Phillip Whitehead

Interventions to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living in community dwelling adults who use homecare services: a systematic review

Objectives: To identify interventions that aim to reduce dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) in homecare service users. To determine: content; effectiveness in improving ability to perform ADL; and whether delivery by qualified occupational therapists influences effectiveness. Data sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, OTseeker, PEDro, Web of Science, CIRRIE, and ASSIA. Review methods: We included: randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after studies. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted. Results: Thirteen studies were included, totalling 4975 participants. Ten (77%) were judged to have risk of bias. Interventions were categorised as those termed ‘re-ablement’ or ‘restorative homecare’ (n=5/13); and those involving separate components which were not described using this terminology (n=8/13). Content of the intervention and level of health professional input varied within and between studies. Effectiveness on ADL: eight studies included an ADL outcome, five favoured the intervention group, only two with statistical significance, both these were controlled before and after studies judged at high risk of bias. ADL outcome was reported using seven different measures. Occupational therapy: there was insufficient evidence to determine whether involvement of qualified occupational therapists influenced effectiveness. Conclusion: There is limited evidence that interventions targeted at personal ADL can reduce homecare service users’ dependency with activities, the content of evaluated interventions varies greatly.

Occupational therapy predischarge home visits for patients with a stroke (HOVIS): results of a feasibility randomized controlled trial

Objective: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial of occupational therapy predischarge home visits for people after stroke. Design: Randomized controlled trial and cohort study. We randomized eligible patients for whom there was clinical uncertainty about the need to conduct a home visit to a randomized controlled trial; patients for whom a visit was judged ‘essential’ were enrolled into a cohort study. Setting: Stroke rehabilitation unit of teaching hospital. Participants: One hundred and twenty-six participants hospitalized following recent stroke. Interventions: Predischarge home visit or structured, hospital-based interview. Main outcome measures: The primary objective was to collect information on the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial, including eligibility, control intervention and outcome assessments. The primary outcome measure was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale at one month after discharge from hospital. Secondary outcomes included mood, quality of life and costs at one week and one month following discharge. Results: Ninety-three people were allocated to the randomized controlled trial; 47 were randomized to intervention and 46 to control. Thirty-three were enrolled into the cohort study. More people were allocated to the randomized controlled trial as the study progressed. One hundred and thirteen people (90%) received the proposed intervention, although there was a need for stricter protocol adherence. Follow-up was good: at one month 114 (90%) were assessed. There were no significant differences between the groups in the randomized controlled trial for the primary outcome measure at one month. The average cost of a home visit was £208. Conclusion: A trial is feasible and warranted given the resource implications of predischarge occupational therapy home visits.

Occupational therapy predischarge home visits for patients with a stroke: what is national practice?

Background: Little is known about day-to-day procedures in conducting predischarge home visits in occupational therapy. The aim of this study was to identify current practice in relation to people with stroke. Method: A questionnaire was designed and piloted; 184 were posted to stroke units in England. Results: Responses were analysed from 85 stroke units from 10 regions. The main reason for conducting visits was to ‘assess or practise activities of daily living in the home environment’ (93%), closely followed by to ‘identify or address safety issues’ (92%). Wide variations exist in time spent on the actual visit (range 10–135 minutes), with a mean time of 63 minutes (SD 20.36), and a mean time of 61 minutes (SD 33.13) for writing a report. Visits were generally conducted by an occupational therapist, with an occupational therapy/physiotherapy assistant. The majority (95%) of therapists reported having a home visit bag and the most common item included was incontinence pads (83%). Conclusion: This research has provided valuable information on, and highlights the variation in, day-to-day predischarge home assessment visits for patients after stroke. The next step must be to use this knowledge to evaluate patient selection and to examine the costs and effectiveness of such visits.

Interventions to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living in community-dwelling adults who use homecare services: protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundThere is a growing demand for services whereby individuals receive assistance from care workers for personal care within the home. This has led to the development of re-ablement or restorative homecare services that provide time-limited input aimed at reducing dependency in personal activities of daily living, and preventing or delaying the need for further homecare support. However, little is currently known about how such interventions are configured, or how they may affect individuals’ ability to carry out personal care independently.Methods/DesignWe will seek to identify studies that compare an intervention designed to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living with routine input or usual care as the control. We will include randomised controlled trials, nonrandomised controlled trials, and controlled before and after studies. We will also include interrupted time series studies.We shall search electronic databases in addition to searching for ongoing and unpublished studies, and where appropriate will contact key authors. Two reviewers will independently screen articles for inclusion; will assess risk of bias using quality assessment tools; and will carry out data extraction using pre-prepared forms. Any disagreements, at any stage, will be resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer if needed. We will produce a narrative summary of the results. A meta-analysis will be conducted if sufficient data are available of appropriate quality and comparability.DiscussionThe findings from this review will inform future practice within homecare re-ablement services; will inform policy decisions about the structure, organisation and content of such services; and will identify areas where further research is warranted.Systematic review registrationThis review protocol has been registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42013004163).

Research Governance and Bureaucracy for Multisite Studies: Implications for Occupational Therapy Research

Obtaining research governance approvals for research involving the National Health Service (NHS) has become increasingly complex. In order to obtain the necessary approvals to interview 20 occupational therapists from a range of locations across the United Kingdom, the authors had to submit lengthy applications to all 20 sites. Before issuing their approvals, some sites raised numerous queries, whilst others did not raise any. The time taken to obtain approvals ranged from 6 to 197 days. These disparities highlight that the current research governance procedure for multisite studies is complex and subject to local interpretations. This opinion piece argues that the procedure is excessive for research that does not involve patients and involves NHS staff only. It also argues that this is an injudicious use of resources at a time of national austerity. Implications for the future of occupational therapy research in the United Kingdom are discussed.

An Introduction to Economic Evaluation in Occupational Therapy: Cost-Effectiveness of Pre-Discharge Home Visits after Stroke (HOVIS)

Introduction: Occupational therapy interventions, such as home visits, have been identified as being resource-intensive, but cost-effectiveness analyses are rarely, if ever, carried out. We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of occupational therapy home visits after stroke, as part of a feasibility study, and to demonstrate the value and methods of economic evaluation. Method: We completed a cost-effectiveness analysis of pre-discharge occupational therapy home visits after stroke compared with a hospital-based interview, carried out alongside a feasibility randomized controlled trial. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years. Full cost and outcome data were available for 65 trial participants. Findings: We found that the mean total cost of a home visit was £183, compared with £75 for a hospital interview. Home visits are shown to be slightly more effective, resulting in a cost per quality-adjusted life year of just over £20,000. Conclusion: Our analysis is the only economic evaluation of this intervention to date. Home visits are shown to be more expensive and more effective than a hospital-based interview, but our results are subject to a high level of uncertainty and should be treated as such. Further economic evaluations in this field are encouraged.

Occupational Therapy in HomEcare Re-ablement Services (OTHERS): results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Objectives The objective of this study was to test the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention targeted at activities of daily living (ADL), delivered by an occupational therapist, in homecare reablement. Design Feasibility parallel group RCT. Setting Single-site local authority homecare reablement service. Participants People referred for homecare reablement with ability to consent. Exclusion criteria were as follows: inability to speak English, receiving other community therapy services, needing two or more to assist transfer and receiving end-of-life care. Control ‘Usual care’ was 6 weeks of homecare reablement delivered by social care workers (no routine health professional input). Intervention A targeted ADL programme, delivered by an occupational therapist incorporating goal setting, teaching/practising techniques, equipment/adaptations and provision of advice/support. This was in addition to usual care. Outcome measures Aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, intervention delivery, attrition and suitability and sensitivity of outcome measures. Participant outcomes were personal and extended ADL, quality of life, falls and use of health and social care services. Results 30 participants were recruited, 15 to each arm, which was 60% of those eligible. Data from 22 (73%) were analysed at 6 months. Of the 15 participants, 13 (86%) received the intervention and were able to set one or more ADL goals. There were improvements from baseline in both groups, although overall improvements were greater in the occupational therapy (OT) intervention group. The biggest threat to feasibility was a change in service configuration during the trial, involving additional occupational therapy input, affecting usual care and recruitment. Conclusions Despite the service reconfiguration, it was feasible to recruit and retain participants, deliver the intervention and collect outcome data that were responsive to change. The choice of primary outcome measure remains unclear. A further powered study is feasible and warranted; however, the design will require careful consideration because of ongoing national changes in service configurations. Trial registration number ISRCTN21710246; Results.

Occupational Therapy in HomEcare Re-ablement Services (OTHERS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundHomecare re-ablement services have been developed by local authorities in England in response to the government agenda for health and social care. These services aim to optimize users’ independence and ability to cope at home, and reduce the need for ongoing health and social care services. However, there is currently limited evidence and guidance regarding the optimum configuration and delivery of re-ablement services. In particular, the impact of occupational therapy input on service user outcomes has been highlighted as a specific research priority.Methods/DesignThis feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) will recruit 50 people from one local authority led homecare re-ablement service in England. Those who provide informed consent will be randomized to receive either usual homecare re-ablement (without routine occupational therapy input) or usual homecare re-ablement plus an enhanced program targeted at activities of daily living (ADL), delivered by an occupational therapist. The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a further, powered study. The participant outcomes assessed will be independence in personal and extended ADL, health and social care-related quality of life, number of care support hours, falls, acute and residential admissions and use of health and social care services. These will be assessed at two weeks, three months and six months post-discharge from the re-ablement service.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first RCT of occupational therapy in homecare re-ablement services. The results of this study will lay the foundations for a further powered study. The findings will be relevant to researchers, clinicians, commissioners and users of adult social care services.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials registration number: ISRCTN21710246 (registered on 31March 2014)

Bathing adaptations in the homes of older adults (BATH-OUT): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT)

Introduction The Care Act 2014 has placed a responsibility on local authorities in England to provide services that prevent deterioration and minimise the use of other health and social care services. Housing adaptations have been identified as 1 of the 10 most promising prevention services for older adults, with bathing adaptations being the most requested. However, many local authorities have lengthy waiting times which may increase costs, reduce effectiveness and reduce the preventive effect. There is no robust evidence of the effect of these adaptations on: health, well-being and functional ability. Methods and analysis This is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) with nested qualitative interview study. The RCT will recruit between 40 and 60 people who have been referred for an accessible showering facility, and their carers, from 1 local authority in England. They will be randomised to either usual adaptations (∼3-month wait) or immediate adaptations (no wait). The primary outcome is the feasibility of conducting a powered study. The outcomes assessed will be: health and social care-related quality of life, independence in activities of daily living and bathing, falls and use of health and social care services. Outcomes will be assessed at 3 and 6 months. Preliminary health economic feasibility will be established. Ethics and dissemination Favourable ethical opinion was provided by the Social Care Research Ethics Committee (reference number 16/IEC08/0017). The results of this study will lay the foundations for a further powered study. This would investigate the effect of bathing adaptations on quality of life and whether increased waiting times are associated with poorer outcomes and increased costs. The results have further potential to inform trials of other housing or social care interventions using the novel waiting list control method. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Trial registration number ISRCTN14876332; Pre-results.

There is nothing streamlined about the system

For our research into home assessment after stroke, we wished to interview, by telephone for 30 minutes maximum, 20 volunteer occupational therapists from across the UK. Our local research network said we must obtain approval from each trust, because the interviewees were trust employees. These approvals are currently being facilitated via the Coordinated …