Search

Objectives: Mortality trends among people living in long-term care settings have been poorly understood. Linking data offers the potential to provide real-world, long-term national follow-up. Our aim was to describe patterns and associations with mortality among people moving-in to care homes in Scotland., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected national social care data from the Scottish Care Home Census. These data were indexed and linked to national health data and mortality records for individuals moving- in to care homes in Scotland between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2016. Location of death, underlying causes and time to death are reported. Survival analysis was undertaken using the Gompertz model for human mortality adjusted for key variables., Results: Of 23 892 individuals moving-in to care homes, 20 250 (84.8%) died by 31 May 2020. Most deaths occurred in the care home setting (77.5%), with a fifth (20.5%) occurring in the hospital. 0.1% died the day they moved-in, 3.2% within a month, 24.2% within a year and 85% by 7 years. Dementia codes account for more than a third of all deaths (35.1%). Median survival time was shorter (701 vs 951 days; 23 vs 32 months) for those moving-in from the hospital, compared with the community. The adjusted HR for moving-in from the hospital was 1.19 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.22)., Conclusions: Mortality is common in Scotland's care homes but varies in timing. Dementia is the most common cause. Those moving-in from the hospital are more likely to die sooner, and this evidence provides opportunities to improve support for all involved., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JM, GC, CG, SS, TJQ and JB have no conflicts of interest to declare. EL is employed as a statistician in the Scottish Government Social Care Analysis Division, which is joint data controller for the Scottish Care Home Census. The views in the paper represent the views of the authors and not the Scottish Government., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To describe the effect of multimorbidity on adverse patient centred outcomes in people attending emergency department., Design: Population based cohort study., Setting: Emergency departments in NHS Lothian in Scotland, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019., Participants: Adults (≥18 years) attending emergency departments., Data Sources: Linked data from emergency departments, hospital discharges, and cancer registries, and national mortality data., Main Outcome Measures: Multimorbidity was defined as at least two conditions from the Elixhauser comorbidity index. Multivariable logistic or linear regression was used to assess associations of multimorbidity with 30 day mortality (primary outcome), hospital admission, reattendance at the emergency department within seven days, and time spent in emergency department (secondary outcomes). Primary analysis was stratified by age (<65  v ≥65 years)., Results: 451 291 people had 1 273 937 attendances to emergency departments during the study period. 43 504 (9.6%) had multimorbidity, and people with multimorbidity were older (median 73 v 43 years), more likely to arrive by emergency ambulance (57.8% v 23.7%), and more likely to be triaged as very urgent (23.5% v 9.2%) than people who do not have multimorbidity. After adjusting for other prognostic covariates, multimorbidity, compared with no multimorbidity, was associated with higher 30 day mortality (8.2% v 1.2%, adjusted odds ratio 1.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 1.91)), higher rate of hospital admission (60.1% v 20.5%, 1.81 (1.76 to 1.86)), higher reattendance to an emergency department within seven days (7.8% v 3.5%, 1.41 (1.32 to 1.50)), and longer time spent in the department (adjusted coefficient 0.27 h (95% CI 0.26 to 0.27)). The size of associations between multimorbidity and all outcomes were larger in younger patients: for example, the adjusted odds ratio of 30 day mortality was 3.03 (95% CI 2.68 to 3.42) in people younger than 65 years versus 1.61 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.71) in those 65 years or older., Conclusions: Almost one in ten patients presenting to emergency department had multimorbidity using Elixhauser index conditions. Multimorbidity was strongly associated with adverse outcomes and these associations were stronger in younger people. The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity in the population is likely to exacerbate strain on emergency departments unless practice and policy evolve to meet the growing demand., Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: NL is supported by Wellcome ISSF3 grant (ref. IS3-R1.05 19/20) for the completion of this work; NLM is supported by a Chair Award, Programme Grant, and Research Excellence Award (CH/F/21/90010, RG/20/10/34966, RE/18/5/34216) from the British Heart Foundation. MR is supported by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Clinician award. NLM has also received payment for lectures by Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers, has participated on advisory boards for LumiraDx, Roche Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers, and has received equipment from Siemens Healthineers (not related to this project). All other authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Innovation for reforming health and social care is high on the policy agenda in the United Kingdom in response to the growing needs of an ageing population. However, information about new innovations of care being implemented is sparse., Methods: We mapped innovations for people in later life in two regions, North East England and South East Scotland. Data collection included discussions with stakeholders (n = 51), semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and website searches that focused on technology, evaluation and health inequalities. We analysed qualitative data using framework and thematic analyses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively., Results: One hundred eleven innovations were identified across the two regions. Interviewees reported a wide range of technologies that had been rapidly introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and many remained in use. Digital exclusion of certain groups of older people was an ongoing concern. Innovations fell into two groups; system-level ones that aimed to alleviate systems pressures such as preventing hospital (re)admissions, and patient-level ones which sought to enhance health and wellbeing directly. Interviewees were aware of the importance of health inequalities but lacked data to monitor the impact of innovations on these, and evaluation was challenging due to lack of time, training, and support. Quantitative findings revealed that two thirds of innovations (n = 74, 67%) primarily focused on the system level, whilst a third (n = 37, 33%) primarily focused on the patient-level. Overall, over half (n = 65, 59%) of innovations involved technologies although relatively few (n = 12, 11%) utilised advanced technologies. Very few (n = 16, 14%) focused on reducing health inequalities, and only a minority of innovations (n = 43, 39%) had undergone evaluation (most of which were conducted by the service providers themselves)., Conclusions: We found a wide range of innovative care services being developed for people in later life, yet alignment with key policy priorities, such as addressing health inequalities, was limited. There was a strong focus on technology, with little consideration for the potential to widen the health inequality gap. The absence of robust evaluation was also a concern as most innovations were implemented without support to monitor effectiveness and/or without plans for sustainability and spread., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Multiple short delirium detection tools have been validated in research studies and implemented in routine care, but there has been little study of these tools in real-world conditions. This systematic review synthesized literature reporting completion rates and/or delirium positive score rates of detection tools in large clinical populations in general hospital settings., Methods: PROSPERO (CRD42022385166). Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and gray literature were searched from 1980 to December 31, 2022. Included studies or audit reports used a validated delirium detection tool performed directly with the patient as part of routine care in large clinical populations (n ≥ 1000) within a general acute hospital setting. Narrative synthesis was performed., Results: Twenty-two research studies and four audit reports were included. Tools used alone or in combination were the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), 4 'A's Test (4AT), Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS), Brief CAM (bCAM), Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (NuDESC), and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Populations and settings varied and tools were used at different stages and frequencies in the patient journey, including on admission only; inpatient, daily or more frequently; on admission and as inpatient; inpatient post-operatively. Tool completion rates ranged from 19% to 100%. Admission positive score rates ranged from: CAM 8%-51%; 4AT 13%-20%. Inpatient positive score rates ranged from: CAM 2%-20%, DOSS 6%-42%, and NuDESC 5-13%. Postoperative positive score rates were 21% and 28% (4AT). All but two studies had moderate-high risk of bias., Conclusions: This systematic review of delirium detection tool implementation in large acute patient populations found clinically important variability in tool completion rates, and in delirium positive score rates relative to expected delirium prevalence. This study highlights a need for greater reporting and analysis of relevant healthcare systems data. This is vital to advance understanding of effective delirium detection in routine care., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Physical activity (PA) has multiple benefits for older adults (≥70 years old). Despite this many older adults do not undertake the World Health Organisation guideline recommended amount of PA. This systematic review examines barriers and motivators to PA in adults aged ≥70 years., Methods: We analysed the quantitative literature, including observational studies and baseline data from randomised controlled trials. Studies examining specific diseases (e.g. cognitive impairment), or care home residents were excluded. Database searches of ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science were undertaken on 7 March 2023. Quality assessment was performed using the ROBANS tool. We synthesised the results using the socioecological model. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021160503)., Results: We identified 37 papers, n = 26,961, age 70-101 years (median 78), 62% female. We undertook a narrative review; meta-analysis was not possible. Overall risk of bias was low. A total of 23 studies addressed barriers, seven motivators, seven both. The most cited barriers were: concern about physical health/fitness (14 studies), lack of motivation/interest (13 studies), fear of falls/history of falling (11 studies) and environmental barriers (10 studies). Key motivators were: support from family/friends (five studies), social interaction (five studies), personal benefits (five studies) and outside facilities (five studies). Results varied across gender, age, functional ability and geographical location., Discussion: To maximise PA in older adults, important modifiable factors identified in this review should be targeted: support from healthcare professionals; reducing fear of falls; and prioritising ease of access and safety of outdoor facilities. When considering future policy, a person-centred, age group appropriate approach will have the most impact., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Alzheimer's Disease (ad) is the most common cause of dementia, and in addition to cognitive decline, it directly contributes to physical frailty, falls, incontinence, institutionalisation and polypharmacy in older adults. Increasing availability of clinically validated biomarkers including cerebrospinal fluid and positron emission tomography to assess both amyloid and tau pathology has led to a reconceptualisation of ad as a clinical-biological diagnosis, rather than one based purely on clinical phenotype. However, co-pathology is frequent in older adults which influence the accuracy of biomarker interpretation. Importantly, some older adults with positive amyloid or tau pathological biomarkers may never experience cognitive impairment or dementia. These strides towards achieving an accurate clinical-biological diagnosis are occurring alongside recent positive phase 3 trial results reporting statistically significant effects of anti-amyloid Disease-Modifying Therapies (DMTs) on disease severity in early ad. However, the real-world clinical benefit of these DMTs is not clear and concerns remain regarding how trial results will translate to real-world clinical populations, potential adverse effects (including amyloid-related imaging abnormalities), which can be severe and healthcare systems readiness to afford and deliver potential DMTs to appropriate populations. Here, we review recent advances in both clinical-biological diagnostic classification and future treatment in older adults living with ad. Advocating for access to both more accurate clinical-biological diagnosis and potential DMTs must be done so in a holistic and gerontologically attuned fashion, with geriatricians advocating for enhanced multi-component and multi-disciplinary care for all older adults with ad. This includes those across the ad severity spectrum including older adults potentially ineligible for emerging DMTs., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Introduction: Deaths in care homes and "at home" are anticipated to account for a third of UK deaths by 2040. Currently, palliative and end of life care are not part of statutory training in care homes. Reflective practice is a tool that can facilitate practice-based learning and support. Following a feasibly study to test "online" supportive conversations and reflection sessions (OSCaRS) to support care home staff in relation to death/dying during the first months of the COVID pandemic, a one-year practice development follow-up project was undertaken with the aim to create a team of NHS/specialist palliative care (SPC)-based facilitators to lead and support OSCaRS provision in up to 50 care homes in one region in Scotland-the focus of this paper., Methods: Forty care home managers attended an on-line session explaining the project, with a similar session held for 19 NHS/SPC-based nurses external to care homes. Those interested in facilitating OSCaRS then attended three education sessions., Data Collected: records of all activities; reflective notes on OSCaRS organised/delivered; a summary of each OSCaRS reflection/learning points; final interviews with NHS/SPC trainee facilitators., Results: A total of 19 NHS/SPC facilitators delivered one or more OSCaRS in 22 participating care homes. However, as of January 2022 only six trained facilitators remained active. Out of the 158 OSCaRS arranged, 96 took place with a total of 262 staff attending. There were three important aspects that emerged: the role, remit, and resources of NHS/SPC supporting OSCaRS; requirements within care homes for establishing OSCaRS; and, the practice-based learning topics discussed at each OSCaRS., Conclusion: Attempts to establish a team of NHS/SPC facilitators to lead OSCaRS highlights that end of life care education in care homes does not clearly fall within the contractual remit of either group or risks being missed due to more pressing priorities., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Older People Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)