Background: There is limited understanding of the contribution made by older people and their caregivers to acute healthcare in the home and how this compares to hospital inpatient healthcare. Objectives: To explore the work of older people and caregivers at the time of an acute health event, the interface with professionals in a hospital and hospital at home (HAH) and how their experiences relate to the principles underpinning comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Design: A qualitative interview study within a UK multi-site participant randomised trial of geriatrician-led admission avoidance HAH, compared with hospital inpatient care. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 older people (15 had received HAH and 19 hospital care) alone or alongside caregivers (29 caregivers; 12 HAH, 17 hospital care), in three sites that recruited participants to a randomised trial, during 2017–2018. We used normalisation process theory to guide our analysis and interpretation of the data. Results: Patients and caregivers described efforts to understand changes in health, interpret assessments and mitigate a lack of involvement in decisions. Practical work included managing risks, mobilising resources to meet health-related needs, and integrating the acute episode into longer-term strategies. Personal, relational and environmental factors facilitated or challenged adaptive capacity and ability to manage. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers contributed to acute healthcare in both locations, often in parallel to healthcare providers. Our findings highlight an opportunity for CGA-guided services at the interface of acute and chronic condition management to facilitate personal, social and service strategies extending beyond an acute episode of healthcare.

Background: Evidence is required to guide the redesign of health care for older people who require hospital admission. Objectives: We assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of geriatrician-led admission avoidance hospital at home with comprehensive geriatric assessment, the experiences of older people and their caregivers, and how the services differed. Design: A multisite, randomised, open trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment hospital at home, compared with admission to hospital, using a 2 : 1 (hospital at home to hospital) ratio, and a parallel economic and process evaluation. Participants were randomised using a secure online system. Setting: Participants were recruited from primary care or acute hospital assessment units from nine sites across the UK. Participants: Older people who required hospital admission because of an acute change in health. Intervention: Geriatrician-led admission avoidance hospital at home with comprehensive geriatric assessment. Main outcome measures: The main outcome, ‘living at home’ (the inverse of death or living in a residential care setting), was measured at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes at 6 months were the incidence of delirium, mortality, new long-term residential care, cognitive impairment, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality-adjusted survival, length of stay and transfer to hospital. Secondary outcomes at 12 months were living at home, new long-term residential care and mortality. Results: Participants were allocated to hospital at home (n = 700) or to hospital (n = 355). All reported relative risks (RRs) were adjusted and are reported for hospital at home compared with hospital. There were no significant differences between the groups in the proportions of patients ‘living at home’ at 6 months [528/672 (78.6%) vs. 247/328 (75.3%), RR 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.15; p = 0.36] or at 12 months [443/670 (66.1%) vs. 219/325 (67.4%), RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.10; p = 0.80]; mortality at 6 months [114/673 (16.9%) vs. 58/328 (17.7%), RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; p = 0.92] or at 12 months [188/670 (28.1%) vs. 82/325 (25.2%), RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.62]; the proportion of patients with cognitive impairment [273/407 (67.1%) vs. 115/183 (62.8%), RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21; p = 0.36]; or in ability to perform the activities of daily living as measured by the Barthel Index (mean difference 0.24, 95% CI –0.33 to 0.80; p = 0.411; hospital at home, n = 521 patients contributed data; hospital, n = 256 patients contributed data) or Comorbidity Index (adjusted mean difference 0.0002, 95% CI –0.15 to 0.15; p = 0.10; hospital at home, n = 474 patients contributed data; hospital, n = 227 patients contributed data) at 6 months. The varying denominator reflects the number of participants who contributed data to the different outcomes. There was a significant reduction in the RR of living in residential care at 6 months [37/646 (5.7%) vs. 27/311 (8.7%), RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; p < 0.001] and 12 months [39/646 (6.0%) vs. 27/311 (8.7%), RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; p < 0.001], a significant reduction in risk of delirium at 1 month [10/602 (1.7%) vs. 13/295 (4.4%), RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.76; p = 0.006] and an increased risk of transfer to hospital at 1 month [173/672 (25.7%) vs. 64/330 (19.4%), RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64; p = 0.012], but not at 6 months [343/631 (54.40%) vs. 171/302 (56.6%), RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; p = 0.40]. Patient satisfaction was in favour of hospital at home. An unexpected adverse event that might have been related to the research was reported to the Research Ethics Committee. At 6 months, there was a mean difference in NHS, personal social care and informal care costs (mean difference –£3017, 95% CI –£5765 to –£269), and no difference in quality-adjusted survival. Older people and caregivers played a crucial role in supporting the delivery of health care. In hospital at home this included monitoring a patient’s health and managing transitional care arrangements. Limitations: The findings are most applicable to patients referred from an acute hospital assessment unit. Conclusions: Comprehensive geriatric assessment hospital at home can provide a cost-effective alternative to hospitalisation for selected older people. Further research that includes a stronger element of carer support might generate evidence to improve health outcomes. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60477865. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Supported self‐management (SSM) is a recognized approach for people with long‐term conditions but, despite the prevalence of unmet needs, little is known about its role for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).Objectives: To codesign an SSM intervention with people with TBI and evaluate feasibility of implementation through multidisciplinary staff across a trauma pathway.Setting and participants: People who had previously been admitted to a Major Trauma Centre following TBI and family members participated in a series of codesign activities. Staff attended SSM workshops and used the intervention with patients in acute and rehabilitation settings.Methods: We used Normalization Process Theory constructs to guide and interpret implementation. Knowledge, beliefs and confidence of staff in SSM were assessed through pre‐ and post‐training questionnaires, and staff, patients' and families' experiences were explored through semi‐structured interviews. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, and clinical measures were mapped against a matched sample.Results: Codesigned resources were created and used within an SSM approach for which 110 staff participated in training. Evaluation demonstrated significant differences in staff SSM confidence and skills, following training. Qualitative evaluation revealed adoption by staff, and patients' and families' experiences of using the resources. Challenges included reaching staff across complex pathways to achieve collective implementation.Conclusion: This is the first project to demonstrate feasibility of SSM for people after TBI starting in an acute trauma setting. Through an open approach to codesign with a marginalized group, the SSM resources were valued by them and held meaning and relevance for staff.

Background: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary process that determines a frail older person’s medical, functional, psychological and social capability to ensure that they have a co-ordinated plan for treatment and follow-up.Objectives: To improve our understanding of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the CGA across hospital and hospital-at-home settings.Methods: We used a variety of methods. We updated a Cochrane review of randomised trials of the CGA in hospital for older people aged ≥ 65 years, conducted a national survey of community CGA, analysed data from three health boards using propensity score matching (PSM) and regression analysis, conducted a qualitative study and used a modified Delphi method.Results: We included 29 trials recruiting 13,766 participants in the Cochrane review of the CGA. Older people admitted to hospital who receive the CGA are more likely to be living at home at 3–12 months’ follow-up [relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.10] (high certainty). The probability that the CGA would be cost-effective at a £20,000 ceiling ratio for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs) and LYs living at home was 0.50, 0.89, and 0.47, respectively (low-certainty evidence). After PSM and regression analysis comparing CGA hospital with CGA hospital at home, we found that the health-care cost (from admission to 6 months after discharge) in site 1 was lower in hospital at home (ratio of means 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.89), in site 2 there was little difference (ratio of means 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09) and in site 3 it was higher (ratio of means 1.15, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.33). Six months after discharge (excluding the index admission), the ratio of means cost in site 1 was 1.27 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.41), in site 2 was 1.09 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.24) and in site 3 was 1.70 (95% CI 1.40 to 2.07). At 6 months’ follow-up (excluding the index admission), there may be an increased risk of mortality (adjusted) in the three hospital-at-home cohorts (site 1: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; site 2: RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; site 3: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.54). The qualitative research indicates the importance of relational aspects of health care, incorporating caregivers’ knowledge in care planning, and a lack of clarity about the end of an episode of health care. Core components that should be included in CGA focus on functional, physical and mental well-being, medication review and a caregiver’s ability to care.Limitations: The risk of residual confounding limits the certainty of the findings from the PSM analysis; a second major limitation is that the research plan did not include an investigation of social care or primary care.Conclusions: The CGA is an effective way to organise health care for older people in hospital and may lead to a small increase in costs. There may be an increase in cost and the risk of mortality in the population who received the CGA hospital at home compared with those who received the CGA in hospital; randomised evidence is required to confirm or refute this. Caregiver involvement in the CGA process could be strengthened.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Self-management support following stroke is rare, despite emerging evidence for impact on patient outcomes. The promotion of a common approach to self-management support across a stroke pathway requires collaboration between professionals. To date, the feasibility of self-management support in acute stroke settings has not been evaluated. The Bridges stroke self-management package (SMP) is based on self-efficacy principles. It is delivered by professionals and supported by a patient-held workbook. The aim of this project was to introduce the Bridges stroke SMP to the multidisciplinary staff of a London hyperacute and acute stroke unit. The ‘Plan Do Study Act’ (PDSA) cycle guided iterative stages of project development, with normalisation process theory helping to embed the intervention into existing ways of working. Questionnaires explored attitudes, beliefs and experiences of the staff who were integrating self-management support into ways of working in the acute stroke setting. Self-management support training was delivered to a total of 46 multidisciplinary stroke staff. Of the staff who attended the follow-up training, 66% had implemented Bridges self-management support with patients since initial training, and 100% felt their practice had changed. Questionnaire findings demonstrated that staff attitudes and beliefs had changed following training, particularly regarding ownership and type of rehabilitation goals set, and prioritisation of self-management support within acute stroke care. Staff initiated an audit of washing and dressing practices pre- and post-training. This was designed to evaluate the number of occasions when techniques were used by staff to facilitate patients’ independence and self-management. They found that the number of occasions featuring optimum practice went from 54% at baseline to 63% at three months post-training. This project demonstrated the feasibility of integrating self-management support into an acute stroke setting. Further work is required to evaluate sustainability of the Bridges stroke SMP, to understand the barriers and opportunities involved in engaging all professional groups in integrated self-management support in acute stroke settings, and to assess patient reported outcomes.

Background: There has been a proliferation of frameworks with a common goal of bridging the gap between evidence, policy, and practice, but few aim to specifically guide evaluations of academic-policy engagement. We present the modification of an action framework for the purpose of selecting, developing and evaluating interventions for academic-policy engagement. Methods: We build on the conceptual work of an existing framework known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial), developed for the evaluation of strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy. Our aim was to modify SPIRIT, (i) to be applicable beyond health policy contexts, for example encompassing social, environmental, and economic policy impacts and (ii) to address broader dynamics of academic-policy engagement. We used an iterative approach through literature reviews and consultation with multiple stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and policy professionals working at different levels of government and across geographical contexts in England, alongside our evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme. Results: Our modifications expand upon Redman et al.’s original framework, for example adding a domain of ‘Impacts and Sustainability’ to capture continued activities required in the achievement of desirable outcomes. The modified framework fulfils the criteria for a useful action framework, having a clear purpose, being informed by existing understandings, being capable of guiding targeted interventions, and providing a structure to build further knowledge. Conclusion: The modified SPIRIT framework is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, to ultimately support the use of evidence in decision-making.