Search

Background Around 15% of adults aged over 65 live with moderate or severe frailty. Contractual requirements for management of frailty are minimal and neither incentivised nor reinforced. Previous research has shown frailty identification in primary care is ad hoc and opportunistic, but there has been little focus on the challenges of frailty management, particularly within the context of recent introduction of primary care networks and an expanding allied health professional workforce. Aim Explore the views of primary care clinicians in England on the management of frailty. Design and setting Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians across England, including general practitioners (GPs), physician associates, nurse practitioners, paramedics and clinical pharmacists. Thematic analysis was facilitated through NVivo (Version 12). Results A total of 31 clinicians participated. Frailty management was viewed as complex and outside of clinical guidelines with medication optimisation highlighted as a key example. Senior clinicians, particularly experienced GPs, were more comfortable with managing risk. Relational care was important in prioritising patient wishes and autonomy, for instance to remain at home despite deteriorations in health. In settings where more formalised multidisciplinary frailty services had been established this was viewed as successful by clinicians involved. Conclusion Primary care clinicians perceive frailty as best managed through trusted relationships with patients, and with support from experienced clinicians. New multidisciplinary working in primary care could enhance frailty services, but must keep continuity in mind. There is a lack of evidence or guidance for specific interventions or management approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction In 2017, NHS England introduced proactive identification of frailty into the General Practitioners (GP) contract. There is currently little information as to how this policy has been operationalised by front-line clinicians, their working understanding of frailty and impact of recognition on patient care. We aimed to explore the conceptualisation and identification of frailty by multidisciplinary primary care clinicians in England. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care staff across England including GPs, physician associates, nurse practitioners, paramedics and pharmacists. Thematic analysis was facilitated through NVivo (Version 12). Results Totally, 31 clinicians participated. Frailty was seen as difficult to define, with uncertainty about its value as a medical diagnosis. Clinicians conceptualised frailty differently, dependant on job-role, experience and training. Identification of frailty was most commonly informal and opportunistic, through pattern recognition of a frailty phenotype. Some practices had embedded population screening and structured reviews. Visual assessment and continuity of care were important factors in recognition. Most clinicians were familiar with the electronic frailty index, but described poor accuracy and uncertainty as to how to interpret and use this tool. There were different perspectives amongst professional groups as to whether frailty should be more routinely identified, with concerns of capacity and feasibility in the current climate of primary care workload. Conclusions Concepts of frailty in primary care differ. Identification is predominantly ad hoc and opportunistic. A more cohesive approach to frailty, relevant to primary care, together with better diagnostic tools and resource allocation, may encourage wider recognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Reliable rapid testing for COVID-19 is needed in care homes to reduce the risk of outbreaks and enable timely care. This study aimed to examine the usability and test performance of a point of care polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (POCKITTM Central) in care homes. Methods POCKITTM Central was evaluated in a purposeful sample of four UK care homes. Test agreement with laboratory real-time PCR and usability and used errors were assessed. Results No significant usability-related hazards emerged, and the sources of error identified were found to be amendable with minor changes in training or test workflow. POCKITTM Central has acceptable sensitivity and specificity based on RT-PCR as the reference standard, especially for symptomatic cases. Asymptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 35.9–99.6%) positive agreement and 98.7% negative agreement (95% CI: 96.2–99.7%), with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932– 0.999). Symptomatic specimens showed 100% (95% CI: 2.5–100%) positive agreement and 100% negative agreement (95% CI: 85.8–100%), with overall PABAK of 1. Recommendations are provided to mitigate the frequency of occurrence of the residual use errors observed. Integration pathways were discussed to identify opportunities and limitations of adopting POCKIT™ Central for screening and diagnostic testing purposes. Conclusions Point-of-care PCR testing in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards. Further diagnostic accuracy evaluations and in-service evaluation studies should be conducted, if the test is to be implemented more widely, to build greater certainty on this initial exploratory analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Care home residents are at high risk of dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Regular testing, producing rapid and reliable results is important in this population because infections spread quickly, and presentations are often atypical or asymptomatic. This study evaluated current testing pathways in care homes to explore the role of point-of-care tests (POCTs). Methods A total of 10 staff from eight care homes, purposively sampled to reflect care organisational attributes that influence outbreak severity, underwent a semi-structured remote videoconference interview. Transcripts were analysed using process mapping tools and framework analysis focussing on perceptions about, gaps within and needs arising from current pathways. Results Four main steps were identified in testing: infection prevention, preparatory steps, swabbing procedure and management of residents. Infection prevention was particularly challenging for mobile residents with cognitive impairment. Swabbing and preparatory steps were resource-intensive, requiring additional staff resource. Swabbing required flexibility and staff who were familiar to the resident. Frequent approaches to residents were needed to ensure they would participate at a suitable time. After-test management varied between sites. Several homes reported deviating from government guidance to take more cautious approaches, which they perceived to be more robust. Conclusion Swab-based testing is organisationally complex and resource-intensive in care homes. It needs to be flexible to meet the needs of residents and provide care homes with rapid information to support care decisions. POCT could help address gaps but the complexity of the setting means that each technology must be evaluated in context before widespread adoption in care homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 has devastated care homes. Point-of-care tests (POCTs), mainly using lateral flow devices (LFDs), have been deployed hurriedly without much consideration of their usability or impact on care workflow. Even after the pandemic, POCTs, particularly multiplex tests, may be an important control against spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in care homes by enabling identification of cases. They should not, however, replace other infection control measures such as barrier methods and quarantine. Adherence to LFDs as implemented among care home staff is suboptimal. Other tests—such as point-of-care polymerase chain reaction and automated antigen tests—would also need to be accommodated into care home workflows to improve adherence. The up-front costs of POCTs are straightforward but additional costs, including staffing preparation and reporting processes and the impacts of false positive and negative tests on absence rates and infection days, are more complex and as yet unquantified. A detailed appraisal is needed as the future of testing in care homes is considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]