Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents, comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses for EQ-5D-5L and HowRu: protocol for assessing proxy reliability in care home outcome testing

Outcome measures from international older adult care home intervention research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Care homes are increasingly important settings for intervention research to enhance evidence-informed care. For such research to demonstrate effectiveness, it is essential that measures are appropriate for the population, setting and practice contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To identify care home intervention studies and describe the resident outcome measures used.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

We reviewed international care home research published from 2015 to August 2022. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA. We included any intervention study conducted in a care home, reporting resident outcomes. We extracted resident outcome measures, organised these using the domains of an adapted framework and described their use.

RESULTS

From 7,330 records screened, we included 396 datasets reported in 436 publications. These included 12,167 care homes and 836,842 residents, with an average of 80 residents per study. The studies evaluated 859 unique resident outcomes 2,030 times using 732 outcome measures. Outcomes were evaluated between 1 and 112 times, with 75.1% of outcomes evaluated only once. Outcome measures were used 1-120 times, with 68.4% of measures used only once. Only 14 measures were used ≥20 times. Functional status, mood & behaviour and medications were the commonest outcome domains assessed. More than half of outcomes were assessed using scales, with a fifth using existing records or administrative data.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant heterogeneity in the choice and assessment of outcomes for intervention research in care homes. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on useful and sensitive tools for care homes, working with residents, families and friends and staff.

Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes: Validation of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for staff

OBJECTIVES

The goal of palliative and supportive care is to improve patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the gold standard for the assessment of QoL and symptoms; however, when self-reporting is complicated, PROMs are often substituted with proxy-reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcome measures. The objective of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for staff (IPOS-Staff).

METHODS

This multicenter, cross-sectional observational study was conducted concurrently with the validation of the IPOS for patients (IPOS-Patient). Japanese adult patients with cancer and their staff were recruited. We assessed the characteristics of the patients and staff members, missing values, prevalence, and total IPOS scores. For the analysis of criterion validity, intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs).

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-three patients completed the IPOS-Patient, and 79 medical staff members completed the IPOS-Staff. The most common missing values from IPOS-Staff were Family Anxiety (3.5%) and Sharing Feelings (3.5%). Over half of the patients scored themselves moderate or worse for Poor Mobility, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety, while staff members scored patients moderate or worse for Weakness, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety. For criterion validity (patient-staff agreement) as well as intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, ICCs ranged from 0.114 (Sharing Feelings) to 0.826 (Nausea), 0.720 (Anxiety) to 0.933 (Nausea), and -0.038 (Practical Problems) to 0.830 (Nausea), respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The IPOS-Staff is easy to respond to; it has fair validity and reliability for physical items but poor for psycho-social items. By defining the context and objectives of its use and interpretation, the IPOS-Staff can be a useful tool for measuring outcomes in adult patients with cancer who cannot complete self-evaluations.

Inter-rater reliability of care home staff's proxy judgements with residents' assessments of their own health-related quality of life: an analysis of the PATCH trial EQ-5D data

OBJECTIVES

to compare care staff proxies with care home residents' self-assessment of their health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

we assessed the degree of inter-rater reliability between residents and care staff proxies for the EQ-5D-5L index, domains and EQ Visual Analogue Scale at baseline, 3 months and 6 months, collected as part of the PATCH trial. We calculated kappa scores. Interpreted as <0 no agreement, 0-0.2 slight, 0.21-0.60 fair to moderate and >0.6 substantial to almost perfect agreement. Qualitative interviews with care staff and researchers explored the challenges of completing these questions.

RESULTS

over 50% of the HRQoL data from residents was missing at baseline compared with a 100% completion rate by care staff proxies. A fair-to-moderate level of agreement was found for the EQ-5D-5L index. A higher level of agreement was achieved for the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility and pain. Resident 'non-completers' were more likely to: be older, have stayed a longer duration in the care home, have lower Barthel Index and Physical Activity and Mobility in Residential Care (PAM-RC) scores, a greater number of co-morbidities and have joined the trial through consultee agreement. Interviews with staff and researchers indicated that it was easier to rate residents' mobility levels than other domains, but in general it was difficult to obtain data from residents or to make an accurate proxy judgement for those with dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

whilst assessing HRQoL by care staff proxy completion provides a more complete dataset, uncertainty remains as to how representative these values are for different groups of residents within care homes.

Normative Estimates and Agreement Between 2 Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life in Older People With Frailty: Findings From the Community Ageing Research 75+ Cohort

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have summarized evidence on health-related quality of life for older people, identifying a range of measures that have been validated, but have not sought to present results by degree of frailty. Furthermore, previous studies did not typically use quality-of-life measures that generate an overall health utility score. Health utility scores are a necessary component of quality-adjusted life-year calculations used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

METHODS

We calculated normative estimates in mean and standard deviation for EQ-5D-5L, short-form 36-item health questionnaire in frailty (SF-36), and short-form 6-dimension (SF-6D) for a range of established frailty models. We compared response distributions across dimensions of the measures and investigated agreement using Bland-Altman and interclass correlation techniques.

RESULTS

The EQ-5D-5L, SF-36, and SF-6D scores decrease and their variability increases with advancing frailty. There is strong agreement between the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D across the spectrum of frailty. Agreement is lower for people who are most frail, indicating that different components of the 2 instruments may have greater relevance for people with advancing frailty in later life. There is a greater risk of ceiling effects using the EQ-5D-5L rather than the SF-6D.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the SF-36/SF-6D as an appropriate measure of health-related quality of life for clinical trials if fit older people are the planned target. In trials of interventions involving older people with increasing frailty, we recommend that both the EQ-5D-5L and SF36/SF6D are included, and are used in sensitivity analyses as part of cost-effectiveness evaluation.

An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent

BACKGROUND

There is increasing international recognition that populations included in trials should adequately represent the population treated in clinical practice; however, adults who lack the capacity to provide informed consent are frequently excluded from trials. Addressing the under-representation of groups such as those with impaired capacity to consent is essential to develop effective interventions and provide these groups with the opportunity to benefit from evidence-based care. While the spotlight has been on ensuring only appropriate and justifiable exclusion criteria are used in trials, barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity are multifactorial and complex, and addressing their under-representation will require more than merely widening eligibility criteria. This commentary draws on the literature exploring the inclusion of adults lacking the capacity to consent in research and a number of recent studies to describe the methodological, structural, and systemic factors that have been identified.

MAIN TEXT

A number of potentially modifiable factors contributing to the under-representation of adults lacking the capacity to consent in trials have been identified. In addition to restrictive eligibility criteria, methodological issues include developing appropriate interventions and outcome measures for populations with impaired capacity. Structurally determined factors include the resource-intensive nature of these trials, the requirement for more appropriate research infrastructure, and a lack of interventions to inform and support proxy decision-makers. Systemic factors include the complexities of the legal frameworks, the challenges of ethical review processes, and paternalistic attitudes towards protecting adults with incapacity from the perceived harms of research.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures needed to address under-representation include greater scrutiny of exclusion criteria by those reviewing study proposals, providing education and training for personnel who design, conduct, and review research, ensuring greater consistency in the reviews undertaken by research ethics committees, and extending processes for advance planning to include prospectively appointing a proxy for research and documenting preferences about research participation. Negative societal and professional attitudes towards the inclusion of adults with impaired capacity in research should also be addressed, and the development of trials that are more person-centred should be encouraged. Further work to conceptualise under-representation in trials for such populations may also be helpful.

Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses

Introduction

care home residents are often unable to complete health-related quality of life questionnaires for themselves because of prevalent cognitive impairment. This study compared care home resident and staff proxy responses for two measures, the EQ-5D-5L and HowRU.

Methods

a prospective cohort study recruited residents ≥60 years across 24 care homes who were not receiving short stay, respite or terminal care. Resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L and HowRu responses were collected monthly for 3 months. Weighted kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusted for clustering at the care home level were used to measure agreement between resident and proxies for each time point. The effect of staff and resident baseline variables on agreement was considered using a multilevel mixed effect regression model.

Results

117, 109 and 104 matched pairs completed the questionnaires at 1, 2 and 3 months, respectively. When clustering was controlled for, agreement between resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L responses was fair for mobility (ICC: 0.29) and slight for all other domains (ICC ≤ 0.20). EQ-5D Index and Quality-Adjusted Life Year scores (proxy scores higher than residents) showed better agreement than EQ-5D-VAS (residents scores higher than proxy). HowRU showed only slight agreement (ICC ≤ 0.20) between residents and proxies. Staff and resident characteristics did not influence level of agreement for either index.

Discussion

the levels of agreement for EQ-5D-5L and HowRU raise questions about their validity in this population.

Role of comprehensive geriatric assessment in healthcare of older people in UK care homes: realist review

OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) may be a way to deliver optimal care for care home residents. We used realist review to develop a theory-driven account of how CGA works in care homes.

DESIGN

Realist review.

SETTING

Care homes.

METHODS

The review had three stages: first, interviews with expert stakeholders and scoping of the literature to develop programme theories for CGA; second, iterative searches with structured retrieval and extraction of the literature; third, synthesis to refine the programme theory of how CGA works in care homes.We used the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychInfo, PubMed, Google Scholar, Greylit, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

130 articles informed a programme theory which suggested CGA had three main components: structured comprehensive assessment, developing a care plan and working towards patient-centred goals. Each of these required engagement of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Most evidence was available around assessment, with tension between structured assessment led by a single professional and less structured assessment involving multiple members of an MDT. Care planning needed to accommodate visiting clinicians and there was evidence that a core MDT often used care planning as a mechanism to seek external specialist support. Goal-setting processes were not always sufficiently patient-centred and did not always accommodate the views of care home staff. Studies reported improved outcomes from CGA affecting resident satisfaction, prescribing, healthcare resource use and objective measures of quality of care.

CONCLUSION

The programme theory described here provides a framework for understanding how CGA could be effective in care homes. It will be of use to teams developing, implementing or auditing CGA in care homes. All three components are required to make CGA work-this may explain why attempts to implement CGA by interventions focused solely on assessment or care planning have failed in some long-term care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017062601.