Nurses' strategies for overcoming barriers to fundamental nursing care in patients with COVID-19 caused by infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus: Results from the 'COVID-NURSE' survey.

AIMS: To identify strategies used by registered nurses and non-registered nursing care staff in overcoming barriers when providing fundamental nursing care for non-invasively ventilated inpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data. METHODS: In August 2020, we asked UK-based nursing staff to describe any strategies they employed to overcome barriers to delivering care in 15 fundamental nursing care categories when providing care to non-invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We analysed data using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1062 nurses consented to participate in our survey. We derived four themes. 1) Communication behaviours included adapting verbal and non-verbal communication with patients, using information technology to enable patients' significant others to communicate with staff and patients, and establishing clear information-sharing methods with other staff. 2) Organizing care required clustering interventions, carefully managing supplies, encouraging patient self-care and using 'runners' and interdisciplinary input. 3) Addressing patients' well-being and values required spending time with patients, acting in loco familiae, providing access to psychological and spiritual support, obtaining information about patients' wishes early on and providing privacy and comforting/meaningful items. 4) Management and leadership behaviours included training, timely provision of pandemic information, psychological support, team huddles and facilitating regular breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified multiple strategies in four main areas of clinical practice. Management and leadership are crucial to both fundamental care delivery and the well-being of nurses during pandemics. Grouping strategies into these areas of action may assist nurses and leaders to prepare for pandemic nursing. IMPACT: As these strategies are unlikely to be exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, their global dissemination may improve patient experience and help nurses deliver fundamental care when planning pandemic nursing. However, their effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we are currently evaluating these strategies in a cluster randomized controlled trial.

A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and difficult to prevent. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme. DESIGN: A multicentre, cluster, parallel, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Care homes were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the GtACH programme or usual care using a secure web-based randomisation service. Research assistants, participating residents and staff informants were blind to allocation at recruitment; research assistants were blind to allocation at follow-up. NHS Digital data were extracted blindly. SETTING: Older people's care homes from 10 UK sites. PARTICIPANTS: Older care home residents. INTERVENTION: The GtACH programme, which includes care home staff training, systematic use of a multidomain decision support tool and implementation of falls prevention actions, compared to usual falls prevention care. OUTCOMES: The primary trial outcome was the rate of falls per participating resident occurring during the 90-day period between 91 and 180 days post randomisation. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was the cost per fall averted, and the primary outcome for the cost-utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year. Secondary outcomes included the rate of falls over days 0-90 and 181-360 post randomisation, activity levels, dependency and fractures. The number of falls per resident was compared between arms using a negative binomial regression model (generalised estimating equation). RESULTS: A total of 84 care homes were randomised: 39 to the GtACH arm and 45 to the control arm. A total of 1657 residents consented and provided baseline measures (mean age 85 years, 32% men). GtACH programme training was delivered to 1051 staff (71% of eligible staff) over 146 group sessions. Primary outcome data were available for 630 GtACH participants and 712 control participants. The primary outcome result showed an unadjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; p < 0.01) in favour of the GtACH programme. Falls rates were lower in the GtACH arm in the period 0-90 days. There were no other differences between arms in the secondary outcomes. Care home staff valued the training, systematic strategies and specialist peer support, but the incorporation of the GtACH programme documentation into routine care home practice was limited. No adverse events were recorded. The incremental cost was £20,889.42 per Dementia Specific Quality of Life-based quality-adjusted life-year and £4543.69 per quality-adjusted life-year based on the EuroQol-5 dimensions, five-level version. The mean number of falls was 1.889 (standard deviation 3.662) in the GtACH arm and 2.747 (standard deviation 7.414) in the control arm. Therefore, 0.858 falls were averted. The base-case incremental cost per fall averted was £190.62. CONCLUSION: The GtACH programme significantly reduced the falls rate in the study care homes without restricting residents' activity levels or increasing their dependency, and was cost-effective at current thresholds in the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Future work should include a broad implementation programme, focusing on scale and sustainability of the GtACH programme. LIMITATIONS: A key limitation was the fact that care home staff were not blinded, although risk was small because of the UK statutory requirement to record falls in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN34353836. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and hard to prevent. We tested whether or not the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme was effective in preventing falls. In this programme, care home staff were systematically trained and supported in the assessment of residents' risk of falling and the generation of a falls reduction care plan. We undertook a randomised controlled trial comparing the GtACH programme with usual care, which does not involve this systematic attention to falls prevention. We also undertook a process evaluation, observing organisational and care processes, and an economic study to evaluate value for money. A total of 39 care homes were randomly allocated to the GtACH programme and 45 care homes were randomly allocated to usual care, involving a total of 1657 residents. The main comparison between the two arms was the rate of falls during months 4­6 after randomisation, when we expected any effect to be at its peak. We also assessed the falls rates before and 6 months after this period. We measured activity and dependency levels, as it was important to be sure that any reduction in the rate of falls was not achieved through restrictive care practices. We saw a 43% reduction in the falls rates of the GtACH programme participants during months 4­6, without observing any reduction in residents' activity or dependency. Care home staff and relatives were positive about the GtACH programme. The GtACH programme was good value for money, as it was likely to be cost-effective. The effect of the programme waned over months 6­12, which may be because some staff did not embed the GtACH programme in their usual practice routines, and awareness levels may have dropped.

Fundamental nursing care in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 virus: results from the 'COVID-NURSE' mixed methods survey into nurses' experiences of missed care and barriers to care.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients' fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. METHODS: We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. RESULTS: Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients' conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.

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.

Rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled study (the Getting out of the House Study).

BACKGROUND: One-third of stroke patients are dependent on others to get outside their homes. This can cause people to become housebound, leading to increased immobility, poor health, isolation and misery. There is some evidence that outdoor mobility rehabilitation can reduce these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention for stroke patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with two groups allocated at a 1 : 1 ratio plus qualitative participant interviews. SETTING: Fifteen UK NHS stroke services throughout England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 568 stroke patients who wished to get out of the house more often, mean age of 71 years: 508 reached the 6-month follow-up and 10 were interviewed. INTERVENTION: Control was delivered prior to randomisation to all participants, and consisted of verbal advice and transport and outdoor mobility leaflets. Intervention was a targeted outdoor mobility rehabilitation programme delivered by 29 NHS therapists to 287 randomly chosen participants for up to 12 sessions over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was participant health-related quality of life, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (Social Function domain), 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mobility, number of journeys (from monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility (SWOM), psychological well-being and resource use [health care and Personal Social Services (PSS)] 6 months after baseline. Carer well-being was recorded. All outcome measures were collected by post and repeated 12 months after baseline. Outcomes for the groups were compared using statistical significance testing and adjusted for multiple membership to account for the effect of multiple therapists at different sites. Interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenology to explore confidence. RESULTS: A median of seven intervention sessions [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7 sessions], median duration of 369 minutes (IQR 170-691.5 minutes) per participant was delivered. There was no significant difference between the groups on health-related quality of life (social function). There were no significant differences between groups in functional ability, psychological well-being or SWOM at 6- or 12-month follow-ups. There was a significant difference observed for travel journeys with the intervention group being 42% more likely to make a journey compared with the control group [rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.67] at 6 months and 76% more likely (rate ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.95) at 12 months. The number of journeys was affected by the therapist effect. The mean incremental cost (total NHS and PSS cost) of the intervention was £3413.75 (95% CI -£448.43 to £7121.00), with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of -0.027 (95% CI -0.060 to 0.007) according to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and -0.003 (95% CI -0.016 to 0.006) according to the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions. At baseline, 259 out of 281 (92.2%) participants in the control group were dissatisfied with outdoor mobility but at the 6-month assessment this had reduced to 77.7% (181/233), a 15% reduction. The corresponding reduction in the intervention group was slightly greater (21%) than 268 out of 287 (93.4%) participants dissatisfied with outdoor mobility at baseline to 189 out of 261 (72.4%) at 6 months. Participants described losing confidence after stroke as being detrimental to outdoor mobility. Recruitment and retention rates were high. The intervention was deliverable by the NHS but had a neutral effect in all areas apart from potentially increasing the number of journeys. This was dependent on the therapist effect, meaning that some therapists were more successful than others. The control appeared to affect change. CONCLUSIONS: The outdoor mobility intervention provided in this study to these stroke patients was not clinically effective or cost-effective. However, the provision of personalised information and monthly diaries should be considered for all people who wish to get out more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58683841. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Community falls prevention for people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: we estimated the cost-effectiveness of a community falls prevention service compared with usual care from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective over the 12 month trial period. DESIGN: a cost-effectiveness and cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial SETTING: community. PARTICIPANTS: people over 60 years of age living at home or in residential care who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance but were not taken to hospital. INTERVENTIONS: referral to community fall prevention services or usual health and social care. MEASUREMENTS: incremental cost per fall prevented and incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) RESULTS: a total of 157 participants (82 interventions and 75 controls) were used to perform the economic evaluation. The mean difference in NHS and personal social service costs between the groups was £-1,551 per patient over 1 year (95% CI: £-5,932 to £2,829) comparing the intervention and control groups. The intervention patients experienced on average 5.34 fewer falls over 12 months (95% CI: -7.06 to -3.62). The mean difference in QALYs was 0.070 (95% CI: -0.010 to 0.150) in favour of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: the community falls prevention service was estimated to be cost-effective in this high-risk group. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67535605. (controlled-trials.com).

Thinking falls - taking action: a guide to action for falls prevention.

Clinical guidelines and research papers help clinicians measure and understand the risk of falling in their older clients but very few provide the assessor with recommendations as to which interventions they can use to reduce the risk of a fall. The Guide to Action for Falls Prevention tool (GtA) was developed to help professionals from a broad range of organizations to recognize factors that might increase falls risk and know which actions to take to lessen that risk. Twenty four professionals tested the GtA in a clinical setting and found it quick (15 minutes) and easy to complete. The GtA needs further evaluation to test whether it is a practical way of delivering a falls prevention intervention.

Community falls prevention for people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a service to prevent falls in the community would help reduce the rate of falls in older people who call an emergency ambulance when they fall but are not taken to hospital. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community covered by four primary care trusts, England. PARTICIPANTS: 204 adults aged more than 60 living at home or in residential care who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance but were not taken to hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Referral to community fall prevention services or standard medical and social care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of falls over 12 months, ascertained from monthly diaries. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Barthel index, Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale, and falls efficacy scale at baseline and by postal questionnaire at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: 102 people were allocated to each group. 99 (97%) participants in the intervention group received the intervention. Falls diaries were analysed for 88.6 person years in the intervention group and 84.5 person years in the control group. The incidence rates of falls per year were 3.46 in the intervention group and 7.68 in the control group (incidence rate ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58, P<0.001). The intervention group achieved higher scores on the Barthel index and Nottingham extended activities of daily living and lower scores on the falls efficacy scale (all P<0.05) at the 12 month follow-up. The number of times an emergency ambulance was called because of a fall was significantly different during follow-up (incidence rate ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.92, P=0.018). CONCLUSION: A service to prevent falls in the community reduced the fall rate and improved clinical outcome in the high risk group of older people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall but are not taken to hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67535605.