Optimising an intervention to support home-living older adults at risk of malnutrition: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, about 14% of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and over are estimated to be at risk of malnutrition. Screening older adults in primary care and treating those at risk may help to reduce malnutrition risk, reduce the resulting need for healthcare use and improve quality of life. Interventions are needed to raise older adults' risk awareness, offer relevant and meaningful strategies to address risk and support general practices to deliver treatment and support. METHODS: Using the Person-based Approach and input from Patient and Public Involvement representatives, we developed the 'Eat well, feel well, stay well' intervention. The intervention was optimised using qualitative data from think aloud and semi-structured process evaluation interviews with 23 and 18 older adults respectively. Positive and negative comments were extracted to inform rapid iterative modifications to support engagement with the intervention. Data were then analysed thematically and final adjustments made, to optimise the meaningfulness of the intervention for the target population. RESULTS: Participants' comments were generally positive. This paper focuses predominantly on participants' negative reactions, to illustrate the changes needed to ensure that intervention materials were optimally relevant and meaningful to older adults. Key factors that undermined engagement included: resistance to the recommended nutritional intake among those with reduced appetite or eating difficulties, particularly frequent eating and high energy options; reluctance to gain weight; and a perception that advice did not align with participants' specific personal preferences and eating difficulties. We addressed these issues by adjusting the communication of eating goals to be more closely aligned with older adults' beliefs about good nutrition, and acceptable and feasible eating patterns. We also adjusted the suggested tips and strategies to fit better with older adults' everyday activities, values and beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Using iterative qualitative methods facilitated the identification of key behavioural and contextual elements that supported engagement, and issues that undermined older adults' engagement with intervention content. This informed crucial revisions to the intervention content that enabled us to maximise the meaningfulness, relevance and feasibility of the key messages and suggested strategies to address malnutrition risk, and therefore optimise engagement with the intervention and the behavioural advice it provided.

Malnutrition in community-dwelling older people: lessons learnt using a new procedure.

This article reports the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition in a community NHS trust in England. The barriers and facilitators to implementation were assessed with staff from Integrated Community and Older People's Mental Health teams. Data from interviews and surveys were collected at baseline, 2 months after initial training and 16 months after initial training as well as following deployment of a nutrition lead to embed new developments for nutritional care. The adoption of the procedure made screening and treatment of malnutrition simpler and more likely to be actioned. The benefit of a nutrition lead and local nutrition champions to support and empower staff (avoiding reliance on training alone) was shown to drive change for nutritional care across the community. Prioritisation and commitment of leadership at the organisational level are needed to embed and sustain malnutrition screening and treatment in routine practice.

Wessex Acute Frailty Audit: applying quality improvement methodology to design and implement a regional frailty audit using a collaborative, multiprofessional approach.

INTRODUCTION: An acute hospital stay increases the risk of negative outcomes for those living with frailty. This paper describes the application of quality improvement methodology to design and implement a regional audit to gain an understanding of care provision. METHODS: Small scale tests of change (Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) were used to design the audit structure and questions. Data collectors met face to face with 2-3 multiprofessional clinicians on 58 wards in 10 hospitals across the region, using an electronic tool to gather data. Outcomes were analysed manually in Excel by extracting from the electronic audit tool. RESULTS: 58 wards across 10 hospitals participated in the audit, which identified three key themes: lack of awareness and frailty training outside medicine for older people specialties, and significant variability of both frailty identification and comprehensive geriatric assessment. CONCLUSION: Combining quality improvement methodology with a collaborative, regional approach to design and implementation of a frailty audit creates a reliable tool ensuring all stakeholders are considering improvement from the outset. The results have facilitated an agreed regional approach on how best to use local resources to improve and standardise frailty care provision. By highlighting areas of good practice and significant gaps in frailty identification, personalised care planning and hospital wide provision of frailty training, this region of the UK will now be able to drive up standards of care.

Implementing professional behaviour change in teams under pressure: results from phase one of a prospective process evaluation (the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People (INSCCOPe) project).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition for older people in community settings and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation as a routine aspect of care. DESIGN: Prospective process evaluation using mixed methods with pre/post-implementation measures. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community teams (nursing and allied health professionals) within a UK National Health Service Community Trust. 73 participants were recruited, of which 32 completed both pre-implemetation and post-implementation surveys. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NoMAD survey for pre-post-intervention measures; telephone interviews exploring participant experiences and wider organisational/contextual processes. METHODS: Data prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0-survey and telephone interview) and 2 months following training (T1-follow-up survey). Quantitative data described using frequency tables reporting team type, healthcare provider role group and total study sample; analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum (subgroup comparison) and Wilcoxon signed-rank (within-group observation point comparison) tests. Qualitative interview data (audio and transcription) analysed through directed content analysis using normalisation process theory. RESULTS: High support for nutrition screening and treatment indicated by participants. Concerns expressed around logistical, organisational and specialist dietetic support. Pre-post-training measures indicated a positive impact of training on knowledge of the new procedure; however, most implementation measures saw no significant changes between time points or between subgroups (training participants vs non-participants). Implementation barriers included the following: high levels of training non-completion; vulnerability to attrition of trained staff; lack of monitoring of post-intervention compliance and lack of access to dietetic support. CONCLUSION: Greater support necessary to support implementation in relation to monitoring of training completion, and organisational support for nutrition screening and treatment activity. Recommended changes to implementation design are as follows: appointment of a key person to support and monitor procedure compliance; adoption of training as an e-learning module within the existing organisational platform to increase participation in changeable working conditions.

What factors promote or inhibit implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition in community settings? A prospective process evaluation of the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People (INSCCOPe) project (UK).

INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition remains underdetected, undertreated and often overlooked by those working with older people in primary care in the UK. A new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition is currently being implemented by a large National Health Service (NHS) trust in England, incorporating a programme of training for staff working within Integrated Community Teams and Older People's Mental Health teams. Running in parallel, the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People process evaluation study explores factors that may promote or inhibit its implementation and longer term embedding in routine care, with the aim of optimising sustainability and scalability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Implementation will be assessed through observation of staff within a single area of the trust, in addition to the procedure development and delivery group (PDDG). Data collection will occur at three observation points: prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0); 2 months following training (T1); and 8 months following training (T2). Observation points will consist of a survey and follow-up semistructured telephone interview with staff. Investigation of the PDDG will involve: observations of discussions around development of the procedure; semistructured telephone interviews prior to implementation, and at 6 months following implementation. Quantitative data will be described using frequency tables reporting by team type, healthcare provider role group, and total study sample (Wilcoxon rank-sum and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests may also be conducted if appropriate. Audio and transcription data will be analysed using Nomarlization Process Theory as a framework for deductive thematic analysis (using the NVIVO CAQDAS software package). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study has been granted through institutional ethical review (Bournemouth University); NHS Research Ethics committee approval was not required. Dissemination will occur through presentations to academic and practitioner audiences and publication results in peer-reviewed academic journals.