Search

BackgroundMultidisciplinary rehabilitation is recommended for Parkinson’s disease, but evidence suggests that benefit is not sustained.Objectives(1) Implement a specialist domiciliary rehabilitation service for people with Parkinson’s and carers. (2) Provide continuing support from trained care assistants to half receiving the rehabilitation. (3) Evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the service, and the value added by the care assistants, compared with usual care. (4) Assess the costs of the interventions. (5) Investigate the acceptability of the service. (6) Deliver guidance for commissioners.DesignPragmatic three-parallel group randomised controlled trial.SettingCommunity, county of Surrey, England, 2010–11.ParticipantsPeople with Parkinson’s, at all stages of the disease, and live-in carers.InterventionsGroups A and B received specialist rehabilitation from a multidisciplinary team (MDT) – comprising Parkinson’s nurse specialists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech and language therapists – delivered at home, tailored to individual needs, over 6 weeks (about 9 hours’ individual therapy per patient). In addition to the MDT, participants in group B received ongoing support for a further 4 months from a care assistant trained in Parkinson’s (PCA), embedded in the MDT (1 hour per week per patient). Participants in control group (C) received care as usual (no co-ordinated MDT or ongoing support).Main outcome measuresFollow-up assessments were conducted in participants’ homes at 6, 24 and 36 weeks after baseline. Primary outcomes: Self-Assessment Parkinson’s Disease Disability Scale (patients); the Modified Caregiver Strain Index (carers). Secondary outcomes included: for patients, disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, self-efficacy, mobility, falls and speech; for carers, strain, stress, health-related quality of life, psychological well-being and functioning.ResultsA total of 306 people with Parkinson’s (and 182 live-in carers) were randomised [group A,n = 102 (n = 61); group B,n = 101 (n = 60); group C,n = 103 (n = 61)], of whom 269 (155) were analysed at baseline, pilot cohort excluded. Attrition occurred at all stages. A per-protocol analysis [people with Parkinson’s,n = 227 (live-in carers,n = 125)] [group A,n = 75 (n = 45); group B,n = 69 (n = 37); group C,n = 83 (n = 43)] showed that, at the end of the MDT intervention, people with Parkinson’s in groups A and B, compared with group C, had reduced anxiety (p = 0.02); their carers had improved psychological well-being (p = 0.02). People with Parkinson’s in groups A and B also had marginally reduced disability (primary outcome,p = 0.09), and improved non-motor symptoms (p = 0.06) and health-related quality of life (p = 0.07), compared with C. There were significant differences in change scores between week 6 (end of MDT) and week 24 (end of PCA for group B) in favour of group B, owing to worsening in group A (no PCA support) in posture (p = 0.001); non-motor symptoms (p = 0.05); health-related quality of life (p = 0.07); and self-efficacy (p = 0.09). Carers in group B (vs. group A) reported a tendency for reduced strain (p = 0.06). At 36 weeks post recruitment, 3 months after the end of PCA support for group B, there were few differences between the groups. Participants reported learning about Parkinson’s, and valued individual attention. The MDT cost £833; PCA support was £600 extra, per patient (2011 Great British pounds).ConclusionsFurther research is needed into ways of sustaining benefits from rehabilitation including the use of care assistants.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN44577970.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme and the South East Coast Dementias and Neurodegenerative Disease Research Network (DeNDRoN), and the NHS South East Coast. The report will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 2, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cephazolin, a semi-synthetic cephalosporin for parenteral use, was evaluated in 39 elderly hospital patients. Thirty-three of these patients were seriously ill at the start of treatment, suffering from pulmonary infections. In the other six patients, the drug was used post-operatively as a prophylactic, and it was effective in all cases in preventing any subsequent infection. Cephazolin was very effective in the treatment of 27 of the severely ill patients; the primary pathogen was eradicated and there was good clinical improvement. In two patients the primary pathogens were resistant to cephazolin, and the antibiotic therapy was changed after sensitivities were known. Of four patients with Haemophilus influenzae infection, clinical cure was obtained in two. Cephazolin therapy was discontinued in one woman because she developed a rash. However, there were no major toxic effects of therapy in terms of hepatic, renal or haematological function. No patient complained of pain when the intramuscular therapy was given. A dose of 1 g IM twice daily was shown to produce consistently high serum concentrations. Thus, in the elderly, the advantages of cephazolin are its lack of nephrotoxicity even when diuretic therapy is being administered concurrently, its lack of pain on intramuscular injection, and its sustained concentrations in the blood and urine so that it only requires to be given twice daily. In vitro studies showed that cephazolin is more active than cephaloridine against hospital pathogens.

Background Parkinson's Disease is a degenerative neurological condition that causes movement problems and other distressing symptoms. People with Parkinson's disease gradually lose their independence and strain is placed on family members. A multidisciplinary approach to rehabilitation for people with Parkinson's is recommended but has not been widely researched. Studies are needed that investigate cost-effective community-based service delivery models to reduce disability and dependency and admission to long term care, and improve quality of life. Methods A pragmatic three parallel group randomised controlled trial involving people with Parkinson's Disease and live-in carers (family friends or paid carers), and comparing: management by a specialist multidisciplinary team for six weeks, according to a care plan agreed between the professionals and the patient and carer (Group A); multidisciplinary team management and additional support for four months from a trained care assistant (Group B); usual care, no coordinated team care planning or ongoing support (Group C). Follow up will be for six months to determine the impact and relative cost-effectiveness of the two interventions, compared to usual care. The primary outcomes are disability (patients) and strain (carers). Secondary outcomes include patient mobility, falls, speech, pain, self efficacy, health and social care use; carer general health; patient and carer social functioning, psychological wellbeing, health related quality of life. Semi structured interviews will be undertaken with providers (team members, care assistants), service commissioners, and patients and carers in groups A and B, to gain feedback about the acceptability of the interventions. A cost - effectiveness evaluation is embedded in the trial. Discussion The trial investigates components of recent national policy recommendations for people with long term conditions, and Parkinson's Disease in particular, and will provide guidance to inform local service planning and commissioning. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN44577970