A systematic review of integrated working between care homes and health care services

© 2011 Davies et al; licensee BioMed Central LtdBackground In the UK there are almost three times as many beds in care homes as in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Care homes rely on primary health care for access to medical care and specialist services. Repeated policy documents and government reviews register concern about how health care works with independent providers, and the need to increase the equity, continuity and quality of medical care for care homes. Despite multiple initiatives, it is not known if some approaches to service delivery are more effective in promoting integrated working between the NHS and care homes. This study aims to evaluate the different integrated approaches to health care services supporting older people in care homes, and identify barriers and facilitators to integrated working. Methods A systematic review was conducted using Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, BNI, EMBASE, PsycInfo, DH Data, Kings Fund, Web of Science (WoS incl. SCI, SSCI, HCI) and the Cochrane Library incl. DARE. Studies were included if they evaluated the effectiveness of integrated working between primary health care professionals and care homes, or identified barriers and facilitators to integrated working. Studies were quality assessed; data was extracted on health, service use, cost and process related outcomes. A modified narrative synthesis approach was used to compare and contrast integration using the principles of framework analysis. Results Seventeen studies were included; 10 quantitative studies, two process evaluations, one mixed methods study and four qualitative. The majority were carried out in nursing homes. They were characterised by heterogeneity of topic, interventions, methodology and outcomes. Most quantitative studies reported limited effects of the intervention; there was insufficient information to evaluate cost. Facilitators to integrated working included care home managers' support and protected time for staff training. Studies with the potential for integrated working were longer in duration. Conclusions Despite evidence about what inhibits and facilitates integrated working there was limited evidence about what the outcomes of different approaches to integrated care between health service and care homes might be. The majority of studies only achieved integrated working at the patient level of care and the focus on health service defined problems and outcome measures did not incorporate the priorities of residents or acknowledge the skills of care home staff. There is a need for more research to understand how integrated working is achieved and to test the effect of different approaches on cost, staff satisfaction and resident outcomes

The assessment of pain in older people: UK National Guidelines

We are facing a huge increase in the older population over the next 30 years. This brings an anticipated increase in the prevalence of chronic pain and with this comes the challenge of assessment of pain in many varied settings. Our first iteration of this document was published in 2007. But there has been a proliferation of literature and research since then, so we have developed a new set of guidelines. Different patterns and sites of pain were seen in men and women. Age differences suggest that pain prevalence increased with age up to 85 years and then decreased. The available studies on barriers and attitudes to pain management point towards an adherence to bio-medically orientated beliefs about pain, concern amongst clinicians in relation to activity recommendations, and a negative orientation in general towards patients with chronic painful conditions. A multidisciplinary approach to the assessment and treatment of pain is essential, but the assessment is a complex process which is hampered by many communication issues, including cognitive ability and socio-cultural factors. Such issues are part of the UK ageing population. Structured pain education should be implemented that provides all health professionals (whether professionally or non-professionally trained) with standardised education and training in the assessment and management of pain according to level of experience. Although subjective, patient self-report is the most valid and reliable indicator of pain and it may be necessary to ask questions about pain in different ways in order to elicit a response. A number of valid and reliable self-report measures are available and can be used even when moderate dementia exists. The Numerical Rating Scale or verbal descriptors can be used with people who have mild to moderate cognitive impairment. For people with severe cognitive impairment Pain in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) and Doloplus-2 are recommended. PAINAD and Doloplus-2 scales continue to show positive results in terms of reliability and validity. There has been no recent evaluation of the Abbey pain scale although it is widely used throughout the UK. There is a need for more research into pain assessment using the collaborative role of the multidisciplinary team in all care settings. Self-report questionnaires of function are limited in their ability to capture the fluctuations in capacity and ability. The concentration on items of relevance to the population of interest means that issues of personal relevance can be obscured. Strong associations were seen between pain and depressed mood with each being a risk factor for the other. Additionally, loneliness and social isolation were associated with an increased risk of pain. Clinicians should be cognisant that social isolation and or depressive signs and symptoms may be indicators of pre-existing pain or a predictor of future pain onset. There are a number of evidence based guidelines on pain assessment in older people with or without cognitive impairment from around the world, including Australia and Europe

Educating staff working in long-term care about delirium: The Trojan horse for improving quality of care?

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to design a multicomponent intervention to improve delirium care in long-term care facilities for older people in the UK and to identify the levers and barriers to its implementation in practice. METHODS The research incorporated the theoretical phase and Phase 1 of the Medical Research Council's framework. We designed a multicomponent intervention based on the evidence for effective interventions for delirium and for changing practice. We refined the intervention with input from care home staff and field visits to homes. Our intervention incorporated the following features: targeting risk factors for delirium, a ‘delirium practitioner’ functioning as a facilitator, an education package for care home staff, staff working groups at each home to identify barriers to improving delirium care and to produce tailored solutions, a local champion identified from the working groups, consultation, liaison with other professionals, and audit or feedback. The delirium practitioner recorded her experiences of delivering the intervention in a contemporaneous log. This was analysed using framework analysis to determine the levers and barriers to implementation. RESULTS We introduced a multicomponent intervention for delirium in six care homes in Leeds. Levers to implementation included flexibility, tailoring training to staff needs, engendering pride and ownership amongst staff, and minimising extra work. Barriers included time constraints, poor organization, and communication problems. CONCLUSION We were able to design and deliver an evidence-based multicomponent intervention for delirium that was acceptable to staff. The next steps are to establish its feasibility and effectiveness in modifying outcomes for residents of care homes

Paramedic assessment of pain in the cognitively impaired adult patient

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Paramedics are often a first point of contact for people experiencing pain in the community. Wherever possible the patient's self report of pain should be sought to guide the assessment and management of this complaint. Communication difficulty or disability such as cognitive impairment associated with dementia may limit the patient's ability to report their pain experience, and this has the potential to affect the quality of care. The primary objective of this study was to systematically locate evidence relating to the use of pain assessment tools that have been validated for use with cognitively impaired adults and to identify those that have been recommended for use by paramedics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic search of health databases for evidence relating to the use of pain assessment tools that have been validated for use with cognitively impaired adults was undertaken using specific search criteria. An extended search included position statements and clinical practice guidelines developed by health agencies to identify evidence-based recommendations regarding pain assessment in older adults.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two systematic reviews met study inclusion criteria. Weaknesses in tools evaluated by these studies limited their application in assessing pain in the population of interest. Only one tool was designed to assess pain in acute care settings. No tools were located that are designed for paramedic use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The reviews of pain assessment tools found that the majority were developed to assess chronic pain in aged care, hospital or hospice settings. An analysis of the characteristics of these pain assessment tools identified attributes that may limit their use in paramedic practice. One tool - the Abbey Pain Scale - may have application in paramedic assessment of pain, but clinical evaluation is required to validate this tool in the paramedic practice setting. Further research is recommended to evaluate the Abbey Pain Scale and to evaluate the effectiveness of paramedic pain management practice in older adults to ensure that the care of all patients is unaffected by age or disability.</p

Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE): using mixed methods (systematic reviews, prospective cohort, case study, consensus and psychometrics) to identify patient and organisational risk, develop a risk assessment tool and patient-reported outcome Quality of Life and Health Utility measures

Background: The Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE) consisted of two themes. Theme 1 focused on improving our understanding of individuals’ and organisational risk factors and on improving the quality of risk assessments (work packages 1–3) and theme 2 focused on developing patient-reported outcome measures (work packages 4 and 5). Methods: The programme comprised 21 individual pieces of work. Pain: (1) multicentre pain prevalence study in acute hospitals, (2) multicentre pain prevalence study in community localities incorporating (3) a comparison of case-finding methods, and (4) multicentre, prospective cohort study. Severe pressure ulcers: (5) retrospective case study, (6) patient involvement workshop with the Pressure Ulcer Research Service User Network for the UK (PURSUN UK) and (7) development of root cause analysis methodology. Risk assessment: (8) systematic review, (9) consensus study, (10) conceptual framework development and theoretical causal pathway, (11) design and pretesting of draft Risk Assessment Framework and (12) field test to assess reliability, validity, data completeness and clinical usability. Quality of life: (13) conceptual framework development (systematic review, patient interviews), (14 and 15) provisional instrument development, with items generated from patient interviews [from (1) above] two systematic reviews and experts, (16) pretesting of the provisional Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument using mixed methods, (17) field test 1 including (18) optimal mode of administration substudy and item reduction with testing of scale formation, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity, and (19) field test 2 – final psychometric evaluation to test scale targeting, item response categories, item fit, response bias, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity. Cost–utility: (20) time trade-off task valuations of health states derived from selected PU-QOL items, and (21) validation of the items selected and psychometric properties of the new Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life Utility Index (PUQOL-UI). Key findings:Pain: prevalence studies – hospital and community patients experience both pressure area-related and pressure ulcer pain; pain cohort study – indicates that pain is independently predictive of category 2 (and above) pressure ulcer development. Severe pressure ulcers: these were more likely to develop in contexts in which clinicians failed to listen to patients/carers or recognise/respond to high risk or the presence of an existing pressure ulcer and services were not effectively co-ordinated; service users found the interactive workshop format valuable; including novel components (interviews with patients and carers) in root cause analysis improves the quality of the insights captured. Risk assessment: we developed a Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Framework, the PURPOSE-T, incorporating the Minimum Data Set, a screening stage, a full assessment stage, use of colour to support decision-making, and decision pathways that make a clear distinction between patients with an existing pressure ulcer(s) (or scarring from previous ulcers) who require secondary prevention and treatment and those at risk who require primary prevention (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/accesspurposet). Quality of life: the final PU-QOL instrument consists of 10 scales to measure pain, exudate, odour, sleep, vitality, mobility/movement, daily activities, emotional well-being, self-consciousness and appearance, and participation (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ques). Cost–utility: seven items were selected from the PU-QOL instrument for inclusion in the PUQOL-UI (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ui); secondary study analysis indicated that item selection for the PUQOL-UI was appropriate and that the index was acceptable to patients and had adequate levels of validity. Conclusions: The PURPOSE programme has provided important insights for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and involvement of service users in research and development, with implications for patient and public involvement, clinical practice, quality/safety/health service management and research including replication of the pain risk factor study, work exploring ‘best practice’ settings, the impact of including skin status as an indicator for escalation of preventative interventions, further psychometric evaluation of PU-QOL and PUQOL-UI the measurement of ‘disease attribution.’ Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme