Janet Darby

Rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled study (the Getting out of the House Study).

BACKGROUND One-third of stroke patients are dependent on others to get outside their homes. This can cause people to become housebound, leading to increased immobility, poor health, isolation and misery. There is some evidence that outdoor mobility rehabilitation can reduce these limitations. OBJECTIVE To test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention for stroke patients. DESIGN Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with two groups allocated at a 1 : 1 ratio plus qualitative participant interviews. SETTING Fifteen UK NHS stroke services throughout England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS A total of 568 stroke patients who wished to get out of the house more often, mean age of 71 years: 508 reached the 6-month follow-up and 10 were interviewed. INTERVENTION Control was delivered prior to randomisation to all participants, and consisted of verbal advice and transport and outdoor mobility leaflets. Intervention was a targeted outdoor mobility rehabilitation programme delivered by 29 NHS therapists to 287 randomly chosen participants for up to 12 sessions over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was participant health-related quality of life, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (Social Function domain), 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mobility, number of journeys (from monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility (SWOM), psychological well-being and resource use [health care and Personal Social Services (PSS)] 6 months after baseline. Carer well-being was recorded. All outcome measures were collected by post and repeated 12 months after baseline. Outcomes for the groups were compared using statistical significance testing and adjusted for multiple membership to account for the effect of multiple therapists at different sites. Interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenology to explore confidence. RESULTS A median of seven intervention sessions [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7 sessions], median duration of 369 minutes (IQR 170-691.5 minutes) per participant was delivered. There was no significant difference between the groups on health-related quality of life (social function). There were no significant differences between groups in functional ability, psychological well-being or SWOM at 6- or 12-month follow-ups. There was a significant difference observed for travel journeys with the intervention group being 42% more likely to make a journey compared with the control group [rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.67] at 6 months and 76% more likely (rate ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.95) at 12 months. The number of journeys was affected by the therapist effect. The mean incremental cost (total NHS and PSS cost) of the intervention was £3413.75 (95% CI -£448.43 to £7121.00), with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of -0.027 (95% CI -0.060 to 0.007) according to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and -0.003 (95% CI -0.016 to 0.006) according to the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions. At baseline, 259 out of 281 (92.2%) participants in the control group were dissatisfied with outdoor mobility but at the 6-month assessment this had reduced to 77.7% (181/233), a 15% reduction. The corresponding reduction in the intervention group was slightly greater (21%) than 268 out of 287 (93.4%) participants dissatisfied with outdoor mobility at baseline to 189 out of 261 (72.4%) at 6 months. Participants described losing confidence after stroke as being detrimental to outdoor mobility. Recruitment and retention rates were high. The intervention was deliverable by the NHS but had a neutral effect in all areas apart from potentially increasing the number of journeys. This was dependent on the therapist effect, meaning that some therapists were more successful than others. The control appeared to affect change. CONCLUSIONS The outdoor mobility intervention provided in this study to these stroke patients was not clinically effective or cost-effective. However, the provision of personalised information and monthly diaries should be considered for all people who wish to get out more. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58683841. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Falls In Care Home study: a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the use of a risk assessment and decision support tool to prevent falls in care homes

Objective: To explore the feasibility of implementing and evaluating the Guide to Action Care Home fall prevention intervention. Design: Two-centre, cluster feasibility randomized controlled trial and process evaluation. Setting: Purposive sample of six diverse old age/learning disability, long stay care homes in Nottinghamshire, UK. Subjects: Residents aged over 50 years, who had fallen at least once in the past year, not bed-bound, hoist-dependent or terminally ill. Interventions: Intervention homes (n = 3) received Guide to Action Care Home fall prevention intervention training and support. Control homes (n = 3) received usual care. Outcomes: Recruitment, attrition, baseline and six-month outcome completion, contamination and intervention fidelity, compliance, tolerability, acceptance and impact. Results: A total of 81 of 145 (56%) care homes expressed participatory interest. Six of 22 letter respondent homes (27%) participated. The expected resident recruitment target was achieved by 76% (52/68). Ten (19%) residents did not complete follow-up (seven died, three moved). In intervention homes 36/114 (32%) staff attended training. Two of three (75%) care homes received protocol compliant training. Staff valued the training, but advised greater management involvement to improve intervention implementation. Fall risks were assessed, actioned and recorded in care records. Of 115 recorded falls, 533/570 (93%) of details were complete. Six-month resident fall rates were 1.9 and 4.0 per year for intervention and control homes, respectively. Conclusions: The Guide to Action Care Home is implementable under trial conditions. Recruitment and follow-up rates indicate that a definitive trial can be completed. Falls (primary outcome) can be ascertained reliably from care records.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment on an acute medical unit: a qualitative study of older people’s and informal carer’s perspectives of the care and treatment received

Objective: This qualitative study was imbedded in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the addition of geriatricians to usual care to enable the comprehensive geriatric assessment process with older patients on acute medical units. The qualitative study explored the perspectives of intervention participants on their care and treatment. Design: A constructivist study incorporating semi-structured interviews that were conducted in patients’ homes within six weeks of discharge from the acute medical unit. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. Setting: An acute medical unit in the United Kingdom. Participants: Older patients (n = 18) and their informal carers (n = 6) discharged directly home from an acute medical unit, who had been in the intervention group of the randomized controlled trial. Results: Three core themes were constructed: (1) perceived lack of treatment on the acute medical unit; (2) nebulous grasp of the role of the geriatrician; and (3) on-going health and activities of daily living needs postdischarge. These needs impacted upon the informal carers, who either took over, or helped the patients to complete their activities of daily living. Despite the help received with activities of daily living, a lot of the patients voiced a desire to complete these activities themselves. Conclusions: The participants perceived they were just monitored and observed on the acute medical unit, rather than receiving active treatment, and spoke of on-going unresolved health and activity of daily living needs following discharge, despite receiving the additional intervention of a geriatrician.