Complex interventions for improving independent living and quality of life amongst community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

How can we improve Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for older people living with frailty in primary care and community settings? A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

With advancing age comes the increasing prevalence of frailty and increased risk of adverse outcomes (eg, hospitalisation). Evidence for comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), a multidimensional holistic model of care, is mixed in community settings. Uncertainties remain, such as the key components of CGA, who delivers it, and the use of technology. This study aimed to understand the perspectives, beliefs and experiences, of both older people and health professionals, to improve the current CGA and explore factors that may impact on CGA delivery in community settings.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study was conducted with older people and healthcare professionals (HCPs) identified using a maximum variation strategy. Data were analysed using an abductive analysis approach. The non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework and the theoretical framework of acceptability guided the categorisation of the codes and identified categories were mapped to the two frameworks.

SETTING

England, UK.

RESULTS

27 people were interviewed, constituting 14 older people and 13 HCPs. We identified limitations in the current CGA: a lack of information sharing between different HCPs who deliver CGA; poor communication between older people and their HCPs and a lack of follow-up as part of CGA. When we discussed the potential for CGA to use technology, HCPs and older people varied in their readiness to engage with it.

CONCLUSIONS

Viable solutions to address gaps in the current delivery of CGA include the provision of training and support to use digital technology and a designated comprehensive care coordinator. The next stage of this research will use these findings, existing evidence and stakeholder engagement, to develop and refine a model of community-based CGA that can be assessed for feasibility and acceptability.

Preventive interventions to improve older people's health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of preventive, non-disease-specific primary care trials for older people often report effects according to what is thought to be the intervention's active ingredient.

AIM

To examine the effectiveness of preventive primary care interventions for older people and to identify common components that contribute to intervention success.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 22 publications from 2009 to 2019.

METHOD

A search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were: sample mainly aged ≥65 years; delivered in primary care; and non-disease-specific interventions. Exclusion criteria were: non-RCTs; primarily pharmacological or psychological interventions; and where outcomes of interest were not reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool. Outcomes examined were healthcare use including admissions to hospital and aged residential care (ARC), and patient-reported outcomes including activities of daily living (ADLs) and self-rated health (SRH).

RESULTS

Many studies had a mix of patient-, provider-, and practice-focused intervention components (13 of 18 studies). Studies included in the review had low-to-moderate risk of bias. Interventions had no overall benefit to healthcare use (including admissions to hospital and ARC) but higher basic ADL scores were observed (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.40) and higher odds of reporting positive SRH (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37). When intervention effects were examined by components, better patient-reported outcomes were observed in studies that changed the care setting (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37), included educational components for health professionals (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.27, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.55), and provided patient education (SMD for basic ADLs 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.48). Additionally, admissions to hospital in intervention participants were fewer by 23% in studies that changed the care setting (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and by 26% in studies that provided patient education (IRR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.97).

CONCLUSION

Preventive primary care interventions are beneficial to older people's functional ability and SRH but not other outcomes. To improve primary care for older people, future programmes should consider delivering care in alternative settings, for example, home visits and phone contacts, and providing education to patients and health professionals as these may contribute to positive outcomes.

Access to primary eye care for people living with dementia: a call to action for primary care practitioners to 'think vision'

Access to allied health services offers significant benefits for people living with dementia, yet access is currently fragmented and inconsistent. The 2023-2024 budget allocated AU$445million to further enable general practice-led, multidisciplinary teams, with integrated care located within practices, including employment of allied health professionals. Such team care models are recognised by The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners as vital to delivery of high-quality care for older adults. They are especially relevant for over 250,000 Australians who live with dementia in the community. However, not all allied health professionals are currently based within general practices. Future, sustainable general practice-led models of multidisciplinary care that connect patients with external allied health providers could be considered for a comprehensive and collaborative approach to care. Our focus is on people living with dementia, who are at greater risk of preventable vision impairment. Poor vision and/or ocular health can be detected and managed through regular eye examinations, which are predominantly delivered by community-based optometrists in Australia, in a primary care capacity. However, people living with dementia are also less likely to have regular eye examinations. In this paper, we highlight the value of ensuring access to primary eye care services as part of post-diagnosis dementia care. We illustrate the important role of primary care practitioners in building and sustaining connections with allied health professions, like optometry, through effective referral and interprofessional communication systems. This can help break down access barriers to dementia-friendly eye care, through promoting the importance of regular eye tests for people living with dementia.