Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Healthcare outcome goals are central to person-centred acute care, however evidence among older people is scarce. Older people who are living with frailty have distinct requirements for healthcare delivery and have distinct risk for adverse outcomes from healthcare. There is insufficient evidence for whether those living with frailty also have distinct healthcare outcome goals. This study explored the nature of acute care outcome goals in people living with frailty. Methods Healthcare outcome goals were explored using semi-structured patient interviews. Participants aged over 65 with Clinical Frailty Score 5-8 (mild to very severe frailty) were recruited during their first 72 hours in a UK hospital. Purposive, maximum variation sampling was guided by lay partners from a Patient and Public Involvement Forum specialising in ageing-related research. Qualitative analysis used a blended approach based on framework and constant comparative methodologies for the identification of themes. Findings were validated through triangulation with participant, lay partner, and technical expert review. Results The 22 participants were aged 71 to 98 and had mild to very severe frailty. One quarter were living with dementia. Most participants had reflected on their situation and considered their outcome goals. Theme categories (and corresponding sub-categories) were ‘Autonomy’ (information, control, and security) and ‘Functioning’ (physical, psychosocial, and relief). A novel ‘security’ theme was identified, whereby participants sought to feel safe in their usual living place and with their health problems. Those living with milder frailty were concerned to maintain ability to support loved ones, while those living with most severe frailty were concerned about burdening others. Conclusions Outcome goals for acute care among older participants living with frailty were influenced by the insecurity of their situation and fear of deterioration. Patients may be supported to feel safe and in control through appropriate information provision and functional support.

Introduction The current service metrics used to evaluate quality in emergency care do not account for specific healthcare outcome goals for older people living with frailty. These have previously been classified under themes of ‘Autonomy’ and ‘Functioning’. There is no person-reported outcome measure (PROM) for older people with frailty and emergency care needs. This study aimed to identify and co-produce recommendations for instruments potentially suitable for use in this population. Methods In this systematic review, we searched six databases for PROMs used between 2010 and 2021 by older people living with frailty receiving acute hospital care. Studies were reviewed against predefined eligibility criteria and appraised for quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Data were extracted to map instrument constructs against an existing framework of acute healthcare outcome goals. Instrument face and content validity were assessed by lay collaborators. Recommendations for instruments with potential emergency care suitability were formed through co-production. Results Of 9392 unique citations screened, we appraised the full texts of 158 studies. Nine studies were identified, evaluating nine PROMs. Quality of included studies ranged from ‘doubtful’ to ‘very good’. Most instruments had strong evidence for measurement properties. PROMs mainly assessed ‘Functioning’ constructs, with limited coverage of ‘Autonomy’. Five instruments were considered too burdensome for the emergency care setting or too specific for older people living with frailty. Conclusions Four PROMs were recommended as potentially suitable for further validation with older people with frailty and emergency care needs: COOP/WONCA charts, EuroQol, McGill Quality of Life (Expanded), and Palliative care Outcome Scale.

Background Current acute healthcare service metrics are not meaningful for older people living with frailty. Healthcare knowledge, situational security, and physical and psychosocial function are important outcomes typically not collected. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could support these assessments. Existing instruments are not comprehensive as they typically consider function, while older people with frailty also value enablement (self-determination and security in health and healthcare). This study field-tested and validated a PROM for older people with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC) to measure enablement. Methods People aged 65+ with Clinical Frailty Scale 5–8 were recruited within seventy-two hours of an emergency attendance. Iterations of the novel instrument were administered over three stages: (1) preliminary field-testing for reliability (response distribution and internal consistency) and structure (exploratory factor analysis, EFA); (2) intermediate field-testing of an improved instrument for reliability and structure; (3) final draft validation assessing reliability, structure (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA), and construct validity based on a priori hypotheses. Feasibility was appraised throughout using data completeness and response rates and times. Results 241 people participated. Three items of a preliminary seven-item measure had poor response distribution or loading and were accordingly improved. The intermediate instrument had interpretability issues and three items required further improvement. The final eight-item draft had acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.71), structure (two factors for self-determination and security; RMSEA: 0.065; TLI: 0.917; CFI: 0.944), and construct validity (lower scores from respondents waiting longer and requiring admission). Feasibility was promising (response rate 39%; 98% responses complete; median completion time 11 (IQR: 12) minutes). Conclusions Administration of the PROM-OPAC appeared feasible and the instrument had acceptable psychometric properties. Further evaluation is required to assess generalisability.

Older people living with frailty emphasize autonomy and function as acute healthcare outcome goals. Existing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) measure function but do not comprehensively address autonomy. This initial development of a novel autonomy outcome measure used co-creation and cognitive interviews, working toward a PROM for Older People living with frailty receiving Acute Care (“PROM-OPAC”). Novel item question stems and responses considering autonomy were devised with lay research partners. Items were examined for content by lay volunteers, and then selected based on relevance, completeness, and accessibility. Retained items were cognitively tested with patient participants. Item selection considered content validity and feasibility and was undertaken collaboratively with lay research partners. The study involved 3 lay research partners and 4 further lay collaborators throughout all stages, and 14 patient participants were recruited for the cognitive interviews. Twenty-two novel items were appraised. Seven were selected for retention. This preliminary PROM-OPAC comprised 7 items to measure autonomy and was intended for administration alongside a function measure to capture meaningful acute healthcare outcomes. Development will continue with quantitative testing and validation.

BackgroundLittle is known about how frailty impacts on older people’s experiences of emergency care, despite patient experience being essential to providing person-centred care. This qualitative study reports on the experiences of older people with frailty in the ED and their and their carers’ preferences for emergency care.MethodsOlder people (aged 75+ years) who were at least mildly frail and/or their carers, with current or recent experience of emergency care, were recruited from three EDs in England between January and June 2019. Data were collected via semi-structured in-depth interviews which explored participants’ views on their recent experience of emergency care and their priorities and preferred outcomes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed following the principles of the Framework approach.ResultsForty participants were interviewed: 24 patients and 16 carers who, between them, described ED attendances for 28 patients across the three sites. Often informed by previous negative experiences, there was a strong desire to avoid conveyance to EDs, and a sense of helplessness or acquiescence to attend. Although staff attitudes were on the whole seen as positive, the ED experience was dominated by negative experiences relating to very basic issues such as a lack of help with eating, drinking, toileting and discomfort from long waits on hard trolleys. Participants reported that communication and involvement in decision making could be improved, including involving next of kin, who were viewed as critical to supporting vulnerable older people during sometimes very protracted waits.ConclusionFrailty reflects a vulnerability and a need for support in basic activities of daily living, which EDs in this study, and perhaps more widely, are not set up to provide. Changes at the levels of clinical practice and service design are required to deliver even the most basic care for older people with frailty in the ED environment.

ObjectiveExisting exercise-based rehabilitation services, such as cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation, are traditionally commissioned around single long-term conditions (LTCs) and therefore may not meet the complex needs of adults with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) or multimorbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed personalised exercise-rehabilitation programme for people with multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) and the trial methods.DesignA parallel two-group mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation.SettingThree UK sites (two acute hospital settings, one community-based healthcare setting).Participants60 adults with MLTCs (defined as the presence of ≥2 LTCs) with at least one known to benefit from exercise therapy were randomised 2:1 to PERFORM intervention plus usual care (PERFORM group) or usual care alone (control group).InterventionThe intervention consisted of 8 weeks of supervised group-based exercise rehabilitation and structured self-care symptom-based support.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary feasibility outcomes included: trial recruitment (percentage of a target of 60 participants recruited within 4.5 months), retention (percentage of participants with complete EuroQol data at 3 months) and intervention adherence (percentage of intervention group attending ≥60% sessions). Other feasibility measures included completion of outcome measures at baseline (pre-randomisation), 3 months post-randomisation (including patient-reported outcomes, exercise capacity and collection of health and social care resource use) and intervention fidelity.ResultsTarget recruitment (40 PERFORM group, 20 control group) was met within the timeframe. Participants were 57% women with a mean (SD) age of 62 (13) years, body mass index of 30.8 (8.0) kg/m2 and a median of 4 LTCs (most common: diabetes (41.7%), hypertension (38.3%), asthma (36.7%) and a painful condition (35.0%)). We achieved EuroQol outcome retention of 76.7% (95% CI: 65.9% to 87.1%; 46/60 participants) and intervention adherence of 72.5% (95% CI: 56.3% to 84.4%; 29/40 participants). Data completion for attendees was over 90% for 11/18 outcome measures.ConclusionsOur findings support the feasibility and rationale for delivering the PERFORM comprehensive self-management and exercise-based rehabilitation intervention for people living with MLTCs and progression to a full multicentre RCT to formally assess clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN68786622.