Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES: Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS: The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

Inter-rater reliability of care home staff's proxy judgements with residents' assessments of their own health-related quality of life: an analysis of the PATCH trial EQ-5D data.

OBJECTIVES: to compare care staff proxies with care home residents' self-assessment of their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: we assessed the degree of inter-rater reliability between residents and care staff proxies for the EQ-5D-5L index, domains and EQ Visual Analogue Scale at baseline, 3 months and 6 months, collected as part of the PATCH trial. We calculated kappa scores. Interpreted as <0 no agreement, 0-0.2 slight, 0.21-0.60 fair to moderate and >0.6 substantial to almost perfect agreement. Qualitative interviews with care staff and researchers explored the challenges of completing these questions. RESULTS: over 50% of the HRQoL data from residents was missing at baseline compared with a 100% completion rate by care staff proxies. A fair-to-moderate level of agreement was found for the EQ-5D-5L index. A higher level of agreement was achieved for the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility and pain. Resident 'non-completers' were more likely to: be older, have stayed a longer duration in the care home, have lower Barthel Index and Physical Activity and Mobility in Residential Care (PAM-RC) scores, a greater number of co-morbidities and have joined the trial through consultee agreement. Interviews with staff and researchers indicated that it was easier to rate residents' mobility levels than other domains, but in general it was difficult to obtain data from residents or to make an accurate proxy judgement for those with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: whilst assessing HRQoL by care staff proxy completion provides a more complete dataset, uncertainty remains as to how representative these values are for different groups of residents within care homes.

A posture and mobility training package for care home staff: results of a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial (the PATCH trial).

BACKGROUND: provision of care for care home residents with complex needs is challenging. Physiotherapy and activity interventions can improve well-being but are often time-limited and resource intensive. A sustainable approach is to enhance the confidence and skills of staff who provide care. This trial assessed the feasibility of undertaking a definitive evaluation of a posture and mobility training programme for care staff. DESIGN AND SETTING: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation. Ten care homes in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised (1:1) to the skilful care training package (SCTP) or usual care (UC). PARTICIPANTS: residents who were not independently mobile. INTERVENTION: SCTP-delivered by physiotherapists to care staff. OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENTS: key objectives informed progression to a definitive trial. Recruitment, retention and intervention uptake were monitored. Data, collected by a blinded researcher, included pain, posture, mobility, hospitalisations and falls. This informed data collection feasibility and participant safety. RESULTS: a total of 348 residents were screened; 146 were registered (71 UC, 75 SCTP). Forty two were lost by 6 months, largely due to deaths. While data collection from proxy informants was good (>95% expected data), attrition meant that data completion rates did not meet target. Data collection from residents was poor due to high levels of dementia. Intervention uptake was variable-staff attendance at all sessions ranged from 12.5 to 65.8%. There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSION: care home and resident recruitment are feasible, but refinement of data collection approaches and intervention delivery are needed for this trial and care home research more widely.