Development and delivery of an allied health team intervention for older adults in the emergency department: A process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is encouraging evidence that interdisciplinary teams of Health and Social Care Professionals (HSCPs) can enhance patient care in the Emergency Department (ED), especially for older adults with complex needs. However, no formal process evaluations of implementations of ED-based HSCP interventions are available. The study aimed to evaluate the development and delivery of a HSCP team intervention for older adults in the ED of a large Irish teaching hospital. METHODS: Using the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for process evaluations, we investigated implementation and delivery, mechanisms of impact, and contextual influences on implementation by analysing the HSCP team's activity notes and participant recruitment logs, and by carrying out six interviews and four focus groups with 26 participants (HSCP team members, ED doctors and nurses, hospital staff). Qualitative insights were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The implementation process had three phases (pre-implementation, piloting, and delivery), with the first two described as pivotal to optimise care procedures and build positive stakeholders' involvement. The team's motivation and proactive communication were key to promote acceptability and integration in the ED (Theme 1); also, their specialised skills and interdisciplinary approach enhanced patient and staff's ED experience (Theme 2). The investment and collaboration of multiple stakeholders were described as essential contextual enablers of implementation (Theme 4). Delivering the intervention within a randomised controlled trial fostered credibility but caused frustration among patients and staff (Theme 3). DISCUSSION: This process evaluation is the first to provide in-depth and practical insights on the complexities of developing and delivering an ED-based HSCP team intervention for older adults. Our findings highlight the importance of establishing a team of HSCPs with a strong interdisciplinary ethos to ensure buy-in and integration in the ED processes. Also, actively involving relevant stakeholders is key to facilitate implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12th November 2018.

Bespoke 3D printed eye cover for teen with rhabdomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: We report a case of using 3D printing to create a bespoke eye cover for an 18-year-old man with left maxillary alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma. Further, the patient had proptosis causing chemosis and subsequent conjunctival abrasions. This had been managed by taping a large dressing around the eye for a number of weeks previously. METHODS: A 3D scanner was used to capture the surface topography of the patients face. The data were imported into a CAD package and used as a guide to create a bespoke eye cover. The final design was 3D printed in a biocompatible material for use by the patient. RESULTS: The scan, modelling, and printing of the bespoke cover was completed successfully in less than 72 hours. CONCLUSION: 3D printing offers a method to create bespoke solutions for patients in palliative care to meet rare and difficult clinical challenges.

The Role, Education, and Experience of Health Care Assistants in End-of-Life Care in Long-Term Care: A Scoping Review.

The changing age profile of the human population globally means that the requirement for residential long-term care (LTC) for older adults is escalating, with an associated increase in deaths in these facilities. Health care assistants (HCAs), whose main role is provision of direct care to residents, comprise the largest staff cohort in residential care for older adults. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore three key areas related to HCAs: their role and responsibilities, end-of-life (EOL) education, and their views and experiences of caring for residents at EOL. The literature search included five databases and 32 studies were ultimately reviewed. Key issues were as follows: HCAs feel marginalized and undervalued, they need and desire EOL education, and resident deaths impact negatively on them. The changing care needs for older adults with complex comorbidities at EOL in LTC will place an increased onus on HCAs' skills, knowledge, and personal and professional development. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 46(1), 21-29.].

Implementing an allied health team intervention to improve the care of older adults in the emergency department: protocol for a process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Health and social care professionals (HSCPs) have increasingly contributed to enhance the care of patients in emergency departments (EDs), particularly for older adults who are frequent ED attendees with significant adverse outcomes. For the first time, the effectiveness of a HSCP team intervention for older adults in the ED has been tested in a large randomised controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03739515), providing an opportunity to explore the implementation process for this type of intervention. This protocol describes a process evaluation that will to investigate the implementation, delivery and impact of an HSCP team intervention in the ED. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Medical Research Council Framework for process evaluations, we will employ a mixed-methods approach to provide a description of the process of implementation and delivery of the HSCP intervention in the ED, evaluate its fidelity, dose and reach and explore the perceptions of key staff members in relations to the mechanisms and contexts of impact at the levels of individuals, physical environment, operations, communication and the broader hospital and healthcare system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was received from the HSE Mid-Western Regional Hospital Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 103/18). All participants will be invited to read and sign a written consent form prior to participation. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences.

Which Part of a Short, Global Risk Assessment, the Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community, Predicts Adverse Healthcare Outcomes?

The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is a short, global risk assessment to identify community-dwelling older adults' one-year risk of institutionalisation, hospitalisation, and death. We investigated the contribution that the three components of the RISC (concern, its severity, and the ability of the caregiver network to manage concern) make to the accuracy of the instrument, across its three domains (mental state, activities of daily living (ADL), and medical state), by comparing their accuracy to other assessment instruments in the prospective Community Assessment of Risk and Treatment Strategies study. RISC scores were available for 782 patients. Across all three domains each subtest more accurately predicted institutionalisation compared to hospitalisation or death. The caregiver network's ability to manage ADL more accurately predicted institutionalisation (AUC 0.68) compared to hospitalisation (AUC 0.57, P = 0.01) or death (AUC 0.59, P = 0.046), comparing favourably with the Barthel Index (AUC 0.67). The severity of ADL (AUC 0.63), medical state (AUC 0.62), Clinical Frailty Scale (AUC 0.67), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC 0.66) scores had similar accuracy in predicting mortality. Risk of hospitalisation was difficult to predict. Thus, each component, and particularly the caregiver network, had reasonable accuracy in predicting institutionalisation. No subtest or assessment instrument accurately predicted risk of hospitalisation.

The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC): a new instrument for predicting risk of adverse outcomes in community dwelling older adults.

BACKGROUND: Predicting risk of adverse healthcare outcomes, among community dwelling older adults, is difficult. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is a short (2-5 min), global subjective assessment of risk created to identify patients' 1-year risk of three outcomes:institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death. METHODS: We compared the accuracy and predictive ability of the RISC, scored by Public Health Nurses (PHN), to the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in a prospective cohort study of community dwelling older adults (n = 803), in two Irish PHN sectors. The area under the curve (AUC), from receiver operating characteristic curves and binary logistic regression models, with odds ratios (OR), compared the discriminatory characteristics of the RISC and CFS. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 801 patients. The 1-year incidence of institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death were 10.2, 17.7 and 15.6 % respectively. Patients scored maximum-risk (RISC score 3,4 or 5/5) at baseline had a significantly greater rate of institutionalisation (31.3 and 7.1 %, p < 0.001), hospitalisation (25.4 and 13.2 %, p < 0.001) and death (33.5 and 10.8 %, p < 0.001), than those scored minimum-risk (score 1 or 2/5). The RISC had comparable accuracy for 1-year risk of institutionalisation (AUC of 0.70 versus 0.63), hospitalisation (AUC 0.61 versus 0.55), and death (AUC 0.70 versus 0.67), to the CFS. The RISC significantly added to the predictive accuracy of the regression model for institutionalisation (OR 1.43, p = 0.01), hospitalisation (OR 1.28, p = 0.01), and death (OR 1.58, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Follow-up outcomes matched well with baseline risk. The RISC, a short global subjective assessment, demonstrated satisfactory validity compared with the CFS.

Screening for markers of frailty and perceived risk of adverse outcomes using the Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC).

BACKGROUND: Functional decline and frailty are common in community dwelling older adults, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Given this, we investigated the prevalence of frailty-associated risk factors and their distribution according to the severity of perceived risk in a cohort of community dwelling older adults, using the Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC). METHODS: A cohort of 803 community dwelling older adults were scored for frailty by their public health nurse (PHN) using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and for risk of three adverse outcomes: i) institutionalisation, ii) hospitalisation and iii) death, within the next year, from one (lowest) to five (highest) using the RISC. Prior to scoring, PHNs stated whether they regarded patients as frail. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 80 years (interquartile range 10), of whom 64% were female and 47.4% were living alone. The median Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) was 10 (0) and Barthel Index was 18/20 (6). PHNs regarded 42% of patients as frail, while the CFS categorized 54% (scoring ≥5) as frail. Dividing patients into low-risk (score one or two), medium-risk (score three) and high-risk (score four or five) using the RISC showed that 4.3% were considered high risk of institutionalization, 14.5% for hospitalization, and 2.7% for death, within one year of the assessment. There were significant differences in median CFS (4/9 versus 6/9 versus 6/9, p < 0.001), Barthel Index (18/20 versus 11/20 versus 14/20, p < 0.001) and mean AMTS scores (9.51 versus 7.57 versus 7.00, p < 0.001) between those considered low, medium and high risk of institutionalisation respectively. Differences were also statistically significant for hospitalisation and death. Age, gender and living alone were inconsistently associated with perceived risk. Frailty most closely correlated with functional impairment, r = -0.80, p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients in this community sample were perceived to be low risk for adverse outcomes. Frailty, cognitive impairment and functional status were markers of perceived risk. Age, gender and social isolation were not and may not be useful indicators when triaging community dwellers. The RISC now requires validation against adverse outcomes.