Quality in care homes: How wearable devices and social network analysis might help.

Social network analysis can support quality improvement in care homes but traditional approaches to social network analysis are not always feasible in care homes. Recalling contacts and movements in a home is difficult for residents and staff and documentary and other sources of individual contacts can be unreliable. Bluetooth enabled wearable devices are a potential means of generating reliable, trustworthy, social network data in care home communities. In this paper, we explore the empirical, theoretical and real-world potential and difficulties in using Bluetooth enabled wearables with residents and staff in care homes for quality improvement. We demonstrate, for the first time, that a relatively simple system built around the Internet of Things, Bluetooth enabled wearables for residents and staff and passive location devices (the CONTACT intervention) can capture social networks and data in homes, enabling social network analysis, measures, statistics and visualisations. Unexpected variations in social network measures and patterns are surfaced, alongside "uncomfortable" information concerning staff time spent with residents. We show how technology might also help identify those most in need of social contact in a home. The possibilities of technology-enabled social network analysis must be balanced against the implementation-related challenges associated with introducing innovations in complex social systems such as care homes. Behavioural challenges notwithstanding, we argue that armed with social network information, care home staff could better tailor, plan and evaluate the effects of quality improvement with the sub-communities that make up a care home community.

'Smart' BLE wearables for digital contact tracing in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic-a process evaluation of the CONTACT feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and mass transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus amongst vulnerable people led to devastating effects from COVID-19 in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduced Bluetooth Low Energy 'smart' wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a basis for automated contact tracing in, and feedback on infection risks and patterns to, care homes to try and improve infection prevention and control (IPC). We planned a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CONTACT. To be feasible, homes had to adopt CONTACT's technology and new ways of working. This paper reports on the process evaluation conducted alongside CONTACT's feasibility study and explains why it lacked the feasibility and acceptability for a definitive RCT. METHODS: This mixed method process evaluation used Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) qualitative (interviews, field notes, study case report forms and documents, and observation) and quantitative (survey instruments, counts of activity) data to plan, implement, and analyse the mechanisms, effects, and contextual factors that shaped the feasibility and acceptability of the CONTACT intervention. RESULTS: Thirteen themes within four core NPT constructs explained CONTACT's lack of feasibility. Coherence: the home's varied in the scale and extent of commitment and understanding of the technology and study procedures. Leadership credibility was important but compromised by competing priorities. Management and direct care staff saw CONTACT differently. Work to promote (cognitive participation) and enact (collective action) CONTACT was burdensome and failed to be prioritised over competing COVID-19-related demands on time and scarce human and cognitive resources. Ultimately, staff appraisal of the value of CONTACT-generated information and study procedures (reflexivity) was that any utility for IPC was insufficient to outweigh the perceived burden and complexity involved. CONCLUSIONS: Despite implementation failure, dismissing BLE wearables' potential for contact tracing is premature. In non-pandemic conditions, with more time, better co-design and integration of theory-driven implementation strategies tailored to care homes' unique contexts, researchers could enhance normalisation in readiness for future pandemic challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registration: 11,204,126 registered 17/02/2021.

Why the trial researcher matters: Day-to-day work viewed through the lens of normalization process theory.

Researchers working in the field, the places where research-relevant activity happens, are essential to recruitment and data collection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to understand the nature of this often invisible work. Data were generated through an RCT of a pharmacist-led medication management service for older people in care homes. The study was conducted over three years and employed seven Research Associates (RA) working in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. Weekly research team meetings and Programme Management Group meetings naturally generated 129 sets of minutes. This documentary data was supplemented with two end-of-study RA debriefing meetings. Data were coded to sort the work being done in the field, then deductively explored through the lens of Normalization Process Theory to enable a greater understanding of the depth, breadth and complexity of work carried out by these trial delivery RAs. Results indicate RAs helped stakeholders and participants make sense of the research, they built relationships with participants to support retention, operationalised complex data collection procedures and reflected on their own work contexts to reach agreement on changes to trial procedures. The debrief discussions enabled RAs to explore and reflect on experiences from the field which had affected their day-to-day work. The learning from the challenges faced in facilitating care home research may be useful to inform future research team preparation for complex interventions. Scrutinising these data sources through the lens of NPT enabled us to identify RAs as linchpins in the successful conduct of a complex RCT study.

Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of pharmacist independent prescribers in care homes: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness, cost effectiveness (to be reported elsewhere), and safety of pharmacy independent prescribers in care homes. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial, with clusters based on triads of a pharmacist independent prescriber, a general practice, and one to three associated care homes. SETTING: Care homes across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, their associated general practices, and pharmacy independent prescribers, formed into triads. PARTICIPANTS: 49 triads and 882 residents were randomised. Participants were care home residents, aged ≥65 years, taking at least one prescribed drug, recruited to 20 residents/triad. INTERVENTION: Each pharmacy independent prescriber provided pharmaceutical care to approximately 20 residents across one to three care homes, with weekly visits over six months. Pharmacy independent prescribers developed a pharmaceutical care plan for each resident, did medicines reviews/reconciliation, trained staff, and supported with medicines related procedures, deprescribing, and authorisation of prescriptions. Participants in the control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was fall rate/person at six months analysed by intention to treat, adjusted for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (EQ-5D by proxy), Barthel score, Drug Burden Index, hospital admissions, and mortality. Assuming a 21% reduction in falls, 880 residents were needed, allowing for 20% attrition. RESULTS: The average age of participants at study entry was 85 years; 70% were female. 697 falls (1.55 per resident) were recorded in the intervention group and 538 falls (1.26 per resident) in the control group at six months. The fall rate risk ratio for the intervention group compared with the control group was not significant (0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.26) after adjustment for all model covariates. Secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups, with exception of the Drug Burden Index, which significantly favoured the intervention. A third (185/566; 32.7%) of pharmacy independent prescriber interventions involved medicines associated with falls. No adverse events or safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Change in the primary outcome of falls was not significant. Limiting follow-up to six months combined with a small proportion of interventions predicted to affect falls may explain this. A significant reduction in the Drug Burden Index was realised and would be predicted to yield future clinical benefits for patients. This large trial of an intensive weekly pharmacist intervention with care home residents was also found to be safe and well received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 17847169.

A qualitative exploration of the clinical presentation, trajectory, management and recovery of COVID-19 in older people: Learning from frontline staff experiences.

COVID-19 had a devastating impact on older people living in care homes. This study explored the clinical trajectory and management of COVID-19, as well as recovery of older people following infection during the early stages of the pandemic (May to August 2020). A two-phase exploratory qualitative study was used. Frontline staff with experience of caring for older people with COVID-19 were recruited to Phase 1, and senior care home operational and quality managers were recruited to Phase 2. During Phase 1 remote semi-structured interviews (n = 35) were carried out with staff working in care homes, hospital and community settings in England. During Phase 2, a remote consultation event was carried out with senior care home operational and quality managers (n = 11) to share Phase 1 findings and check resonance, relevance and gaps. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. Older people with COVID-19 presented with wide ranging symptoms, and an unpredictable illness trajectory. The wide range of COVID-19 symptoms required timely testing and supportive interventions. Staff used different interventions to manage symptoms and reported uncertainties of how individuals would respond. In care home settings, health and social care staff needed to work together when administering interventions such as subcutaneous fluids or oxygen therapy. Alongside symptom management, supportive care focused on nutrition and hydration, social interaction, and maintaining physical activity to meet both physical and emotional needs. The effects of prolonged periods of social isolation and inactivity on the health and well-being of older people means rehabilitation is essential to enhance physical and emotional recovery, and to minimise impacts on cognition and function. The pandemic highlighted important areas for care of this population.

Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) REMOTE study: a remote model of recruitment and assessment of the health, well-being and social circumstances of older people.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care. DATA COLLECTION: Assessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124.

Cancer as a chronic illness: support needs and experiences.

OBJECTIVES: Patients are living longer with active, advanced or metastatic disease that cannot be cured, but may be managed (ie, 'chronic cancer'). The experiences and needs within this growing group are likely to be different from those shortly after diagnosis, on active curative treatment, or in the palliative or end-of-life phase, yet are poorly defined. We described chronic cancer patient experiences and support needs in a quantitative, multicentre cross-sectional study. METHODS: Patients from five district general hospitals in England completed the 75-item Chronic Cancer Experiences Questionnaire (CCEQ). Responses were described and linear regression analysis was performed to explore the associations between poorer patient experiences and clinical/sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: In total, 416 patients with prostate cancer (28%), breast cancer (24%), gynaecological cancer (19%), colorectal/gastrointestinal cancer (17%) and renal cancer (12%) completed the CCEQ (response rate 90%). Younger patients, those who had a longer interval between primary and advanced diagnosis and those not in a relationship, had worse experiences (R2=0.098, p<0.05). Cancer-specific symptoms were common, with 80% of participants experiencing fatigue. Areas related to poorest experiences include the coordination of care, general practitioner involvement, coping with limitations, and worries and anxieties. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological burden remains high in the chronic phase of cancer, and patients experience ongoing difficulties in accessing support and services. Younger patients who have been ill for longer and those who have less social support may be particularly vulnerable, and future studies are needed to investigate the best way to meet the unique needs of this growing patient population.

The Care Home Independent Prescribing Pharmacist Study (CHIPPS)-a non-randomised feasibility study of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes.

BACKGROUND: Residents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification. METHODS: Mixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident's quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants' views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Across the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload. CONCLUSION: Implementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020.

Community ageing research 75+ study (CARE75+): an experimental ageing and frailty research cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ Study (CARE75+) is a longitudinal cohort study collecting an extensive range of health, social and economic data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ is the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, to align applied epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people living with frailty. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using a TwiCs design. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices. Nursing home residents, those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less and people receiving palliative care will be excluded. Data collection assessments will be face to face in the person's home at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months and 48 months, including assessments of frailty, cognition, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidity, medications, resilience, loneliness, pain and self-efficacy. A modified protocol for follow-up by telephone or web based will be offered at 6 months. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies, including intervention studies using the TwiCs design. A blood sample biobank will be established for future basic science studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the NRES Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). Formal written consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity.Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and scientific conferences. Key study results will be summarised and disseminated to all study participants via newsletters, local older people's publications and local engagement events. Results will be reported on a bespoke CARE75+ website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124;Results stage.

Evaluating the experiences and support needs of people living with chronic cancer: development and initial validation of the Chronic Cancer Experiences Questionnaire (CCEQ).

BACKGROUND: Many advanced cancers are managed as chronic diseases, yet there are currently no international guidelines for the support of patients living with chronic cancer. It is important to understand whether care and service arrangements meet the needs of this rapidly growing patient group. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to capture patients' experiences of living with chronic cancer and their views of clinical and support services. METHODS: The research was carried out between 1 July 2010 and 21 February 2013. A conceptual framework and initial item bank were derived from prior interviews with 56 patients with chronic cancer. Items were reviewed by 4 oncologists and 1 clinical nurse specialist and during 2 focus groups with 9 patients. Pilot questionnaires were completed by 416 patients across 5 cancer units. Item selection and scale reliability was explored using descriptive data, exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency analyses, multitrait scaling analyses and known-groups comparisons. RESULTS: The final Chronic Cancer Experiences Questionnaire (CCEQ) includes 75 items. 62 items contribute to 14 subscales with internal consistency between α 0·68-0·88 and minimal scaling errors. Known-groups comparisons confirmed subscale utility in distinguishing between patient groups. Subscales were labelled: managing appointments, coordination of care, general practitioner involvement, clinical trials, information and questions, making treatment decisions, symptom non-reporting, key worker, limitations, sustaining normality, financial advice, worries and anxieties, sharing feelings with others, and accessing support. 13 items assessing symptom experiences were retained as single items. CONCLUSIONS: The CCEQ has the potential to be used as a clinical instrument to assess patient experiences of chronic cancer or to screen for patient needs. It may also be used as an outcome measure for evaluating programmes and models of care and may identify areas for service development that could ultimately improve the care and support received by patients with chronic cancer.

Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing medicines for older adults in care homes is known to be sub-optimal. Whilst trials testing interventions to optimise prescribing in this setting have been published, heterogeneity in outcome reporting has hindered comparison of interventions, thus limiting evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS), a list of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, for all effectiveness trials involving optimising prescribing in care homes. The COS was developed as part of the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS). METHODS: A long-list of outcomes was identified through a review of published literature and stakeholder input. Outcomes were reviewed and refined prior to entering a two-round online Delphi exercise and then distributed via a web link to the CHIPPS Management Team, a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors and Patient Public Involvement representatives (amongst others), who comprised the Delphi panel. The Delphi panellists (n = 19) rated the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). Consensus for an outcome being included in the COS was defined as ≥70% participants scoring 7-9 and <15% scoring 1-3. Exclusion was defined as ≥70% scoring 1-3 and <15% 7-9. Individual and group scores were fed back to participants alongside the second questionnaire round, which included outcomes for which no consensus had been achieved. RESULTS: A long-list of 63 potential outcomes was identified. Refinement of this long-list of outcomes resulted in 29 outcomes, which were included in the Delphi questionnaire (round 1). Following both rounds of the Delphi exercise, 13 outcomes (organised into seven overarching domains: medication appropriateness, adverse drug events, prescribing errors, falls, quality of life, all-cause mortality and admissions to hospital (and associated costs)) met the criteria for inclusion in the final COS. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a COS for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes using robust methodology. Widespread adoption of this COS will facilitate evidence synthesis between trials. Future work should focus on evaluating appropriate tools for these key outcomes to further reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement in this context.