Design of a randomized controlled study of a multi-professional and multidimensional intervention targeting frail elderly people

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Frail elderly people need an integrated and coordinated care. The two-armed study "Continuum of care for frail elderly people" is a multi-professional and multidimensional intervention for frail community-dwelling elderly people. It was designed to evaluate whether the intervention programme for frail elderly people can reduce the number of visits to hospital, increase satisfaction with health and social care and maintain functional abilities. The implementation process is explored and analysed along with the intervention. In this paper we present the study design, the intervention and the outcome measures as well as the baseline characteristics of the study participants.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The study is a randomised two-armed controlled trial with follow ups at 3, 6 and 12 months. The study group includes elderly people who sought care at the emergency ward and discharged to their own homes in the community. Inclusion criteria were 80 years and older <it>or </it>65 to 79 years with at least one chronic disease and dependent in at least one activity of daily living. Exclusion criteria were acute severely illness with an immediate need of the assessment and treatment by a physician, severe cognitive impairment and palliative care. The intention was that the study group should comprise a representative sample of frail elderly people at a high risk of future health care consumption. The intervention includes an early geriatric assessment, early family support, a case manager in the community with a multi-professional team and the involvement of the elderly people and their relatives in the planning process.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The design of the study, the randomisation procedure and the protocol meetings were intended to ensure the quality of the study. The implementation of the intervention programme is followed and analysed throughout the whole study, which enables us to generate knowledge on the process of implementing complex interventions. The intervention contributes to early recognition of both the elderly peoples' needs of information, care and rehabilitation and of informal caregivers' need of support and information. This study is expected to show positive effects on frail elderly peoples' health care consumption, functional abilities and satisfaction with health and social care.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01260493">NCT01260493</a></p

Observational Evidence of For-Profit Delivery and Inferior Nursing Home Care: When Is There Enough Evidence for Policy Change?

This research was financially supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

A systematic review of different models of home and community care services for older persons

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Costs and consumer preference have led to a shift from the long-term institutional care of aged older people to home and community based care. The aim of this review is to evaluate the outcomes of case managed, integrated or consumer directed home and community care services for older persons, including those with dementia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review was conducted of non-medical home and community care services for frail older persons. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AgeLine, Scopus and PubMed were searched from 1994 to May 2009. Two researchers independently reviewed search results.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty five papers were included in this review. Evidence from randomized controlled trials showed that case management improves function and appropriate use of medications, increases use of community services and reduces nursing home admission. Evidence, mostly from non-randomized trials, showed that integrated care increases service use; randomized trials reported that integrated care does not improve clinical outcomes. The lowest quality evidence was for consumer directed care which appears to increase satisfaction with care and community service use but has little effect on clinical outcomes. Studies were heterogeneous in methodology and results were not consistent.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The outcomes of each model of care differ and correspond to the model's focus. Combining key elements of all three models may maximize outcomes.</p