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.

Negotiating pace, focus and identities: Patient/public involvement/engagement in a palliative care study.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an increasingly important component of research conduct to enhance processes and potential for impact, yet is rarely critically interrogated. This paper draws on Foucauldian analysis to highlight the disciplinary powers and tensions arising in PPIE. The paper draws on a nested evaluation interview study with three PPIE members and eight academics, who had been involved in an implementation science study focused on palliative care. PPIE members were involved in the whole study and are co-authors of this article. Through shared values and commitments to the study, a team culture of equality was developed. Yet while power was dispersed and taken-up by all team members, in so doing a self-governance approach within the team was developed. The pace and focus of discussions was at times more subjugating than co-production. Identities and positions were porous; the simplistic division of 'academic' and 'PPIE' did not stand up to scrutiny, with an increasing blurring of boundaries as people's experiences and insights changed over time. Continual, subtle, negotiations of roles, inputs and identities were manifest throughout the project. PPIE in research involves subtle, complex and ongoing disciplinary practices enacted by all members of the team.

Heart failure in nursing homes: A scoping review of educational interventions for optimising care provision.

Background: Heart failure has an estimated global prevalence of 64.3 million cases, with an average age of a person living with heart failure at 75.2 years. Approximately 20% of residents living in nursing homes (a long-term residential care environment for some individuals) report living with heart failure. Residents living with heart failure in nursing home environments are often frail, have reduced quality of life, higher rates of rehospitalisation and mortality, and greater complications in heart failure management. Further, nursing home staff often lack the knowledge and skills required to provide the necessary care for those living with heart failure. Interventions for improving heart failure management in nursing homes have proven effective, yet there is a lack of understanding regarding interventions for optimising care provision. The aim of this review was to synthesise the current evidence on educational interventions to optimise care provided to people with heart failure in nursing homes. Methods: A scoping review with four databases searched: Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Relevant reference lists were searched manually for additional records. Studies of nursing home staff or resident outcomes associated with changes in care provision (i.e., resident quality of life, staff knowledge of heart failure) were included. Results from the charting data process were collated into themes: intervention outcomes, changes to practice, and implementation and process evaluation. Results: Seven papers were deemed eligible for inclusion. Most studies (n=6) were comprised of nursing home staff only, with one comprised only of residents. Study aims were to improve heart failure knowledge, interprofessional communication, heart failure assessment and management. Positive changes in staff outcomes were observed, with improvements in knowledge, self-efficacy, and confidence in providing care reported. No difference was reported concerning nursing home resident outcomes. Interprofessional communication and staff ability to conduct heart failure assessments improved post-intervention. Changes to practice were mixed, with issues around sustainability reported. Nursing home staff highlighted their appreciation towards receiving education, recommending that videos, images, and humour could improve the intervention content. Conclusions: There is a paucity of evidence around educational interventions to support residents living with heart failure in nursing homes. However, available evidence suggests that educational interventions in nursing homes may improve care through improving staff self-efficacy and confidence in providing care, heart failure knowledge and interprofessional communication. The complexity of implementing educational interventions in the nursing home setting must be considered during the development process to improve implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability.

Exploring the impact of care home environments and culture on supporting residents to 'wander' safely.

OBJECTIVES: Up to 60% of people with dementia living in care homes will 'wander' at some point, which has typically been seen by staff as a problematic behaviour. A range of non-pharmacological interventions have been tested to either support or prevent wandering. However, even recent innovative practice continues to maintain a focus on reducing or preventing wandering. This study aimed to identify, for the first time, care home staff perspectives on home level factors that facilitate or hinder them supporting residents to wander safely. METHOD: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 care home staff, working in the North of England. Framework analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: A range of environmental considerations were identified by staff. Care home design influenced how residents were able to move safely around, and inclusion of points of interest encouraged walking to different locations, such as a garden. Staff worried about managing access to other residents' rooms by people who wander. Within the care home culture, prioritising safe staffing levels, training and awareness, involving external healthcare professionals where required and mentorship from experienced staff members, all contributed towards safe wandering. Staff support for positive risk-taking within the care home was key to promote person-centred care, alongside careful oversight and management of relationships between residents. CONCLUSION: We identified a range of cultural and environmental factors that contribute towards safe wandering. A positive approach to risk-taking by staff is required to support residents to engage in wandering as an enjoyable activity, whilst acknowledging that there are inherent risks associated with this.

Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study.

Background: Quality of life and care varies between and within the care homes in which almost half a million older people live and over half a million direct care staff (registered nurses and care assistants) work. The reasons are complex, understudied and sometimes oversimplified, but staff and their work are a significant influence. Objective(s): To explore variations in the care home nursing and support workforce; how resident and relatives' needs in care homes are linked to care home staffing; how different staffing models impact on care quality, outcomes and costs; how workforce numbers, skill mix and stability meet residents' needs; the contributions of the care home workforce to enhancing quality of care; staff relationships as a platform for implementation by providers. Design: Mixed-method (QUAL-QUANT) parallel design with five work packages. WP1 - two evidence syntheses (one realist); WP2 - cross-sectional survey of routine staffing and rated quality from care home regulator; WP3 - analysis of longitudinal data from a corporate provider of staffing characteristics and quality indicators, including safety; WP4 - secondary analysis of care home regulator reports; WP5 - social network analysis of networks likely to influence quality innovation. We expressed our synthesised findings as a logic model. Setting: English care homes, with and without nursing, with various ownership structures, size and location, with varying quality ratings. Participants: Managers, residents, families and care home staff. Findings: Staffing's contribution to quality and personalised care requires: managerial and staff stability and consistency; sufficient staff to develop 'familial' relationships between staff and residents, and staff-staff reciprocity, 'knowing' residents, and skills and competence training beyond induction; supported, well-led staff seeing modelled behaviours from supervisors; autonomy to act. Outcome measures that capture the relationship between staffing and quality include: the extent to which resident needs and preferences are met and culturally appropriate; resident and family satisfaction; extent of residents living with purpose; safe care (including clinical outcomes); staff well-being and job satisfaction were important, but underacknowledged. Limitations: Many of our findings stem from self-reported and routine data with known biases - such as under reporting of adverse incidents; our analysis may reflect these biases. COVID-19 required adapting our original protocol to make it feasible. Consequently, the effects of the pandemic are reflected in our research methods and findings. Our findings are based on data from a single care home operator and so may not be generalised to the wider population of care homes. Conclusions: Innovative and multiple methods and theory can successfully highlight the nuanced relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Modifiable characteristics such as visible philosophies of care and high-quality training, reinforced by behavioural and relational role modelling by leaders can make the difference when sufficient amounts of consistent staff are employed. Greater staffing capacity alone is unlikely to enhance quality in a cost-effective manner. Social network analysis can help identify the right people to aid adoption and spread of quality and innovation. Future research should focus on richer, iterative, evaluative testing and development of our logic model using theoretically and empirically defensible - rather than available - inputs and outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021241066 and Research Registry registration: 1062. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/144/29) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

This study was about the relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Almost half a million older people live in care homes in England. Why quality of care and quality of life for residents vary so much between and within homes is unknown, but staff and the ways they work are likely to be important. Researching staffing and quality is difficult: quality means different things to different people and a lot of things shape how quality feels to residents, families and staff. In the past, researchers have oversimplified the problem to study it and may have missed important influences. We took a more complex view. In five interlinked work packages, we collected and analysed: (1) research journal articles; (2) national data from different care homes; (3) data from a large care organisation to look at what it is about staffing that influences quality; (4) reports and ratings of homes from the Care Quality Commission; and (5) we looked at the networks between staff in homes that shape how quality improvement techniques might spread. We used theories about how our findings might be linked to plan for this data collection and analysis. The results were combined into something called a 'logic model' ­ a diagram and explanation that make it easier for managers, researchers and people interested in care homes to see how staffing influences quality. Staffing considerations that might improve quality include: not swapping managers too much; having sufficient and consistent staff for family-like relationships in homes and putting residents' needs first; supporting staff and giving them freedom to act; and key staff leading by example. Research examining care home quality should capture those aspects that mean the most to residents, their families and staff.

What are the priorities for research of older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty? A systematic review and content analysis of studies reporting older people's priorities and unmet needs.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence regarding the needs of older people, including those living with frailty, to inform research priority setting. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to identify the range of research priorities of community-dwelling older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty. METHODS: Included studies were from economically developed countries and designed to identify the priorities for research or unmet needs of community-dwelling older people. Studies were excluded if they described priorities relating to specific health conditions. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched (January 2010-June 2022), alongside grey literature. Study quality was assessed, but studies were not excluded on the basis of quality. A bespoke data extraction form was used and content analysis undertaken to synthesise findings. RESULTS: Seventy-five reports were included. Seven explicitly aimed to identify the priorities or unmet needs of frail older people; 68 did not specify frailty as a characteristic. Study designs varied, including priority setting exercises, surveys, interviews, focus groups and literature reviews. Identified priorities and unmet needs were organised into themes: prevention and management, improving health and care service provision, improving daily life, meeting carers' needs and planning ahead. DISCUSSION: Many priority areas were raised by older people, carers and health/care professionals, but few were identified explicitly by/for frail older people. An overarching need was identified for tailored, collaborative provision of care and support. CONCLUSION: Review findings provide a valuable resource for researchers and health/care staff wishing to focus their research or service provision on areas of importance for older people.

'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.

Optimising quality of life for people living with heart failure in care homes: Protocol for the co-design and feasibility testing of a digital intervention.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) affects up to 64.3 million people globally. Advancements in pharmaceutical, device or surgical therapies, have led to patients living longer with HF. Heart failure affects 20% of care home residents, with these individuals presenting as older, frailer, and with more complex needs compared to those living at home. Thus, improving care home staff (e.g., registered nurse and care assistant) knowledge of HF has the potential to benefit patient care and reduce acute care utilization. Our aim is to co-design, and feasibility test, a digital intervention to improve care home staff knowledge of HF and optimise quality of life for those living with the condition in long-term residential care. METHODS: Using a logic model, three workstreams have been identified. Workstream 1 (WS1), comprised of three steps, will inform the 'inputs' of the model. First, qualitative interviews (n = 20) will be conducted with care home staff to identify facilitators and barriers in the provision of care to people with HF. Concurrently, a scoping review will be undertaken to synthesise current evidence of HF interventions within care homes. The last step will involve a Delphi study with 50-70 key stakeholders (for example care home staff, people with HF and their family and friends) to determine key education priorities related to HF. Using data from WS1, a digital intervention to improve care home staff knowledge and self-efficacy of HF will be co-designed in workstream 2 (WS2) alongside those living with HF or their carers, HF professionals, and care home staff. Lastly, workstream 3 (WS3) will involve mixed-methods feasibility testing of the digital intervention. Outcomes include staff knowledge on HF and self-efficacy in caring for HF residents, intervention usability, perceived benefits of the digital intervention on quality of life for care home residents, and care staff experience of implementing the intervention. DISCUSSION: As HF affects many care home residents, it is vital that care home staff are equipped to support people living with HF in these settings. With limited interventional research in this area, it is envisaged that the resulting digital intervention will have relevance for HF resident care both nationally and internationally.

Outcome measures from international older adult care home intervention research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are increasingly important settings for intervention research to enhance evidence-informed care. For such research to demonstrate effectiveness, it is essential that measures are appropriate for the population, setting and practice contexts. OBJECTIVE: To identify care home intervention studies and describe the resident outcome measures used. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We reviewed international care home research published from 2015 to August 2022. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA. We included any intervention study conducted in a care home, reporting resident outcomes. We extracted resident outcome measures, organised these using the domains of an adapted framework and described their use. RESULTS: From 7,330 records screened, we included 396 datasets reported in 436 publications. These included 12,167 care homes and 836,842 residents, with an average of 80 residents per study. The studies evaluated 859 unique resident outcomes 2,030 times using 732 outcome measures. Outcomes were evaluated between 1 and 112 times, with 75.1% of outcomes evaluated only once. Outcome measures were used 1-120 times, with 68.4% of measures used only once. Only 14 measures were used ≥20 times. Functional status, mood & behaviour and medications were the commonest outcome domains assessed. More than half of outcomes were assessed using scales, with a fifth using existing records or administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity in the choice and assessment of outcomes for intervention research in care homes. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on useful and sensitive tools for care homes, working with residents, families and friends and staff.

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.

From Warkworth House to the 21st century care homes: progress marked by persistent challenges.

Long-term care homes play an essential role within health and social care. Successful measures to support older people at home for longer have led to increased prevalence of disability, frailty and cognitive impairment in those who live in care homes over the last two decades. The need for care home places is projected to increase for the next two decades. Modern care homes provide care for people who are predominantly over 80, have multiple long-term conditions, take multiple medicines, are physically dependent and live with cognitive impairment. Residents do better when services recognise the contributions of staff and care home providers rather than treating residents as individual patients living in a communal setting. There is a strong case given residents' frailty, multimorbidity and disability, that care should be structured around Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). Care should be designed to allow opportunities for multiprofessional teams to come together for CGA, particularly if healthcare professionals are based outside care homes. Good data about care homes and residents are central to efforts to deliver high quality care-in some countries, these data are collected but not collated. Collating such data is a priority. Care home staff are under-recognised and underpaid-parity of pay and opportunity with NHS staff is the bare minimum to ensure that the best are recruited and retained in the sector. During the COVID-19 pandemic, residents and relatives have frequently been left out of decisions about policies that affect them, and better consultation is needed to deliver high quality care.

Who's in the House? Staffing in Long-Term Care Homes Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic.

Critical gaps exist in our knowledge on how best to provide quality person-centered care to long-term care (LTC) home residents which is closely tied to not knowing what the ideal staff is complement in the home. A survey was created on staffing in LTC homes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine how the staff complement changed. Perspectives were garnered from researchers, clinicians, and policy experts in eight countries and the data provides a first approximation of staffing before and during the pandemic. Five broad categories of staff working in LTC homes were as follows: (1) those responsible for personal and support care, (2) nursing care, (3) medical care, (4) rehabilitation and recreational care, and (5) others. There is limited availability of data related to measuring staff complement in the home and those with similar roles had different titles making it difficult to compare between countries. Nevertheless, the survey results highlight that some categories of staff were either absent or deemed non-essential during the pandemic. We require standardized high-quality workforce data to design better decision-making tools for staffing and planning, which are in line with the complex care needs of the residents and prevent precarious work conditions for staff.

Developing a minimum data set for older adult care homes in the UK: exploring the concept and defining early core principles.

Reforms to social care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in the UK and internationally, place data at the heart of proposed innovations and solutions. The principles are not well established of what constitutes core, or minimum, data to support care home residents. Often, what is included privileges data on resident health over day-to-day care priorities and quality of life. This Personal View argues for evidence-based principles on which to base the development of a UK minimum data set (MDS) for care homes. Co-produced work involving care home staff and older people working with stakeholders is required to define and agree the format, content, structure, and operationalisation of the MDS. Implementation decisions will determine the success of the MDS, affecting aspects including data quality, completeness, and usability. Care home staff who collect the data need to benefit from the MDS and see value in their contribution, and residents must derive benefit from data collection and synthesis.

The uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Care homes provide long term care for older people. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (known as minimum data sets (MDS)) use the aggregate data to guide resource allocation, monitor quality, and for research. Less is known about how an MDS affects how staff assess, provide and review residents' everyday care. The review aimed to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff can effectively implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care for residents. METHODS: The realist review was organised according to RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: and Evolving Standards) guidelines. There were three overlapping stages: 1) defining the scope of the review and theory development on the use of minimum data set 2) testing and refining candidate programme theories through iterative literature searches and stakeholders' consultations as well as discussion among the research team; and 3) data synthesis from stages 1 and 2. The following databases were used MEDLINE via OVID, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ASSIA [Applied Social Sciences Citation Index and Abstracts]) and sources of grey literature. RESULTS: Fifty-one papers informed the development of three key interlinked theoretical propositions: motivation (mandates and incentives for Minimum Data Set completion); frontline staff monitoring (when Minimum Data Set completion is built into the working practices of the care home); and embedded recording systems (Minimum Data Set recording system is integral to collecting residents' data). By valuing the contributions of staff and building on existing ways of working, the uptake and use of an MDS could enable all staff to learn with and from each other about what is important for residents' care CONCLUSIONS: Minimum Data Sets provides commissioners service providers and researchers with standardised information useful for commissioning planning and analysis. For it to be equally useful for care home staff it requires key activities that address the staff experiences of care, their work with others and the use of digital technology. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020171323.

Supporting care home residents in the last year of life through 'Needs Rounds': Development of a pre-implementation programme theory through a rapid collaborative online approach.

Background: Realist evaluation aims to address the knowledge to practice gap by explaining how an intervention is expected to work, as well as what is likely to impact upon the success of its implementation, by developing programme theories that link contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Co-production approaches to the development of programme theories offer substantial benefits in addressing power relations, including and valuing different types of knowledge, and promoting buy-in from stakeholders while navigating the complex social systems in which innovations are embedded. This paper describes the co-production of an initial programme theory of how an evidence based intervention developed in Australia - called 'Palliative Care Needs Rounds' - might work in England and Scotland to support care home residents approaching their end of life. Methods: Using realist evaluation and iPARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) we sought to determine how contexts and mechanisms of change might shape implementation outcomes. Pre-intervention online interviews (n = 28) were conducted (February-April 2021), followed by four co-design online workshops with 43 participants (April-June 2021). The online interviews and workshops included a range of stakeholders, including care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, paramedics, general practitioners, and relatives of people living in care homes. Results: This methodology paper reports developments in realist evaluation and co-production methodologies, and how they were used to develop context, mechanisms, outcomes (CMOs) configurations, and chains of inference. The initial (pre-intervention) programme theory is used to illustrate this process. Two developments to iPARIHS are described. First, involving stakeholders in the collaborative co-design workshops created opportunities to commence facilitation. Second, we describe developing iPARIHS' innovation component, to include novel stakeholder interpretations, perceptions and anticipated use of the intervention as they participated in workshop discussions. Conclusions: This rapid and robust co-production methodology draws on interactive collaborative research practices (interviews, workshop discussions of data, illustrative vignettes and visual methods). These innovative and engaging methods can be packaged for online processes to develop, describe and interrogate the CMOs in order to co-produce a programme theory. These approaches also commence facilitation and innovation, and can be adopted in other implementation science and realist studies.

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.

Maintaining and improving mouth care for care home residents: A participatory research project.

BACKGROUND: Many people residing in nursing or residential care homes (also called long-term care facilities) live with physical or cognitive difficulties. Staff working in these environments often help residents (particularly those with more advanced dementia) with their personal care needs, including maintaining mouth care and health. Poor oral health is associated with many difficulties, including increased risk of respiratory problems, pain and discomfort. Yet, concerns have been raised that staff may not have the knowledge and skills to effectively support residents with oral care and health. There is therefore an important gap between what is known about the importance of maintaining oral health (scientific evidence) and daily practice in long-term care environments. OBJECTIVES: To work with care home staff: (1) to create a learning culture to address how to promote mouth care for residents, particularly when a resident resists support with this aspect of care; and (2) to effect mouth care practice changes (if required) using participatory and inclusive research cycles. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a participatory research project to address this important area of care. Four participatory research 'cycles' were conducted. Cycle one explored existing literature to develop accessible guidance on strategies that staff could use to support residents to maintain and improve oral care, particularly when a resident may resist such care. Cycle two built on this review to determine knowledge levels within the care team. This highlighted deficiencies in staff knowledge, skills and competence for providing mouth care and their need for training to address this. Cycle three identified evidence-based strategies to develop staff understanding and knowledge. Cycle four brought together experts from nursing, dentistry, behaviour change, systematic reviews and care homes research to develop a grant application to progress this work further. CONCLUSION: This paper provides an example of the processes undertaken in a participatory research project, bringing together science and practice to improve an essential area of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Using participatory research approaches in this setting can allow the effective translation of uncertainties in care and practice into questions that can be addressed by research, leading to meaningful outcomes for those living and working in care homes.

COVID-19 point-of-care testing in care homes: what are the lessons for policy and practice?

COVID-19 has devastated care homes. Point-of-care tests (POCTs), mainly using lateral flow devices (LFDs), have been deployed hurriedly without much consideration of their usability or impact on care workflow. Even after the pandemic, POCTs, particularly multiplex tests, may be an important control against spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in care homes by enabling identification of cases. They should not, however, replace other infection control measures such as barrier methods and quarantine. Adherence to LFDs as implemented among care home staff is suboptimal. Other tests-such as point-of-care polymerase chain reaction and automated antigen tests-would also need to be accommodated into care home workflows to improve adherence. The up-front costs of POCTs are straightforward but additional costs, including staffing preparation and reporting processes and the impacts of false positive and negative tests on absence rates and infection days, are more complex and as yet unquantified. A detailed appraisal is needed as the future of testing in care homes is considered.

Patient and public involvement in care home research: Reflections on the how and why of involving patient and public involvement partners in qualitative data analysis and interpretation.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence for the impact of involving patients and the public (PPI) in health research. Descriptions of the PPI process are seldom included in publications, particularly data analysis, yet an understanding of processes and impacts of PPI is essential if its contribution to research is to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To describe the 'how' of PPI in qualitative data analysis and critically reflect on potential impact. METHODS: We focus on the development and critical reflection of our step-by-step approach to collaborative qualitative data analysis (through a series of analysis workshops) in a specific care home study, and our long-term engagement model with patients and the public (termed PPI partners). RESULTS: An open access PPI group, with multiple events over time, sustained broad interest in care home research. Recordings of interview clips, role-play of interview excerpts and written theme summaries were used in workshops to facilitate PPI partner engagement with data analysis in a specific study. PPI resulted in changes to data interpretation and was perceived to make the research process accessible. We reflect on the challenge of judging the benefits of PPI and presenting PPI in research publications for critical commentary. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and public involvement partners who are actively engaged with data analysis can positively influence research studies. However, guidance for researchers is needed on approaches to PPI, including appropriate levels and methods for evaluation. Without more systematic approaches, we argue that it is impossible to know whether PPI represents good use of resources and is generating a real impact.