A new model of care and in-house general practitioners for residential aged care facilities: a stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial

Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities

BACKGROUND

The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Reducing unplanned hospital admissions from care homes: a systematic review

Background

Care homes predominantly care for older people with complex health and care needs, who are at high risk of unplanned hospital admissions. While often necessary, such admissions can be distressing and provide an opportunity cost as well as a financial cost.

Objectives

Our objective was to update a 2014 evidence review of interventions to reduce unplanned admissions of care home residents. We carried out a systematic review of interventions used in the UK and other high-income countries by synthesising evidence of effects of these interventions on hospital admissions; feasibility and acceptability; costs and value for money; and factors affecting applicability of international evidence to UK settings.

Data sources

We searched the following databases in December 2021 for studies published since 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Health Management Information Consortium; Medline; PsycINFO; Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes; Social Care Online; and Social Service Abstracts. 'Grey' literature (January 2022) and citations were searched and reference lists were checked.

Methods

We included studies of any design reporting interventions delivered in care homes (with or without nursing) or hospitals to reduce unplanned hospital admissions. A taxonomy of interventions was developed from an initial scoping search. Outcomes of interest included measures of effect on unplanned admissions among care home residents; barriers/facilitators to implementation in a UK setting and acceptability to care home residents, their families and staff. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We used published frameworks to extract data on intervention characteristics, implementation barriers/facilitators and applicability of international evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention type and setting. Overall strength of evidence for admission reduction was assessed using a framework based on study design, study numbers and direction of effect.

Results

We included 124 publications/reports (30 from the UK). Integrated care and quality improvement programmes providing additional support to care homes (e.g. the English Care Homes Vanguard initiatives and hospital-based services in Australia) appeared to reduce unplanned admissions relative to usual care. Simpler training and staff development initiatives showed mixed results, as did interventions aimed at tackling specific problems (e.g. medication review). Advance care planning was key to the success of most quality improvement programmes but do-not-hospitalise orders were problematic. Qualitative research identified tensions affecting decision-making involving paramedics, care home staff and residents/family carers. The best way to reduce end-of-life admissions through access to palliative care was unclear in the face of inconsistent and generally low-quality evidence.

Conclusions

Effective implementation of interventions at various stages of residents' care pathways may reduce unplanned admissions. Most interventions are complex and require adaptation to local contexts. Work at the interface between health and social care is key to successful implementation.

Limitations

Much of the evidence identified was of low quality because of factors such as uncontrolled study designs and small sample size. Meta-analysis was not possible.

Future work

We identified a need for improved economic evidence and the evaluation of integrated care models of the type delivered by hospital-based teams. Researchers should carefully consider what is realistic in terms of study design and data collection given the current context of extreme pressure on care homes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO database CRD42021289418.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (award number NIHR133884) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Which interventions are effective at decreasing or increasing emergency department attendances or hospital admissions from long-term care facilities? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

UK long-term care facility residents account for 185 000 emergency hospital admissions each year. Avoidance of unnecessary hospital transfers benefits residents, reduces demand on the healthcare systems but is difficult to implement. We synthesised evidence on interventions that influence unplanned hospital admissions or attendances by long-term care facility residents.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2012 to 2022, building on a review published in 2013. We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated interventions that influence (decrease or increase) acute hospital admissions or attendances of long-term care facility residents. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using Cochrane Risk Of Bias-2 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Forty-three randomised studies were included in this review. A narrative synthesis was conducted and the weight of evidence described with vote counting. Advance care planning and goals of care setting appear to be effective at reducing hospitalisations from long-term care facilities. Other effective interventions, in order of increasing risk of bias, were: nurse practitioner/specialist input, palliative care intervention, influenza vaccination and enhancing access to intravenous therapies in long-term care facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors that affect hospitalisation and emergency department attendances of long-term care facility residents are complex. This review supports the already established use of advance care planning and influenza vaccination to reduce unscheduled hospital attendances. It is likely that more than one intervention will be needed to impact on healthcare usage across the long-term care facility population. The findings of this review are useful to identify effective interventions that can be combined, as well as highlighting interventions that either need evaluation or are not effective at decreasing healthcare usage.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020169604.

[The general practitioner in old age homes : an incongruous actor ? Study in old-age homes in a deprived area]

CONTEXT

Residential facilities for dependent elderly people have difficulties ensuring medical follow-up of their residents by general practitioners. The barriers to medical visits are well-known. Seine-Saint-Denis is particularly affected by the medical demography crisis.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the organization of visits by general practitioners in residential facilities for dependent elderly people in Seine-Saint-Denis. To assess the influence of the institutions' status on this organization.

METHOD

Quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study of 65 facilities in Seine Saint-Denis. A questionnaire drawn from the literature on known barriers to medical visits was used.

RESULTS

Fifty institutions (76.9%) contributed. Most visits (88.0%) took place in patients' rooms. When the practitioner arrived, the patient was present at the site in 80.0% of the facilities, especially when they were private and associative (p = 0.01). The doctor was accompanied by a staff member in 30.0% of the facilities, especially when they were for-profit (p = 0.02). Exchanges between general practitioners and the staff were sporadic and unorganized. All in all, the public facilities seemed to be less well-organized to receive general practitioners.

DISCUSSION

Residential facilities for the elderly do not seem to have implemented specific organization for visits by general practitioners, who are not integrated in the staff.

CONCLUSION

Experiments with doctors gainfully employed in institutions could be carried out, following the example of several foreign countries.

Impact of relational continuity of primary care in aged care: a systematic review

Background

Greater continuity of care has been associated with lower hospital admissions and patient mortality. This systematic review aims to examine the impact of relational continuity between primary care professionals and older people receiving aged care services, in residential or home care settings, on health care resource use and person-centred outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of five databases, four trial registries and three grey literature sources to October 2020. Included studies (a) aimed to increase relational continuity with a primary care professional, (b) focused on older people receiving aged care services (c) included a comparator and (d) reported outcomes of health care resource use, quality of life, activities of daily living, mortality, falls or satisfaction. Cochrane Collaboration or Joanna Briggs Institute criteria were used to assess risk of bias and GRADE criteria to rate confidence in evidence and conclusions.

Results

Heterogeneity in study cohorts, settings and outcome measurement in the five included studies (one randomised) precluded meta-analysis. None examined relational continuity exclusively with non-physician providers. Higher relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospital admissions (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–0.96, n = 178,686; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.76–1.27, n = 246) and emergency department (ED) presentations (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.89–0.92, n = 178,686; IRR 0.91, 95%CI 0.72–1.15, n = 246) for older community-dwelling aged care recipients. The benefit of providing on-site primary care for relational continuity in residential settings is uncertain (low certainty evidence, 2 studies, n = 2,468 plus 15 care homes); whilst there are probably lower hospitalisations and may be fewer ED presentations, there may also be an increase in reported mortality and falls. The benefit of general practitioners’ visits during hospital admission is uncertain (very low certainty evidence, 1 study, n = 335).

Conclusion

Greater relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospitalisations and ED presentations for community-dwelling aged care recipients, thus policy initiatives that increase continuity may have cost offsets. Further studies of approaches to increase relational continuity of primary care within aged care, particularly in residential settings, are needed.

Review registration

CRD42021215698.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03131-2.

A multimodal intervention to optimise antimicrobial use in residential aged care facilities (ENGAGEMENT): protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate antibiotic use can cause harm and promote antimicrobial resistance, which has been declared a major health challenge by the World Health Organization. In Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs), the most common indications for antibiotic prescribing are for infections of the urinary tract, respiratory tract and skin and soft tissue. Studies indicate that a high proportion of these prescriptions are non-compliant with best prescribing guidelines. To date, a variety of interventions have been reported to address inappropriate prescribing and overuse of antibiotics but with mixed outcomes. This study aims to identify the impact of a set of sustainable, multimodal interventions in residential aged care targeting three common infection types.

METHODS

This protocol details a 20-month stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial conducted across 18 RACFs (as 18 clusters). A multimodal multi-disciplinary set of interventions, the 'AMS ENGAGEMENT bundle', will be tailored to meet the identified needs of participating RACFs. The key elements of the intervention bundle include education for nurses and general practitioners, telehealth support and formation of an antimicrobial stewardship team in each facility. Prior to the randomised sequential introduction of the intervention, each site will act as its own control in relation to usual care processes for antibiotic use and stewardship. The primary outcome for this study will be antibiotic consumption measured using defined daily doses (DDDs). Cluster-level rates will be calculated using total occupied bed numbers within each RACF during the observation period as the denominator. Results will be expressed as rates per 1000 occupied bed days. An economic analysis will be conducted to compare the costs associated with the intervention to that of usual care. A comprehensive process evaluation will be conducted using the REAIM Framework, to enable learnings from the trial to inform sustainable improvements in this field.

DISCUSSION

A structured AMS model of care, incorporating targeted interventions to optimise antimicrobial use in the RACF setting, is urgently needed and will be delivered by our trial. The trial will aim to empower clinicians, residents and families by providing a robust AMS programme to improve antibiotic-related health outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials.gov ( NCT04705259 ). Prospectively registered in 12th of January 2021.

Cost analysis of employing general practitioners within residential aged care facilities based on a prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impacts of changing a model of care and employing general practitioners (GPs) within residential aged care facilities (RACFs) on costs to the aged care provider (ACP) and state and federal governments of Australia.

METHODS

This study was a cost analysis of a prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial. All financial data from the ACP for every RACF involved, before and after implementation of the new model were obtained. Costs of hospital transfers, admissions, ambulance usage and GP consultations were calculated. Costs of new infrastructure, recruiting and training new staff were accounted for. Costs were standardised to 2019 Australian Dollars per occupied bed day (OBD).

RESULTS

Implementation of the new model of care resulted in overall cost savings of $9.7 per OBD to the ACP, with increased salary costs offset by increased federal government subsidies and Medicare claims income. Costs to the federal government increased by $19.6 per OBD, driven by increases in subsides. Costs savings of $3.0 per OBD to state governments were seen, driven by decreased costs of hospital transfers.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a model of care including GPs employed at RACFs had a mixed impact on costs depending on perspective, with overall savings to the ACP and state government perspective.

Statement on falls in long-term care facilities by the Japan Geriatrics Society and the Japan Association of Geriatric Health Services Facilities

In current clinical practice, when a fall occurs in a long-term care facility, it is often treated as an accident. Falls are classified as one of the most commonly prevalent geriatric syndromes. As their causes are extremely diverse and complex, their occurrence rate depends on individual susceptibility, even if appropriate fall prevention measures are taken. Falls are common among older adults, and fractures and intracranial hemorrhage resulting from falls can lead to the deterioration of activities of daily living and death. For this reason, it is recommended that the risk of falls is assessed in the general population of older adults, and that appropriate interventions are carried out for those at high risk. In response to this situation, the Japan Geriatrics Society and the Japan Association of Geriatric Health Services Facilities have issued the following statements on falls as a geriatric syndrome based on scientific evidence, especially considering the frequent occurrence of falls in long-term care facilities. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2022; 22: 193-205.

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review

INTRODUCTION

One of the current challenges in long-term care homes (LTCH) is to identify the optimal model of care, which may include specialty physicians, nursing staff, person support workers, among others. There is currently no consensus on the complement or scope of care delivered by these providers, nor is there a repository of studies that evaluate the various models of care. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and map what care provider models and interventions in LTCH have been evaluated to improve quality of life, quality of care, and health outcomes of residents.

METHODS

We conducted this review over 10-weeks of English language, peer-reviewed studies published from 2010 onward. Search strategies for databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were run on July 9, 2020. Studies that evaluated models of provider care (e.g., direct patient care), or interventions delivered to facility, staff, and residents of LTCH were included. Study selection was performed independently, in duplicate. Mapping was performed by two reviewers, and data were extracted by one reviewer, with partial verification by a second reviewer.

RESULTS

A total of 7,574 citations were screened based on the title/abstract, 836 were reviewed at full text, and 366 studies were included. Studies were classified according to two main categories: healthcare service delivery (n = 92) and implementation strategies (n = 274). The condition/ focus of the intervention was used to further classify the interventions into subcategories. The complex nature of the interventions may have led to a study being classified in more than one category/subcategory.

CONCLUSION

Many healthcare service interventions have been evaluated in the literature in the last decade. Well represented interventions (e.g., dementia care, exercise/mobility, optimal/appropriate medication) may present opportunities for future systematic reviews. Areas with less research (e.g., hearing care, vision care, foot care) have the potential to have an impact on balance, falls, subsequent acute care hospitalization.

Prioritising models of healthcare service delivery for a more sustainable health system: a Delphi study of Australian health policy, clinical practice and management, academic and consumer stakeholders

Objectives Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in developed countries. A recent scoping review identified several alternative healthcare delivery models with the potential to improve health system sustainability. Our objective was to obtain input and consensus from an expert Delphi panel about which alternative models they considered most promising for increasing value in healthcare delivery in Australia and to contribute to shaping a research agenda in the field. Methods The panel first reviewed a list of 84 models obtained through the preceding scoping review and contributed additional ideas in an open round. In a subsequent scoring round, the panel rated the priority of each model in terms of its potential to improve health care sustainability in Australia. Consensus was assumed when ≥50% of the panel rated a model as (very) high priority (consensus on high priority) or as not a priority or low priority (consensus on low priority). Results Eighty-two of 149 invited participants (55%) representing all Australian states/territories and wide expertise completed round one; 71 completed round two. Consensus on high priority was achieved for 59 alternative models; 14 were rated as (very) high priority by ≥70% of the panel. Top priorities included improving medical service provision in aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for people with chronic conditions and providing tailored early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient care. No consensus was reached on 47 models, but no model was deemed low priority. Conclusions Input from an expert stakeholder panel identified healthcare delivery models not previously synthesised in systematic reviews that are a priority to investigate. Strong consensus exists among stakeholders regarding which models require the most urgent attention in terms of (cost-)effectiveness research. These findings contribute to shaping a research agenda on healthcare delivery models and where stakeholder engagement in Australia is likely to be high. What is known about the topic? Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in high-income countries worldwide. A recent scoping review of systematic reviews identified a substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of models of healthcare service delivery that can inform health system improvements. Given the large number of systematic reviews available on numerous models of care, a method for gaining consensus on the models of highest priority for implementation (where evidence demonstrates this will lead to beneficial effects and resource savings) or for further research (where evidence about effects is uncertain) in the Australian context is warranted. What does this paper add? This paper describes a method for reaching consensus on high-priority alternative models of service delivery in Australia. Stakeholders with leadership roles in health policy and government organisations, hospital and primary care networks, academic institutions and consumer advocacy organisations were asked to identify and rate alternative models based on their knowledge of the healthcare system. We reached consensus among ≥70% of stakeholders that improving medical care in residential aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for patients with a range of chronic conditions and providing early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient stay for people with a range of conditions are of highest priority for further investigation. What are the implications for practitioners? Decision makers seeking to optimise the efficiency and sustainability of healthcare service delivery in Australia could consider the alternative models rated as high priority by the expert stakeholder panel in this Delphi study. These models reflect the most promising alternatives for increasing value in the delivery of health care in Australia based on stakeholders' knowledge of the health system. Although they indicate areas where stakeholder engagement is likely to be high, further research is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of some of these models.

Multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of an antimicrobial stewardship programme in residential aged care: protocol for the START trial

INTRODUCTION

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing global health threat, driven by increasing inappropriate use of antimicrobials. High prevalence of unnecessary use of antimicrobials in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) has driven demand for the development and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes. The Stepped-wedge Trial to increase antibiotic Appropriateness in Residential aged care facilities and model Transmission of antimicrobial resistance (START) will implement and evaluate the impact of a nurse-led AMS programme on antimicrobial use in 12 RACFs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The START trial will implement and evaluate a nurse-led AMS programme via a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial design in 12 RACFs over 16 months. The AMS programme will incorporate education, aged care-specific treatment guidelines, documentation forms, and audit and feedback strategies that will target aged care staff, general practitioners, pharmacists, and residents and their families. The intervention will primarily focus on urinary tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, and skin and soft tissue infections. RACFs will transition from control to intervention phases in random order, two at a time, every 2 months, with a 2-month transition, wash-in period. The primary outcome is the cumulative proportion of residents within each facility prescribed an antibiotic during each month and total days of antibiotic use per 1000 occupied bed days. Secondary outcomes include the number of courses of systemic antimicrobial therapy, antimicrobial appropriateness, antimicrobial resistant organisms, Clostridioides difficile infection, change in antimicrobial susceptibility profiles, hospitalisations and all-cause mortality. Analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/591). Research findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and summarised reports provided to participating RACFs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03941509.

Trajectories of pro re nata (PRN) medication prescribing and administration in long-term care facilities

BACKGROUND

Little is known about changes in pro re nata (PRN) medication prescribing and administration in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) over time.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and factors associated with PRN medication administration in RACFs and examine changes over 12-months.

METHODS

Secondary analyses utilizing data from the SIMPLER randomized controlled trial (n = 242 residents, 8 RACFs) was undertaken. PRN medication data were extracted from RACF medication charts. Factors associated with PRN medication administration in the preceding week were explored using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

At baseline, 211 residents (87.2%) were prescribed ≥1 PRN medication, with 77 (36.5%) administered PRN medication in the preceding week. PRN administration was more likely in non-metropolitan areas, and less likely among residents with more severe dementia symptoms and greater dependence with activities of daily living. No significant differences in overall PRN prescribing or administration in 162 residents alive at 12-month follow-up were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being frequently prescribed, the contribution of PRNs to overall medication use in RACFs is small. PRN prescribing and administration was relatively static over 12-months despite likely changes in resident health status over this period, suggesting further exploration of PRN prescribing in relation to resident care needs may be warranted.