction. RESULTS: Sixty five studies were included, 6 of which had multiple publications (75 articles overall). A range of quality improvement strategies were implemented, including audit feedback and quality improvement collaboratives. Methods consisted of controlled trials, quantitative time series and qualitative interview and observational studies. Process evaluations, involving staff of various occupational groups, described experiences and implementation measures. Many studies measured resident-level outputs and health outcomes. 14 studies reported improvements to a clinical measure; however, four of these articles were of low quality. Larger randomised controlled studies did not show statistically significant benefits to resident health outcomes. CONCLUSION: In care homes, quality improvement has been applied with several different strategies, being evaluated by a variety of measures. In terms of measuring benefits to residents, process outputs and health outcomes have been reported. There was no pattern of which quality improvement strategy was used for which clinical problem. Further development of reporting of quality improvement projects and outcomes could facilitate implementation.

Comparing associations between frailty and mortality in hospitalised older adults with or without COVID-19 infection: a retrospective observational study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe outcomes in hospitalised older people with different levels of frailty and COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We undertook a single-centre, retrospective cohort study examining COVID-19-related mortality using electronic health records, for older people (65 and over) with frailty, hospitalised with or without COVID-19 infection. Baseline covariates included demographics, early warning scores, Charlson Comorbidity Indices and frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS), linked to COVID-19 status. FINDINGS: We analysed outcomes on 1,071 patients with COVID-19 test results (285 (27%) were positive for COVID-19). The mean age at ED arrival was 79.7 and 49.4% were female. All-cause mortality (by 30 days) rose from 9 (not frail) to 33% (severely frail) in the COVID-negative cohort but was around 60% for all frailty categories in the COVID-positive cohort. In adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio for death in those with COVID-19 compared to those without COVID-19 was 7.3 (95% CI: 3.00, 18.0) with age, comorbidities and illness severity making small additional contributions. INTERPRETATION: In this study, frailty measured using the CFS appeared to make little incremental contribution to the hazard of dying in older people hospitalised with COVID-19 infection; illness severity and comorbidity had a modest association with the overall adjusted hazard of death, whereas confirmed COVID-19 infection dominated, with a sevenfold hazard for death.

Improving the Quality of Care in Care Homes Using the Quality Improvement Collaborative Approach: Lessons Learnt from Six Projects Conducted in the UK and The Netherlands.

The Breakthrough Series Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) initiative is a well-developed and widely used approach, but most of what we know about it has come from healthcare settings. In this article, those leading QICs to improve care in care homes provide detailed accounts of six QICs and share their learning of applying the QIC approach in the care home sector. Overall, five care home-specific lessons were learnt: (i) plan for the resources needed to support collaborative teams with collecting, processing, and interpreting data; (ii) create encouraging and safe working environments to help collaborative team members feel valued; (iii) recruit collaborative teams, QIC leads, and facilitators who have established relationships with care homes; (iv) regularly check project ideas are aligned with team members' job roles, responsibilities, and priorities; and (v) work flexibly and accept that planned activities may need adapting as the project progresses. These insights are targeted at teams delivering QICs in care homes. These insights demonstrate the need to consider the care home context when applying improvement tools and techniques in this setting.

A consensus building exercise to determine research priorities for silver trauma.

BACKGROUND: Emergency care research into 'Silver Trauma', which is simply defined as major trauma consequent upon relatively minor injury mechanisms, is facing many challenges including that at present, there is no clear prioritisation of the issues. This study aimed to determine the top research priorities to guide future research. METHODS: This consensus-based prioritization exercise used a three-stage modified Delphi technique. The study consisted of an idea generating (divergent) first round, a ranking evaluation in the second round, and a (convergent) consensus meeting in the third round. RESULTS: A total of 20 research questions advanced to the final round of this study. After discussing the importance and clinical significance of each research question, five research questions were prioritised by the experts; the top three research priorities were: (1). What are older people's preferred goals of trauma care? (2). Beyond the Emergency Department (ED), what is the appropriate combined geriatric and trauma care? (3). Do older adults benefit from access to trauma centres? If so, do older trauma patients have equitable access to trauma centre compared to younger adults? CONCLUSION: The results of this study will assist clinicians, researchers, and organisations that are interested in silver trauma in guiding their future efforts and funding toward addressing the identified research priorities.

Concepts in Practice: Geriatric Emergency Departments.

In 2018, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) began accrediting facilities as "geriatric emergency departments" (EDs) according to adherence to the multiorganizational guidelines published in 2014. The guidelines were developed to help every ED improve its care of older adults. The geriatric ED guideline recommendations span the care continuum from out-of-hospital care, ED staffing, protocols, infrastructure, and transitions to outpatient care. Hospitals interested in making their EDs more geriatric friendly thus face the challenge of adopting, adapting, and implementing extensive guideline recommendations in a cost-effective manner and within the capabilities of their facilities and staff. Because all innovation is at heart local and must function within the constraints of local resources, different hospital systems have developed implementation processes for the geriatric ED guidelines according to their differing institutional capabilities and resources. This article describes 4 geriatric ED models of care to provide practical examples and guidance for institutions considering developing geriatric EDs: a geriatric ED-specific unit, geriatrics practitioner models, geriatric champions, and geriatric-focused observation units. The advantages and limitations of each model are compared and examples of specific institutions and their operational metrics are provided.

Template for uniform reporting of emergency department measures, consensus according to the Utstein method.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a template for uniform reporting of standardized measuring and describing of care provided in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: An international group of experts in emergency medicine, with broad experience from different clinical settings, met in Utstein, Norway. Through a consensus process, a limited number of measures that would accurately describe an ED were chosen and a template was developed. RESULTS: The final measures to be reported and their definitions were grouped into six categories: Structure, Staffing and governance, Population, Process times, Hospital and healthcare system and Outcomes. The template for Utstein-style uniform reporting is presented. CONCLUSION: The suggested template is intended for use in studies carried out in EDs to improve comparability and knowledge translation.

Understanding variation in unplanned admissions of people aged 85 and over: a systems-based approach.

AIM: To examine system characteristics associated with variations in unplanned admission rates in those aged 85+. DESIGN: Mixed methods. SETTING: Primary care trusts in England were ranked according to changes in admission rates for people aged 85+ between 2007 and 2009, and study sites selected from each end of the distribution: three 'improving' sites where rates had declined by more than 4% and three 'deteriorating' sites where rates had increased by more than 20%. Each site comprised an acute hospital trust, its linked primary care trust/clinical commissioning group, the provider of community health services and adult social care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 142 representatives from these organisations were interviewed to understand how policies had been developed and implemented. McKinsey's 7S framework was used as a structure for investigation and analysis. RESULTS: In general, improving sites provided more evidence of comprehensive system focused strategies backed by strong leadership, enabling the development and implementation of policies and procedures to avoid unnecessary admissions of older people. In these sites, primary and intermediate care services appeared more comprehensive and better integrated with other parts of the system, and policies in emergency departments were more focused on providing alternatives to admission. CONCLUSIONS: Health and social care communities which have attenuated admissions of people aged 85+ prioritised developing a shared vision and strategy, with sustained implementation of a suite of interventions.

Accuracy of Dementia Screening Instruments in Emergency Medicine: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is underrecognized in older adult emergency department (ED) patients, which threatens operational efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, and patient satisfaction. The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine geriatric ED guidelines advocate dementia screening using validated instruments. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of sufficiently brief screening instruments for dementia in geriatric ED patients. A secondary objective was to define an evidence-based pretest probability of dementia based on published research and then estimate disease thresholds at which dementia screening is most appropriate. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017074855). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, DARE, and SCOPUS were searched. Studies in which ED patients ages 65 years or older for dementia were included if sufficient details to reconstruct 2 × 2 tables were reported. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality with meta-analysis reported if more than one study evaluated the same instrument against the same reference standard. Outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-). To identify test and treatment thresholds, we employed the Pauker-Kassirer method. RESULTS: A total of 1,616 publications were identified, of which 16 underwent full text-review; nine studies were included with a weighted average dementia prevalence of 31% (range, 12%-43%). Eight studies used the Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) as the reference standard and the other study used the MMSE in conjunction with a geriatrician's neurocognitive evaluation. Blinding to the index test and/or reference standard was inadequate in four studies. Eight instruments were evaluated in 2,423 patients across four countries in Europe and North America. The Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT-4) most accurately ruled in dementia (LR+ = 7.69 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 3.45-17.10]) while the Brief Alzheimer's Screen most accurately ruled out dementia (LR- = 0.10 [95% CI = 0.02-0.28]). Using estimates of diagnostic accuracy for AMT-4 from this meta-analysis as one trigger for more comprehensive geriatric vulnerability assessments, ED dementia screening benefits patients when the prescreening probability of dementia is between 14 and 36%. CONCLUSIONS: ED-based diagnostic research for dementia screening is limited to a few studies using an inadequate criterion standard with variable masking of interpreter's access to the index test and the criterion standard. Standardizing the geriatric ED cognitive assessment methods, measures, and nomenclature is necessary to reduce uncertainties about diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and relevance in this acute care setting. The AMT-4 is currently the most accurate ED screening instrument to increase the probability of dementia and the Brief Alzheimer's Screen is the most accurate to decrease the probability of dementia. Dementia screening as one marker of vulnerability to initiate comprehensive geriatric assessment is warranted based on test-treatment threshold calculations.

Quality improvement collaborative aiming for Proactive HEAlthcare of Older People in Care Homes (PEACH): a realist evaluation protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol describes a study of a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to support implementation and delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in UK care homes. The QIC will be formed of health and social care professionals working in and with care homes and will be supported by clinical, quality improvement and research specialists. QIC participants will receive quality improvement training using the Model for Improvement. An appreciative approach to working with care homes will be encouraged through facilitated shared learning events, quality improvement coaching and assistance with project evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The QIC will be delivered across a range of partnering organisations which plan, deliver and evaluate health services for care home residents in four local areas of one geographical region. A realist evaluation framework will be used to develop a programme theory informing how QICs are thought to work, for whom and in what ways when used to implement and deliver CGA in care homes. Data collection will involve participant observations of the QIC over 18 months, and interviews/focus groups with QIC participants to iteratively define, refine, test or refute the programme theory. Two researchers will analyse field notes, and interview/focus group transcripts, coding data using inductive and deductive analysis. The key findings and linked programme theory will be summarised as context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing what needs to be in place to use QICs to implement service improvements in care homes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed by the National Health Service Health Research Authority (London Bromley research ethics committee reference: 205840) and the University of Nottingham (reference: LT07092016) ethics committees. Both determined that the Proactive HEAlthcare of Older People in Care Homes study was a service and quality improvement initiative. Findings will be shared nationally and internationally through conference presentations, publication in peer-reviewed journals, a graphical illustration and a dissemination video.