Identifying models of care to improve outcomes for older people with urgent care needs: a mixed methods approach to develop a system dynamics model.

Background: We aimed to understand urgent and emergency care pathways for older people and develop a decision support tool using a mixed methods study design. Objective(s), study design, settings and participants: Work package 1 identified best practice through a review of reviews, patient, carer and professional interviews. Work package 2 involved qualitative case studies of selected urgent and emergency care pathways in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Work package 3 analysed linked databases describing urgent and emergency care pathways identifying patient, provider and pathway factors that explain differences in outcomes and costs. Work package 4 developed a system dynamics tool to compare emergency interventions. Results: A total of 18 reviews summarising 128 primary studies found that integrated social and medical care, screening and assessment, follow-up and monitoring of service outcomes were important. Forty patient/carer participants described emergency department attendances; most reported a reluctance to attend. Participants emphasised the importance of being treated with dignity, timely and accurate information provision and involvement in decision-making. Receiving care in a calm environment with attention to personal comfort and basic physical needs were key. Patient goals included diagnosis and resolution, well-planned discharge home and retaining physical function. Participants perceived many of these goals of care were not attained. A total of 21 professional participants were interviewed and 23 participated in focus groups, largely confirming the review evidence. Implementation challenges identified included the urgent and emergency care environment, organisational approaches to service development, staff skills and resources. Work package 2 involved 45 interviews and 30 hours of observation in four contrasting emergency departments. Key themes relating to implementation included: intervention-related staff: frailty mindset and behaviours resources: workforce, space, and physical environment operational influences: referral criteria, frailty assessment, operating hours, transport. context-related links with community, social and primary care organisation and management support COVID-19 pandemic. approaches to implementation service/quality improvement networks engaging staff and building relationships education about frailty evidence. The linked databases in work package 3 comprised 359,945 older people and 1,035,045 observations. The most powerful predictors of four-hour wait and transfer to hospital were age, previous attendance, out-of-hours attendance and call handler designation of urgency. Drawing upon the previous work packages and working closely with a wide range of patient and professional stakeholders, we developed an system dynamics tool that modelled five evidence-based urgent and emergency care interventions and their impact on the whole system in terms of reducing admissions, readmissions, and hospital related mortality. Limitations: Across the reviews there was incomplete reporting of interventions. People living with severe frailty and from ethnic minorities were under-represented in the patient/carer interviews. The linked databases did not include patient reported outcomes. The system dynamics model was limited to evidence-based interventions, which could not be modelled conjointly. Conclusions: We have reaffirmed the poor outcomes frequently experienced by many older people living with urgent care needs. We have identified interventions that could improve patient and service outcomes, as well as implementation tools and strategies to help including clinicians, service managers and commissioners improve emergency care for older people. Future work: Future work will focus on refining the system dynamics model, specifically including patient-reported outcome measures and pre-hospital services for older people living with frailty who have urgent care needs. Study registrations: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018111461. WP 1.2: University of Leicester ethics: 17525-spc3-ls:healthsciences, WP 2: IRAS 262143, CAG 19/CAG/0194, WP 3: IRAS 215818, REC 17/YH/0024, CAG 17/CAG/0024. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme [project number 17/05/96 (Emergency Care for Older People)] and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many older people attending emergency care have poor outcomes; this project aimed to: describe best practice in emergency care understand how best practice might be delivered describe outcomes from emergency care, and synthesise this information in a computer simulation tool that can help teams decide which interventions might work best in their setting. The existing literature showed that holistic interventions (caring for the whole person), spanning emergency and community care, designed with the needs of older people in mind, work best. We checked these findings with front line clinicians, who agreed, but identified that implementing best practice in the emergency department was challenging. Limitations included the emergency department environment itself and the lack of staff with the right skillset. We also asked older people and their carers who had recently received emergency care what mattered. They prioritised basic needs such as comfort, communication, and timely care. They also stated that getting better, maintaining their usual level of function, and getting home safely were important outcomes. We then analysed data that linked together ambulance, emergency department, and hospital care in Yorkshire and Humber from 2011­17 for over 1 million emergency department attendances and hospital admissions. We found a novel and accurate predictor of long emergency department waits and hospital admission: the level of urgency according to the ambulance call handler. Drawing upon all the above and guided by a wide range of patient and professionals, we developed a computer model which allows emergency care teams to simulate different best practice emergency department interventions and estimate the impact on reducing admissions, readmissions, and hospital mortality. In summary, we have reaffirmed the poor outcomes experienced by many older people with urgent care needs. We have identified interventions that could improve patient and service outcomes, as well as implementation tools to help including clinicians, hospital managers and funders transform emergency care for older people.

What are the goals of care for older people living with frailty when they access urgent care? Are those goals attained? A qualitative view of patient and carer perspectives.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known of the goals of care of older people living with frailty when they access urgent care. Equally whether these goals are attained from a patient and carer perspective is often unclear. This qualitative study examined the views of older people living with frailty and their families in relation to specific episodes of urgent care, what they wanted to achieve and whether those goals were attained. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with older people living with frailty and their families between Jan and July 2019. Patient and carer participants were recruited in three hospitals in England and interviewed following the urgent care episode. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed following the principles of the Framework approach. Results were validated by an older people's involvement group. RESULTS: Forty participants were interviewed either alone or jointly (24 patients and 16 carers), describing episodes of urgent care which started in ED for 28 patients. The goals of care for participants accessing emergency care were that their medical problem be diagnosed and resolved; information about tests and treatment be given to them and their relatives; they receive an appropriate well-planned discharge to their own home with support where needed and without readmission or re-attendance at ED; and that they retain mobility, function and normal activities. Participants perceived that many of these goals of care were not attained. CONCLUSIONS: Older people living with frailty have heterogeneous urgent care goals which require individual ascertainment. Identifying these goals of care early could result in improved attainment through person-centred care.

A systematic review and recommendations for prom instruments for older people with frailty in emergency care.

INTRODUCTION: The current service metrics used to evaluate quality in emergency care do not account for specific healthcare outcome goals for older people living with frailty. These have previously been classified under themes of 'Autonomy' and 'Functioning'. There is no person-reported outcome measure (PROM) for older people with frailty and emergency care needs. This study aimed to identify and co-produce recommendations for instruments potentially suitable for use in this population. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched six databases for PROMs used between 2010 and 2021 by older people living with frailty receiving acute hospital care. Studies were reviewed against predefined eligibility criteria and appraised for quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Data were extracted to map instrument constructs against an existing framework of acute healthcare outcome goals. Instrument face and content validity were assessed by lay collaborators. Recommendations for instruments with potential emergency care suitability were formed through co-production. RESULTS: Of 9392 unique citations screened, we appraised the full texts of 158 studies. Nine studies were identified, evaluating nine PROMs. Quality of included studies ranged from 'doubtful' to 'very good'. Most instruments had strong evidence for measurement properties. PROMs mainly assessed 'Functioning' constructs, with limited coverage of 'Autonomy'. Five instruments were considered too burdensome for the emergency care setting or too specific for older people living with frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Four PROMs were recommended as potentially suitable for further validation with older people with frailty and emergency care needs: COOP/WONCA charts, EuroQol, McGill Quality of Life (Expanded), and Palliative care Outcome Scale.

What matters most in acute care: an interview study with older people living with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare outcome goals are central to person-centred acute care, however evidence among older people is scarce. Older people who are living with frailty have distinct requirements for healthcare delivery and have distinct risk for adverse outcomes from healthcare. There is insufficient evidence for whether those living with frailty also have distinct healthcare outcome goals. This study explored the nature of acute care outcome goals in people living with frailty. METHODS: Healthcare outcome goals were explored using semi-structured patient interviews. Participants aged over 65 with Clinical Frailty Score 5-8 (mild to very severe frailty) were recruited during their first 72 hours in a UK hospital. Purposive, maximum variation sampling was guided by lay partners from a Patient and Public Involvement Forum specialising in ageing-related research. Qualitative analysis used a blended approach based on framework and constant comparative methodologies for the identification of themes. Findings were validated through triangulation with participant, lay partner, and technical expert review. RESULTS: The 22 participants were aged 71 to 98 and had mild to very severe frailty. One quarter were living with dementia. Most participants had reflected on their situation and considered their outcome goals. Theme categories (and corresponding sub-categories) were 'Autonomy' (information, control, and security) and 'Functioning' (physical, psychosocial, and relief). A novel 'security' theme was identified, whereby participants sought to feel safe in their usual living place and with their health problems. Those living with milder frailty were concerned to maintain ability to support loved ones, while those living with most severe frailty were concerned about burdening others. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome goals for acute care among older participants living with frailty were influenced by the insecurity of their situation and fear of deterioration. Patients may be supported to feel safe and in control through appropriate information provision and functional support.