Does proactive care in care homes improve survival? A quality improvement project

Attwood, D; Hope, SV; Spicer, SG; et al.Gordon, AL; Boorer, J; Ellis, W; Earley, M; Denovan, J; Hart, G; Williams, M; Burdett, N; Lemon, M
Date: 4 June 2024
Journal
BMJ Open Quality
Publisher
BMJ Publishing
Publisher DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002771
Related links
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38834371
Abstract
BACKGROUND: NHS England's 'Enhanced Health in Care Homes' specification aims to make the healthcare of care home residents more proactive. Primary care networks (PCNs) are contracted to provide this, but approaches vary widely: challenges include frailty identification, multidisciplinary team (MDT) capability/capacity and how the process ...
BACKGROUND: NHS England's 'Enhanced Health in Care Homes' specification aims to make the healthcare of care home residents more proactive. Primary care networks (PCNs) are contracted to provide this, but approaches vary widely: challenges include frailty identification, multidisciplinary team (MDT) capability/capacity and how the process is structured and delivered. AIM: To determine whether a proactive healthcare model could improve healthcare outcomes for care home residents. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quality improvement project involving 429 residents in 40 care homes in a non-randomised crossover cohort design. The headline outcome was 2-year survival. METHOD: All care home residents had healthcare coordinated by the PCN's Older Peoples' Hub. A daily MDT managed the urgent healthcare needs of residents. Proactive healthcare, comprising information technology-assisted comprehensive geriatric assessment (i-CGA) and advanced care planning (ACP), were completed by residents, with prioritisation based on clinical needs.Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was used with patients divided into two groups:Control group: received routine and urgent (reactive) care only.Intervention group: additional proactive i-CGA and ACP. RESULTS: By 2 years, control group survival was 8.6% (n=108), compared with 48.1% in the intervention group (n=321), p<0.001. This represented a 39.6% absolute risk reduction in mortality, 70.2% relative risk reduction and the number needed to treat of 2.5, with little changes when adjusting for confounding variables. CONCLUSION: A PCN with an MDT-hub offering additional proactive care (with an i-CGA and ACP) in addition to routine and urgent/reactive care may improve the 2-year survival in older people compared with urgent/reactive care alone.
View full metadata

Clinical and Biomedical Sciences

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

Item views 0
Full item downloads 0
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.