Search

Background: Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents’ dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults. Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment. Design: A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Setting: A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes. Participants: Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance. Interventions: Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome – change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes – number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use. Results: A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 197; sham stimulation, n = 209); two exclusions occurred post randomisation. Primary outcome data were available for 345 (85%) residents (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 167; sham stimulation, n = 178). Adherence to the intervention protocol was as follows: 78% of the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and 71% of the sham group received the correct stimulation. Primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis indicated a mean change of –5 ml (standard deviation 362 ml) urine leakage from baseline in the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and –66 ml (standard deviation 394 ml) urine leakage in the sham group, which was a statistically significant, but not clinically important, between-group difference of 68-ml urine leakage (95% confidence interval 0 to 136 ml; p = 0.05) in favour of the sham group. Sensitivity analysis supported the primary analysis. No meaningful differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events related to transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation were reported. Economic evaluation assessed the resources used. The training and support costs for the staff to deliver the intervention were estimated at £121.03 per staff member. Estimated costs for delivery of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation during the trial were £81.20 per participant. No significant difference was found between participants’ scores over time, or between transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and sham groups at any time point, for resident or proxy quality-of-life measures. Conclusions: The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost–consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context. Limitations: Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data. Future work: Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362. 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. 25, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Eighty per cent of care home residents in the UK are living with dementia. The prevalence of faecal incontinence (FI) in care homes is estimated to range from 30% to 50%. There is limited evidence of what is effective in the reduction and management of FI in care homes. Objective: To provide a theory-driven explanation of the effectiveness of programmes that aim to improve FI in people with advanced dementia in care homes. Design: A realist synthesis. This was an iterative approach that involved scoping of the literature and consultation with five stakeholder groups, a systematic search and analysis of published and unpublished evidence, and a validation of programme theories with relevant stakeholders. Data sources: The databases searched included PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, SocAbs, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, BiblioMap, Sirius, OpenGrey, Social Care Online and the National Research Register. Results: The scoping identified six programme theories with related context–mechanism–outcome configurations for testing. These addressed (1) clinician-led support, assessment and review, (2) the contribution of teaching and support for care home staff on how to reduce and manage FI, (3) the causes and prevention of constipation, (4) how the cognitive and physical capacity of the resident affect outcomes, (5) how the potential for recovery, reduction and management of FI is understood by those involved and (6) how the care of people living with dementia and FI is integral to the work patterns of the care home and its staff. Data extraction was completed on 62 core papers with iterative searches of linked literature. Dementia was a known risk factor for FI, but its affect on the uptake of different interventions and the dementia-specific continence and toileting skills staff required was not addressed. Most care home residents with FI will be doubly incontinent and, therefore, there is limited value in focusing solely on FI or on single causes of FI such as constipation. Clinical assessment, knowledge of the causes of FI and strategies that recognise the individuals’ preferences are necessary contextual factors. Valuing the intimate and personal care work that care home staff provide to people living with dementia and addressing the dementia-related challenges when providing continence care within the daily work routines are key to helping to reduce and manage FI in this population. Limitations: The synthesis was constrained by limited evidence specific to FI and people with dementia in care homes and by the lack of dementia-specific evidence on continence aids. Conclusions: This realist synthesis provides a theory-driven understanding of the conditions under which improvement in care for care home residents living with dementia and FI is likely to be successful. Future work: Future multicomponent interventions need to take account of how the presence of dementia affects the behaviours and choices of those delivering and receiving continence care within a care home environment. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009902. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

BackgroundPotentially avoidable risk factors continue to cause unnecessary disability and premature death in older people. Health risk assessment (HRA), a method successfully used in working-age populations, is a promising method for cost-effective health promotion and preventive care in older individuals, but the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of an innovative approach to HRA and counselling in older individuals for health behaviours, preventive care, and long-term survival.Methods and findingsThis study was a pragmatic, single-centre randomised controlled clinical trial in community-dwelling individuals aged 65 y or older registered with one of 19 primary care physician (PCP) practices in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland. From November 2000 to January 2002, 874 participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and 1,410 to usual care. The intervention consisted of HRA based on self-administered questionnaires and individualised computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and PCP counselling over a 2-y period. Primary outcomes were health behaviours and preventive care use at 2 y and all-cause mortality at 8 y. At baseline, participants in the intervention group had a mean ± standard deviation of 6.9 ± 3.7 risk factors (including unfavourable health behaviours, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4.3 ± 1.8 deficits in recommended preventive care. At 2 y, favourable health behaviours and use of preventive care were more frequent in the intervention than in the control group (based on z-statistics from generalised estimating equation models). For example, 70% compared to 62% were physically active (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.16-1.77, p = 0.001), and 66% compared to 59% had influenza vaccinations in the past year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66, p = 0.005). At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion alive was 77.9% in the intervention and 72.8% in the control group, for an absolute mortality difference of 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%-8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference). The hazard ratio of death comparing intervention with control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.94, p = 0.009; based on Wald test from Cox regression model), and the number needed to receive the intervention to prevent one death was 21 (95% CI 12-79). The main limitations of the study include the single-site study design, the use of a brief self-administered questionnaire for 2-y outcome data collection, the unavailability of other long-term outcome data (e.g., functional status, nursing home admissions), and the availability of long-term follow-up data on mortality for analysis only in 2014.ConclusionsThis is the first trial to our knowledge demonstrating that a collaborative care model of HRA in community-dwelling older people not only results in better health behaviours and increased use of recommended preventive care interventions, but also improves survival. The intervention tested in our study may serve as a model of how to implement a relatively low-cost but effective programme of disease prevention and health promotion in older individuals.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424.