Search

Background Older people are often explicitly or implicitly excluded from research, in particular clinical trials. This means that study findings may not be applicable to them, or that older people may not be offered treatments due to an absence of evidence. Aims The aim of this work was to develop recommendations to guide all research relevant to older people. Methods A diverse stakeholder group identified barriers and solutions to including older people in research. In parallel, a rapid literature review of published papers was undertaken to identify existing papers on the inclusion of older people in research. The findings were synthesised and mapped onto a socio-ecological model. From the synthesis we identified themes that were developed into initial recommendations that were iteratively refined with the stakeholder group. Results A range of individual, interpersonal, organisational, community and policy factors impact on the inclusion of older people in research. A total of 14 recommendations were developed such as removing upper age limits and comorbidity exclusions, involving older people, advocates and health and social care professionals with expertise in ageing in designing the research, and considering flexible or alternative approaches to data collection to maximise opportunities for participation. We also developed four questions that may guide those developing, reviewing and funding research that is inclusive of older people. Conclusion Our recommendations provide up to date, practical advice on ways to improve the inclusion of older people in health and care research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Given the globally ageing population, care homes have an important role in delivering palliative and end-of-life care. Advance care planning (ACP) is promoted to improve the quality of end-of-life care in this setting. While many professionals can be involved in ACP, little is known about what influences multi-professional involvement and how multi-professional working impacts the ACP process in the UK. This study investigated multi-professional practice in relation to ACP in nursing homes. Design and methods An ethnography was undertaken in two UK nursing homes using multiple methods of data collection: observations, interviews and document review. Participants included the following: nursing home residents (n  = 6), relatives (n  = 4), nursing home staff (n  = 19), and visiting health and social care professionals (n  = 7). Analysis integrated thematic analysis, mapping of resident ACP trajectories and documentary analysis. Findings This paper suggests that multi-professional and relatives' involvement in ACP was disjointed. Continuity and coordination were disrupted by misalignment of visiting professional and nursing home organisational structures. Findings show a 'knotworking' approach to teamwork and power imbalance between nursing home staff and visiting professionals, such as general practitioners. While residents wished their relatives to be involved in their ACP, this was not formally recognised, and limited support existed to facilitate their involvement. Conclusion The structure and organisation of multi-professional and relatives' involvement in ACP led to fragmentation of the process. This marginalised the voice of both the resident and nursing home staff, thereby limiting ACP as a tool to enhance quality of end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background COVID-19 brought additional challenges to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision-making, which was already a contentious issue. In the UK, reports of poor DNACPR decision-making and communication emerged in 2020, including from the regulator, the Care Quality Commission. This paper explores the experiences of people who discussed DNACPR with a healthcare professional on behalf of a relative during the coronavirus pandemic, with the aim of identifying areas of good practice and what needs to be improved. Methods a total of 39 people participated in semi-structured interviews via video conferencing software or telephone. Data were evaluated using Framework Analysis. Findings results are presented around three main themes: understanding, communication and impact. Participants' understanding about DNACPR was important, as those with better understanding tended to reflect more positively on their discussions with clinicians. The role of relatives in the decision-making process was a frequent source of misunderstanding. Healthcare professionals' communication skills were important. Where discussions went well, relatives were given clear explanations and the opportunity to ask questions. However many relatives felt that conversations were rushed. DNACPR discussions can have a lasting impact—relatives reported them to be significant moments in care journeys. Many relatives perceived that they were asked to decide whether their relative should receive CPR and described enduring emotional consequences, including guilt. Conclusion the pandemic has illuminated deficiencies in current practice around DNACPR discussion, which can have difficult to anticipate and lasting negative consequences for relatives. This research raises questions about the current approach to DNACPR decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background vaccination uptake in the UK and increased care home testing are likely affecting care home visitation. With scant scientific evidence to date, the aim of this longitudinal qualitative study was to explore the impact of both (vaccination and testing) on the conduct and experiences of care home visits. Methods family carers of care home residents with dementia and care home staff from across the UK took part in baseline (October/November 2020) and follow-up interviews (March 2021). Public advisers were involved in all elements of the research. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results across 62 baseline and follow-up interviews with family carers (n  = 26; 11) and care home staff (n  = 16; 9), five core themes were developed: delayed and inconsistent offers of face-to-face visits; procedures and facilitation of visits; variable uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine; misinformation, education and free choice; frustration and anger among family carers. The variable uptake in staff, compared to family carers, was a key factor seemingly influencing visitation, with a lack of clear guidance leading care homes to implement infection control measures and visitation rights differently. Conclusions we make five recommendations in this paper to enable improved care home visitation in the ongoing, and in future, pandemics. Visits need to be enabled and any changes to visiting rights must be used as a last resort, reviewed regularly in consultation with residents and carers and restored as soon as possible as a top priority, whilst more education needs to be provided surrounding vaccination for care home staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction process evaluations (PE) are increasingly used in parallel with randomised controlled trials (RCT) to inform the implementation of complex health interventions. This paper explores the learning accrued from conducting a PE within the Falls in Care Homes Study (FinCH), a large UK RCT. Methods in the FinCH study, six purposively sampled care homes provided data for the PE, which followed a realist approach. In this study researchers kept written diaries of their experiences in completing the interviews, focus groups and observations. We have reflected on these and present the main themes for discussion. Findings care home staff were enthusiastic to participate in the PE but researchers found it difficult to collect data due to staff not having time to take part, environmental factors such as no space for focus groups and low levels of research understanding. Researchers found that the expectations of the PE protocol were often unrealistic due to these limitations. Flexible and pragmatic approaches such as interviews in place of focus groups enabled data collection but required a reduced sample size and length of data collection to be accepted by researchers. Conclusion to enable care home staff to participate in successful PEs, researchers should build flexibility into research schedules, spend time building trust, collaborate with all levels of care home staff prior to data collection, increase research capacity in care home staff and co-design research projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]