Antibiotic prescribing and associated diarrhoea: a prospective cohort study of care home residents.

BACKGROUND: the risk factors for and frequency of antibiotic prescription and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) among care home residents are unknown. AIM: to prospectively study frequency and risks for antibiotic prescribing and AAD for care home residents. DESIGN AND SETTING: a 12-month prospective cohort study in care homes across South Wales. METHOD: antibiotic prescriptions and the development of AAD were recorded on case report forms. We defined AAD as three or more loose stools in a 24-h period occurring within 8 weeks of exposure to an antibiotic. RESULTS: we recruited 279 residents from 10 care homes. The incidence of antibiotic prescriptions was 2.16 prescriptions per resident year (95% CI: 1.90-2.46). Antibiotics were less likely to be prescribed to residents from dual-registered homes (OR compared with nursing homes: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.18-0.79). For those who were prescribed antibiotics, the incidence of AAD was 0.57 episodes per resident year (95% CI: 0.41-0.81 episodes). AAD was more likely in residents who were prescribed co-amoxiclav (hazards ratio, HR = 2.08, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.18-3.66) or routinely used incontinence pads (HR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.26-5.13) and less likely in residents from residential homes (HR compared with nursing homes: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32). CONCLUSION: residents of care homes, particularly of nursing homes, are frequently prescribed antibiotics and often experience diarrhoea following such prescriptions. Co-amoxiclav is associated with greater risk of AAD.

Protocol for a double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in reducing antibiotics for infection in care home residents: the Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home reSidentS (PRINCESS) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are at increased risk of infections and antibiotic prescription. Reduced antibiotic use from fewer infections would improve quality of life. The Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home reSidentS (PRINCESS) trial aims to determine the efficacy and investigate mechanisms of daily probiotics on antibiotic use and incidence of infections in care home residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRINCESS is a double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial that will assess the effect of a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus, GG (LGG) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, BB-12 (BB-12) on cumulative antibiotic administration days (CAADs) (primary outcome) for infection in up to 330 care home residents aged ≥65 years over up to 12 months. Secondary outcomes include: Infection: Total number of days of antibiotic administration for each infection type (respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, gastrointestinal infection, unexplained fever and other); number, site, duration of infection; estimation of incidence and duration of diarrhoea and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea; Stool microbiology: Clostridium difficile infection; Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant enterococci; LGG and BB-12. Oral microbiology: Candida spp. Health and well-being: Self and/or proxy health-related quality of life EQ5D (5 L); self-and/or proxy-reported ICEpop CAPability measure for older people. Hospitalisations: number and duration of all-cause hospital stays. Mortality: deaths. Mechanistic immunology outcomes: influenza vaccine efficacy (haemagglutination inhibition assay and antibody titres); full blood count and immune cell phenotypes, plasma cytokines and chemokines; cytokine and chemokine response in whole blood stimulated ex vivo by toll-like receptor 2 and 4 agonists; monocyte and neutrophil phagocytosis of Escherichia coli; serum vitamin D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences; results will be of interest to patient and policy stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16392920; Pre-results.

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER) 2: a cluster randomised trial and systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess older people following a fall with referral to community-based care when appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Emergency calls are frequently made to ambulance services for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without any ongoing care. We evaluated a new clinical protocol which allowed paramedics to assess older people who had fallen and, if appropriate, refer them to community-based falls services. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes, processes and costs of care between intervention and control groups; and to understand factors which facilitate or hinder use. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participating paramedics at three ambulance services in England and Wales were based at stations randomised to intervention or control arms. Participants were aged 65 years and over, attended by a study paramedic for a fall-related emergency service call, and resident in the trial catchment areas. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention paramedics received a clinical protocol with referral pathway, training and support to change practice. Control paramedics continued practice as normal. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome comprised subsequent emergency health-care contacts (emergency admissions, emergency department attendances, emergency service calls) or death at 1 month and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pathway of care, ambulance service operational indicators, self-reported outcomes and costs of care. Those assessing outcomes remained blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Across sites, 3073 eligible patients attended by 105 paramedics from 14 ambulance stations were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 2841 eligible patients attended by 110 paramedics from 11 stations were randomly allocated to the control group. After excluding dissenting and unmatched patients, 2391 intervention group patients and 2264 control group patients were included in primary outcome analyses. We did not find an effect on our overall primary outcome at 1 month or 6 months. However, further emergency service calls were reduced at both 1 month and 6 months; a smaller proportion of patients had made further emergency service calls at 1 month (18.5% vs. 21.8%) and the rate per patient-day at risk at 6 months was lower in the intervention group (0.013 vs. 0.017). Rate of conveyance to emergency department at index incident was similar between groups. Eight per cent of trial eligible patients in the intervention arm were referred to falls services by attending paramedics, compared with 1% in the control arm. The proportion of patients left at scene without further care was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (22.6% vs. 30.3%). We found no differences in duration of episode of care or job cycle. No adverse events were reported. Mean cost of the intervention was £17.30 per patient. There were no significant differences in mean resource utilisation, utilities at 1 month or 6 months or quality-adjusted life-years. In total, 58 patients, 25 paramedics and 31 stakeholders participated in focus groups or interviews. Patients were very satisfied with assessments carried out by paramedics. Paramedics reported that the intervention had increased their confidence to leave patients at home, but barriers to referral included patients' social situations and autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that this new pathway may be introduced by ambulance services at modest cost, without risk of harm and with some reductions in further emergency calls. However, we did not find evidence of improved health outcomes or reductions in overall NHS emergency workload. Further research is necessary to understand issues in implementation, the costs and benefits of e-trials and the performance of the modified Falls Efficacy Scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756 and PROSPERO CRD42013006418. 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. 21, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Involving older people in a multi-centre randomised trial of a complex intervention in pre-hospital emergency care: implementation of a collaborative model.

BACKGROUND: Health services research is expected to involve service users as active partners in the research process, but few examples report how this has been achieved in practice in trials. We implemented a model to involve service users in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in pre-hospital emergency care. We used the generic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from our Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) as the basis for creating a model to fit the context and population of the SAFER 2 trial. METHODS: In our model, we planned to involve service users at all stages in the trial through decision-making forums at 3 levels: 1) strategic; 2) site (e.g. Wales; London; East Midlands); 3) local. We linked with charities and community groups to recruit people with experience of our study population. We collected notes of meetings alongside other documentary evidence such as attendance records and study documentation to track how we implemented our model. RESULTS: We involved service users at strategic, site and local level. We also added additional strategic level forums (Task and Finish Groups and Writing Days) where we included service users. Service user involvement varied in frequency and type across meetings, research stages and locations but stabilised and increased as the trial progressed. CONCLUSION: Involving service users in the SAFER 2 trial showed how it is feasible and achievable for patients, carers and potential patients sharing the demographic characteristics of our study population to collaborate in a multi-centre trial at the level which suited their health, location, skills and expertise. A standard model of involvement can be tailored by adopting a flexible approach to take account of the context and complexities of a multi-site trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756. Registered: 13 March 2009.

Probiotics for Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhoea (PAAD): a prospective observational study of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (including Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea) in care homes.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prescribing rates in care homes are higher than in the general population. Antibiotics disrupt the normal gut flora, sometimes causing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD). Clostridium difficile (Hall and O'Toole 1935) Prévot 1938 is the most commonly identified cause of AAD. Little is known either about the frequency or type of antibiotics prescribed in care homes or about the incidence and aetiology of AAD in this setting. OBJECTIVES: The Probiotics for Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhoea (PAAD) study was designed as a two-stage study. PAAD stage 1 aimed to (1) prospectively describe antibiotic prescribing in care homes; (2) determine the incidence of C. difficile carriage and AAD (including C. difficile-associated diarrhoea); and (3) to consider implementation challenges and establish the basis for a sample size estimation for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of probiotic administration with antibiotics to prevent AAD in care homes. If justified by PAAD stage 1, the RCT would be implemented in PAAD stage 2. However, as a result of new evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of probiotics on the incidence of AAD, a decision was taken not to proceed with PAAD stage 2. DESIGN: PAAD stage 1 was a prospective observational cohort study in care homes in South Wales with up to 12 months' follow-up for each resident. SETTING: Recruited care homes had management and owner's agreement to participate and three or more staff willing to take responsibility for implementing the study. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven care homes were recruited, but one withdrew before any residents were recruited. A total of 279 care home residents were recruited to the observational study and 19 withdrew, 16 (84%) because of moving to a non-participating care home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the rate of antibiotic prescribing, incidence of AAD, defined as three or more loose stools (type 5-7 on the Bristol Stool Chart) in a 24-hour period, and C. difficile carriage confirmed on stool culture. RESULTS: Stool samples were obtained at study entry from 81% of participating residents. Over half of the samples contained antibiotic-resistant isolates, with Enterobacteriaceae resistant to ciprofloxacin in 47%. Residents were prescribed an average of 2.16 antibiotic prescriptions per year [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.90 to 2.46]. Antibiotics were less likely to be prescribed to residents from dual-registered homes. The incidence of AAD was 0.57 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.81) episodes per year among those residents who were prescribed antibiotics. AAD was more likely in residents who were prescribed co-amoxiclav than other antibiotics and in those residents who routinely used incontinence pads. AAD was less common in residents from residential homes. CONCLUSIONS: Care home residents, particularly in nursing homes, are frequently prescribed antibiotics and often experience AAD. Antibiotic resistance, including ciprofloxacin resistance, is common in Enterobacteriaceae isolated from the stool of care home residents. Co-amoxiclav is associated with greater risk of AAD than other commonly prescribed antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 7954844. 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. 18, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.