Search

Objectives: A short- and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two pedometer-based walking interventions compared with usual care Design: a) Short-term CEA: parallel three-arm cluster randomised trial randomised by household b) Long-term CEA: Markov decision-model Setting: Seven primary care practices in South London, United Kingdom Participants: a) Short-term CEA: 1023 people (922 households) aged 45-75yrs without physical activity (PA) contraindications b) Long-term CEA: 100,000 cohort aged 59-88yrs Interventions: Pedometers, 12-wk walking programmes, and PA diaries delivered by post or through three PA consultations with practice nurses Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Accelerometry-measured change (baseline-12months) in average daily step-count and time in 10-min bouts of moderate-vigorous PA, and EQ5D5L quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) Methods: Resource use costs (£2013/4) from an NHS perspective, presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each outcome over a 1-year and life-time horizon, with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and willingness to pay per QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluate uncertainty. Results: a) Short-term CEA: At 12months, incremental cost was £3.61(£109) per minute in ≥10 minute MVPA bouts for nurse-support compared with control (postal group). At £20,000/QALY, the postal group had a 50% chance of being cost-saving compared with control. b) Long-term CEA: The postal group had more QALYs (+759QALYs, 95% CI 400, 1247) and lower costs (-£11m, 95% CI -12,-10), than control and nurse groups, resulting in an incremental net monetary benefit of £26m per 100,000 population. Results were sensitive to reporting serious adverse events, excluding health service use, and including all participant costs. Conclusions: Postal delivery of a pedometer intervention in primary care is cost-effective long-term and has a 50% chance of being cost-effective, through resource savings, within one year. Further research should ascertain maintenance of the higher levels of PA, and its impact on quality of life and health service use. Trial Registration: ISRCTN98538934

Background: Care homes provide personal care and support for older people who can no longer be supported in the community. As part of a larger study of integrated working between the NHS and care homes we asked older people how they accessed health care services. Our aim was to understand how older people resident in care homes access health services using the Andersen model of health care access. Methods: Case studies were conducted in six care homes with different socio-economic characteristics, size and ownership in three study sites. Residents in all care homes with capacity to participate were eligible for the study. Interviews explored how residents accessed NHS professionals. The Andersen model of health seeking behaviour was our analytic framework. Findings: Thirty-five participants were interviewed with an average of 4 different conditions. Expectations of their health and the effectiveness of services to mitigate their problems were low. Enabling factors were the use of intermediaries (usually staff, but also relatives) to seek access. Residents expected that care home staff would monitor changes in their health and seek appropriate help unprompted. Conclusions: Care home residents may normalise their health care needs and frame services as unable to remediate these which may combine to disincline older care home residents to seek care. Care access was enabled using intermediaries -either staff or relatives-and the expectation that staff would proactively seek care when they observed new/changed needs. Residents may over-estimate the health-related knowledge of care home staff and their ability to initiate referrals to NHS professionals.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the association of Test Your Memory (TYM)-defined cognitive impairment groups with known sociodemographic and cardiometabolic correlates of cognitive impairment in a population-based study of older adults. METHODS: Participants were members of the British Regional Heart Study, a cohort across 24 British towns initiated in 1978-1980. Data stemmed from 1570 British men examined in 2010-2012, aged 71-92 years. Sociodemographic and cardiometabolic factors were compared between participants defined as having TYM scores in the normal cognitive ageing, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and severe cognitive impairment (SCI) groups, defined as ≥46 (45 if ≥80 years of age), ≥33 and

Background: Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care. This is an update of a Cochrane review. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. Search methods: We searched the following databases to 9 January 2017: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit. We searched clinical trials registries. Selection criteria: Randomised trials comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care for adults. We excluded obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes. Data collection and analysis: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes. Main results: We included 32 trials (N = 4746), six of them new for this update, mainly conducted in high-income countries. We judged most of the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was delivered by hospital outreach services (17 trials), community-based services (11 trials), and was co-ordinated by a hospital-based stroke team or physician in conjunction with community-based services in four trials. Studies recruiting people recovering from stroke: Early discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality at three to six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.48, N = 1114, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hospital readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66, N = 345, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in institutional setting at six months (RR 0.63, 96% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 574, 4 trials, low-certainty evidence) and might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 795, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably reduces hospital length of stay, as moderate-certainty evidence found that people assigned to hospital at home are discharged from the intervention about seven days earlier than people receiving inpatient care (95% CI 10.19 to 3.17 days earlier, N = 528, 4 trials). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence). Studies recruiting people with a mix of medical conditions: Early discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; N = 1247, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there was insufficient information to determine the effect of these two approaches on mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12, N = 496, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably increases the risk of hospital readmission in a mix of medical conditions, although the results are also compatible with no difference and a relatively large increase in the risk of readmission (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.58, N = 1276, 9 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). Early discharge hospital at home may decrease the risk of readmission for people with COPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, N = 496, 5 trials low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in an institutional setting (RR 0.69, 0.48 to 0.99; N = 484, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 900, low-certainty evidence). The effect of early discharge hospital at home on hospital length of stay for older patients with a mix of conditions ranged from a reduction of 20 days to a reduction of less than half a day (moderate-certainty evidence, N = 767). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence). Studies recruiting people undergoing elective surgery: Three studies did not report higher rates of mortality with hospital at home compared with inpatient care (data not pooled, N = 856, low-certainty evidence; mainly orthopaedic surgery). Hospital at home may lead to little or no difference in readmission to hospital for people who were mainly recovering from orthopaedic surgery (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). We could not establish the effects of hospital at home on the risk of living in institutional care, due to a lack of data. The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). People recovering from orthopaedic surgery allocated to early discharge hospital at home were discharged from the intervention on average four days earlier than people allocated to usual inpatient care (4.44 days earlier, 95% CI 6.37 to 2.51 days earlier, , N = 411, 4 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a less expensive alternative to inpatient care, this review provides insufficient evidence of economic benefit (through a reduction in hospital length of stay) or improved health outcomes.

Purpose : The PrOVIDe study aimed to investigate the prevalence of a range of vision problems among people with dementias, aged 60-89 years and to examine the extent to which these conditions are undetected or inappropriately managed.\ud \ud Methods : The study had two stages, a cross-sectional prevalence study followed by qualitative research. In Stage 1, 708 people with dementia (389 living at home and 319 in care homes) had a domiciliary eye examination. The inclusion criteria were people with dementia (any type), aged 60-89 years; individuals lacking mental capacity to provide informed consent to participate required a consultee who could give approval on their behalf.\ud \ud Results : 22 percent reported not having had a test in the last two years: this included 19 participants who had not been tested in the last 10 years. Prevalence of visual impairment (VI) was 32.4% (95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 28.7 to 36.5) and 16.3% (CI 13.5 to 19.6) for the commonly-used criteria for VI of visual acuity (VA) worse than 6/12 and 6/18 respectively. Of those with VI, 44% (VA

Background: People with dementia do not always receive good quality end-of-life care, with undertreated pain, aggressive medical interventions and limited access to hospice care being common. Family carers often provide the majority of informal care for people with dementia, therefore may be best placed to comment on quality of care. Aim: We explored what quality end-of-life care for dementia is from the perspective of family carers. Design: A review of qualitative evidence taking a systematic approach using a narrative synthesis with tabulation, textual description of studies and thematic analysis as tools, following the guidelines from the Economic and Social Research Council. Data sources: Keywords and subject headings were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCIE and PsycINFO for studies from 1990 in April 2012 and updated in May 2013. Reference lists were checked and citation searches undertaken. Results: Eight studies were included. There was an overarching theme of ‘A family’s belief of death and their choice of treatment’. Three further themes were then identified to explain family carers’ beliefs: the relationship with professionals as a core component of care quality; emotional and commitment pressures of caring and finally, family carers’ ability to think about death and dying. Conclusion: It is difficult to define what constitutes high-quality end-of-life care for people with dementia from the perspective of family carers. Their views expressed in the literature appear to demonstrate more variation of preference of care and treatment and their uncertainty of this.

The British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP) coordinated a meeting of experts to review the evidence on the drug treatment for dementia. The level of evidence (types) was rated using a standard system: Types 1a and 1b (evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials or at least one controlled trial respectively); types 2a and 2b (one well-designed study or one other type of quasi experimental study respectively); type 3 (non-experimental descriptive studies); and type 4 (expert opinion). There is type 1a evidence for cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine) for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease; memantine for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease; and for the use of bright light therapy and aromatherapy. There is type 1a evidence of no effect of anti inflammatory drugs or statins. There is conflicting evidence regarding oestrogens, with type 2a evidence of a protective effect of oestrogens but 1b evidence of a harmful effect. Type 1a evidence for any effect of B12 and folate will be forthcoming when current trials report. There is type 1b evidence for gingko biloba in producing a modest benefit of cognitive function; cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of people with Lewy body disease (particularly neuropsychiatric symptoms); cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in treatment cognitive impairment associated with vascular dementia; and the effect of metal collating agents (although these should not be prescribed until more data on safety and efficacy are available). There is type 1b evidence to show that neither cholinesterase inhibitors nor vitamin E reduce the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease in people with mild cognitive impairment; and there is no evidence that there is any intervention that can prevent the onset of dementia. There is type 1b evidence for the beneficial effects of adding memantine to cholinesterase inhibitors, and type 2b evidence of positive switching outcomes from one cholinesterase inhibitor to another. There is type 2a evidence for a positive effect of reminiscence therapy, and type 2a evidence that cognitive training does not work. There is type 3 evidence to support the use of psychological interventions in dementia. There is type 2 evidence that a clinical diagnosis of dementia can be made accurately and that brain imaging increases that accuracy. Although the consensus statement dealt largely with medication, the role of dementia care in secondary services (geriatric medicine and old age psychiatry) and primary care, along with health economics, was discussed. There is ample evidence that there are effective treatments for people with dementia, and Alzheimer's disease in particular. Patients, their carers, and clinicians deserve to be optimistic in a field which often attracts therapeutic nihilism.

Background: Admission avoidance hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by health care professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital in-patient care, and always for a limited time period. In particular, hospital at home has to offer a specific service to patients in their home requiring health care professionals to take an active part in the patients' care. If hospital at home were not available then the patient would be admitted to an acute hospital ward. Many countries are adopting this type of care in an attempt to reduce the demand for acute hospital admission. Objectives: To determine, in the context of a systematic review and meta analysis, the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with in-patient hospital care. Search strategy: The following databases were searched through to January 2008: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EconLit and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register. We checked the reference lists of articles identified electronically for evaluations of hospital at home and obtained potentially relevant articles. Unpublished studies were sought by contacting providers and researchers who were known to be involved in this field. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials recruiting patients aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital in-patient care. The admission avoidance hospital at home interventions may admit patients directly from the community thereby avoiding physical contact with the hospital, or may admit from the emergency room. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Our statistical analyses sought to include all randomised patients and were done on an intention to treat basis. We requested individual patient data (IPD) from trialists, and relied on published data when we did not receive trial data sets or the IPD did not include the relevant outcomes. When combining outcome data was not possible because of differences in the reporting of outcomes we have presented the data in narrative summary tables. For the IPD meta-analysis, where at least one event was reported in both study groups in a trial, Cox regression models were used to calculate the log hazard ratio and its standard error formortality and readmission separately for each data set (where both outcomes were available). We included randomisation group (admission avoidance hospital at home versus control), age (above or below the median), and gender in the models. The calculated log hazard ratios were combined using fixed effects inverse variance meta analysis. If there were no events in one group we used the Peto odds ratio method to calculate a log odds ratio from the sum of the log-rank test 'O-E' statistics from a Kaplan Meier survival analysis. Statistical significance throughout was taken at the two-sided 5% level (p

Objective: Decision-making, when providing care and treatment for a person with dementia at the end of life, can be complex and challenging. There is a lack of guidance available to support practitioners and family carers, and even those experienced in end of life dementia care report a lack of confidence in decision-making. It is thought that the use of heuristics (rules of thumb) may aid decision-making. The aim of this study is to identify whether heuristics are used in end of life dementia care, and if so, to identify the context in which they are being used. Design: A narrative literature review was conducted taking a systematic approach to the search strategy, using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines. Rapid appraisal methodology was used in order to source specific and relevant literature regarding the use of heuristics in end of life dementia care. Data sources: A search using terms related to dementia, palliative care and decision-making was conducted across 4 English language electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) in 2015. Results: The search identified 12 papers that contained an algorithm, guideline, decision tool or set of principles that we considered compatible with heuristic decision-making. The papers addressed swallowing and feeding difficulties, the treatment of pneumonia, management of pain and agitation, rationalising medication, ending life-sustaining treatment, and ensuring a good death. Conclusions: The use of heuristics in palliative or end of life dementia care is not described in the research literature. However, this review identified important decision-making principles, which are largely a reflection of expert opinion. These principles may have the potential to be developed into simple heuristics that could be used in practice.