Home visits for frail older people: a qualitative study on the needs and preferences of frail older people and their informal caregivers

Kempen, Janneke A. L. van; Robben, Sarah H M; Zuidema, Sytse U.; Rikkert, Marcel G M Olde; Melis, René J. F.; Schers, Henk

doi:10.3399/bjgp12x653606

Cited by 49 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with our findings, communication skills and building a positive relationship are seen by older people as a vital part of their services 191,193,194 and have been emphasised in other participatory design processes around frailty prevention. 195 Addressing cognitive, social, psychological and home environment dimensions within frailty prevention services have been advocated by stakeholders 170 and physical and occupational therapists.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT

Walters

Frost

Kharicha

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. Objectives (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. Intervention development Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990–2016 and 1980–2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65–94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the ‘HomeHealth’ intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. ‘HomeHealth’ comprised 3–6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. Feasibility RCT Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to ‘HomeHealth’ or treatment as usual (TAU). Setting Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. Participants A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. Main outcome measures Feasibility – recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. Results We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire –3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. Conclusions Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. Future work A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT

Walters

Frost

Kharicha

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Feeling supported by and experiencing a better relationship with the care provider has also been reported in other coordinated care interventions (Baxter & Markle‐Reid, ; Metzelthin, Daniels, et al, ; Poot, Caljouw, Waard, Wind, & Gussekloo, ). Trust appears to be the foundation of the relationship between care provider and older person and has an impact on the acceptance of offered care (Bindels, Cox, Widdershoven, van Schayck, & Abma, ; van Kempen et al, ; Muntinga et al, ). Also, in our study, mistrust among older persons towards unfamiliar services and care providers was a main barrier towards participation in care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is therefore important for care professionals to focus on these psychosocial factors that influence care decisions. Even more so, because older persons themselves appear to prefer that care professionals focus on their psychosocial context (van Kempen et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A coordinated preventive care approach for healthy ageing in five European cities: A mixed methods study of process evaluation components

Franse

Zhang

Grieken

et al. 2019

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To evaluate specific process components of the Urban Health Centres Europe (UHCE) approach; a coordinated preventive care approach aimed at healthy ageing by decreasing falls, polypharmacy, loneliness and frailty among older persons in community settings of five cities in the United Kingdom, Greece, Croatia, the Netherlands and Spain. Design Mixed methods evaluation of specific process components of the UHCE approach: reach of the target population, dose of the intervention actually delivered and received by participants and satisfaction and experience of main stakeholders involved in the approach. Methods The UHCE approach intervention consisted of a preventive assessment, shared decision‐making on a care plan and enrolment in one or more of four coordinated care‐pathways that targeted falls, polypharmacy, loneliness and frailty. Quantitative data from a questionnaire and quantitative/qualitative data from logbooks were collected among older persons involved in the approach. Qualitative data from focus groups were collected among older persons, informal caregivers and professionals involved in the approach. Quantitative data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics and multilevel logistic regression models. Qualitative data were analysed through thematic analysis. Results Having limited function was associated with non‐enrolment in falls and loneliness care‐pathways (both p < .01). The mean rating of the approach was 8.3/10 (SD 1.9). Feeling supported by a care professional and meeting people were main benefits for older persons. Mistrust towards unfamiliar care providers, lack of confidence to engage in care activities and health constraints were main barriers towards engagement in care. Conclusions Although the UHCE approach was received generally positively, health constraints and psychosocial barriers prevented older person's engagement in care. Impact Coordinated preventive care approaches for older community‐dwelling persons should address health constraints and psychosocial barriers that hinder older person's engagement in care. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry number is ISRCTN52788952. Date of registration is 13/03/2017.

show abstract

“…Mede om die reden is gekozen in dit project om bij slechts 10 % van de kwetsbare ouderen een zorgplan op te stellen vanwege de tijdsinvesteringen op het logistieke en organisatorische vlak. Uit de literatuur blijkt dat de meeste ouderen deze proactieve zorg waarderen [8,24]. De bevindingen van deze studie sluiten hierbij aan.…”

Section: Vergelijking Met De Literatuurunclassified

Implementatie van een proactief zorgprogramma voor kwetsbare ouderen in de huisartsenpraktijk: van onderzoek naar praktijk

Bleijenberg

Jonge

Brand

et al. 2016

Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SamenvattingAchtergrond Multimorbiditeit, functionele beperkingen en kwetsbaarheid bij thuiswonende ouderen leiden tot een toenemende zorgcomplexiteit in de eerstelijn. Een proactieve, integrale aanpak is hierbij noodzakelijk. In de periode oktober 2014-oktober 2015 is een evidence-based proactief zorgprogramma voor kwetsbare ouderen geïmplementeerd in de regio Noord-West Veluwe en Zeewolde. In deze studie is de haalbaarheid van de implementatie geëvalueerd. De focus lag op de verbinding en samenwerking tussen het medische en sociale domein. Methoden Met een mixed-methods design zijn verschillende procesindicatoren geanalyseerd. Data waren afkomstig van routine zorggegevens uit de huisartsenpraktijk, vragenlijsten en interviews met ouderen. De vragenlijsten gaven inzicht in verwachtingen en ervaringen ten aanzien van het programma en waren op baseline en na zes maanden follow-up afgenomen bij huisartsen, praktijkondersteuners ouderenzorg (POH's-OZ) en na 12 maanden bij andere professionals uit verschillende domeinen (stakeholders). Interviews met ouderen en hun mantelzorgers brachten de ervaringen in kaart. Regionale werkgroepen waren opgezet waarin verschillende professionals participeerden om de verbinding tussen de domeinen te realiseren. Resultaten Het proactieve zorgprogramma is geïmplementeerd in 42 huisartsenpraktijken die zorg verlenen aan 7904 75-plussers. In totaal vulden 101 zorgverleners en 44 stakeholders de vragenlijst in. Voorafgaand aan de implementatie bleek zowel bij zorgverleners als bij de stakeholders behoefte aan meer structuur, samenwerking en coördinatie in de zorgverlening aan kwetsbare ouderen. De implementatie van het proactieve zorgprogramma verbeterde significant de structuur in de organisatie van zorg en transparantie over verwijsmogelijkheden met respectievelijk 34 % (p ≤ .001) en 27 % (p = .009). Zowel zorgverleners als stakeholders gaven na afloop van de implementatie aan kwetsbare ouderen beter in beeld te hebben dan voor de implementatie (p = .005). Ongeveer de helft van de deelnemers vond na afloop dat de regionale afstemming is verbeterd. Kwetsbare ouderen en hun mantelzorgers waren tevreden met de insteek, opzet en uitvoering van de nieuwe proactieve zorg. De POH's-OZ gaven aan dat de screeningsvragenlijst te lang was en veel tijd kostte. Ook is niet voor alle ouderen die kwetsbaar waren een zorgplan opgesteld. Conclusie De implementatie van het proactieve zorgprogramma bleek haalbaar. Een sterke verbinding en domein overstijgende samenwerking is gerealiseerd. Het programma kon eenvoudig aangepast worden aan de actualiteit en de lokale context. AbstractBackground Multimorbidity, functional impairment and frailty among community-dwelling older people are causing increasing complexity in primary care. A proactive integrated primary care approach is therefore essential. Between October 2014-2015, an evidence-based proactive care program for frail older people was implemented in the region Noord-West Veluwe en Zeewolde, the Netherlands. This study evaluated the feasibility of t...

show abstract

Home visits for frail older people: a qualitative study on the needs and preferences of frail older people and their informal caregivers

Cited by 49 publications

References 19 publications

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT

A coordinated preventive care approach for healthy ageing in five European cities: A mixed methods study of process evaluation components

Implementatie van een proactief zorgprogramma voor kwetsbare ouderen in de huisartsenpraktijk: van onderzoek naar praktijk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About