The uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes: a realist review

Background Care homes provide long term care for older people. Countries with standardised approaches to residents’ assessment, care planning and review (known as minimum data sets (MDS)) use the aggregate data to guide resource allocation, monitor quality, and for research. Less is known about how an MDS affects how staff assess, provide and review residents’ everyday care. The review aimed to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff can effectively implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care for residents. Methods The realist review was organised according to RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: and Evolving Standards) guidelines. There were three overlapping stages: 1) defining the scope of the review and theory development on the use of minimum data set 2) testing and refining candidate programme theories through iterative literature searches and stakeholders’ consultations as well as discussion among the research team; and 3) data synthesis from stages 1 and 2. The following databases were used MEDLINE via OVID, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ASSIA [Applied Social Sciences Citation Index and Abstracts]) and sources of grey literature. Results Fifty-one papers informed the development of three key interlinked theoretical propositions: motivation (mandates and incentives for Minimum Data Set completion); frontline staff monitoring (when Minimum Data Set completion is built into the working practices of the care home); and embedded recording systems (Minimum Data Set recording system is integral to collecting residents’ data). By valuing the contributions of staff and building on existing ways of working, the uptake and use of an MDS could enable all staff to learn with and from each other about what is important for residents’ care Conclusions Minimum Data Sets provides commissioners service providers and researchers with standardised information useful for commissioning planning and analysis. For it to be equally useful for care home staff it requires key activities that address the staff experiences of care, their work with others and the use of digital technology. Registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020171323.

Residents transitioning between hospital and care homes: protocol for codesigning a systems-level response to safety issues (SafeST study)

IntroductionThe aim of this study is to develop a better understanding of incident reporting in relation to transitions in care between hospital and care home, and to codesign a systems-level response to safety issues for patients transitioning between hospital and care home.Methods and analysisTwo workstreams (W) will run in parallel. W1 will aim to develop a taxonomy of incident reporting in care homes, underpinned by structured interviews (N=150) with care home representatives, scoping review of care home incident reporting systems, and a review of incident reporting policy related to care homes. The taxonomy will be developed using a standardised approach to taxonomy development. W2 will be structured in three phases (P). P1a will consist of ≤40 interviews with care home staff to develop a better understanding of their specific internal systems for reporting incidents, and P1b will include ≤30 interviews with others involved in transitions between hospital and care home. P1a and P1b will also examine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on safe transitions. P2 will consist of a retrospective documentary analysis of care home data relating to resident transitions, with data size and sampling determined based on data sources identified in P1a. A validated data extraction form will be adapted before use. P3 will consist of four validation and codesign workshops to develop a service specification using National Health Service Improvement’s service specification framework, which will then be mapped against existing systems and recommendations produced. Framework analysis informed by the heuristic of systemic risk factors will be the primary mode of analysis, with content analysis used for analysing incident reports.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received university ethical approval and Health Research Authority approval. Findings will be disseminated to commissioners, providers and regulators who will be able to use the codesigned service specification to improve integrated care.

Using advance and emergency care plans during transfer decisions: A grounded theory interview study with care home staff

Background: Advance care planning has been identified as one of few modifiable factors that could reduce hospital transfers from care homes. Several types of documents may be used by patients and clinicians to record these plans. However, little is known about how plans are perceived and used by care home staff at the time of deterioration. Aim: To describe care home staff experiences and perceptions of using written plans during in-the-moment decision-making about potential resident hospital transfers. Design: Qualitative semi-structured interviews analysed using the Straussian approach to grounded theory. Setting/participants: Thirty staff across six care homes (with and without nursing) in the East and West Midlands of England. Results: Staff preferred (in principle) to keep deteriorating residents in the care home but feared that doing so could lead to negative repercussions for them as individuals, especially when there was perceived discordance with family carers’ wishes. They felt that clinicians should be responsible for these plans but were happy to take a supporting role. At the time of deterioration, written plans legitimised the decision to care for the resident within the home; however, staff were wary of interpreting broad statements and wanted plans to be detailed, specific, unambiguous, technically ‘correct’, understood by families and regularly updated. Conclusions: Written plans provide reassurance for care home staff, reducing concerns about personal and professional risk. However, care home staff have limited discretion to interpret plans and transfers may occur if plans are not specific enough for care home staff to use confidently.

The ambulance service advanced practitioner's role in supporting care homes: a qualitative study of care staff experiences

Background/aims The demand from care homes on NHS services continues to rise, with little evidence of ambulance service contribution in this area. The Yorkshire Ambulance Service provides an advanced practitioner model to support care homes in Sheffield, as an alternative to calling 999. This study investigated the experiences and needs of the care home staff who use the ambulance service advanced practitioner model. Methods This qualitative study conducted semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 19 staff members from 10 different care home settings. Thematic analysis using a combination of NVivo and manual coding was undertaken. Results The three key themes from the interviews were variations in service demand, the service user's expectations and experience, and benefits to residents. Participants reported that good community services reduced the need to call 999, empowering carers to support residents to remain in the community. Conclusions Care homes require comprehensive services that meet their needs. The advanced practitioner model provided by the ambulance service supports this, preventing unnecessary 999 calls and fitting with other community service provision.

Process evaluation for the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS)

Background Medicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation. Method Intervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework. Results PCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention. Conclusions The intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established. Trial registration The definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number ISRCTN 17847169).