Objectives Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) may be a way to deliver optimal care for care home residents. We used realist review to develop a theory-driven account of how CGA works in care homes. Design Realist review. Setting Care homes. Methods The review had three stages: first, interviews with expert stakeholders and scoping of the literature to develop programme theories for CGA; second, iterative searches with structured retrieval and extraction of the literature; third, synthesis to refine the programme theory of how CGA works in care homes. We used the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychInfo, PubMed, Google Scholar, Greylit, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute. Results 130 articles informed a programme theory which suggested CGA had three main components: structured comprehensive assessment, developing a care plan and working towards patient-centred goals. Each of these required engagement of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Most evidence was available around assessment, with tension between structured assessment led by a single professional and less structured assessment involving multiple members of an MDT. Care planning needed to accommodate visiting clinicians and there was evidence that a core MDT often used care planning as a mechanism to seek external specialist support. Goal-setting processes were not always sufficiently patient-centred and did not always accommodate the views of care home staff. Studies reported improved outcomes from CGA affecting resident satisfaction, prescribing, healthcare resource use and objective measures of quality of care. Conclusion The programme theory described here provides a framework for understanding how CGA could be effective in care homes. It will be of use to teams developing, implementing or auditing CGA in care homes. All three components are required to make CGA work—this may explain why attempts to implement CGA by interventions focused solely on assessment or care planning have failed in some long-term care settings. Trial registration number CRD42017062601.

Background: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together multidisciplinary teams in a structured process to improve care quality. How QICs can be used to support healthcare improvement in care homes is not fully understood. Methods: A realist evaluation to develop and test a programme theory of how QICs work to improve healthcare in care homes. A multiple case study design considered implementation across 4 sites and 29 care homes. Observations, interviews and focus groups captured contexts and mechanisms operating within QICs. Data analysis classified emerging themes using context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how NHS and care home staff work together to design and implement improvement. Results: QICs will be able to implement and iterate improvements in care homes where they have a broad and easily understandable remit; recruit staff with established partnership working between the NHS and care homes; use strategies to build relationships and minimise hierarchy; protect and pay for staff time; enable staff to implement improvements aligned with existing work; help members develop plans in manageable chunks through QI coaching; encourage QIC members to recruit multidisciplinary support through existing networks; facilitate meetings in care homes and use shared learning events to build multidisciplinary interventions stepwise. Teams did not use measurement for change, citing difficulties integrating this into pre-existing and QI-related workload. Conclusions: These findings outline what needs to be in place for health and social care staff to work together to effect change. Further research needs to consider ways to work alongside staff to incorporate measurement for change into QI.

Objectives: To describe and explain the outcomes of community dementia friendly initiatives (DFIs) for people with dementia and their caregivers to inform the development and tailoring of DFIs.Methods: Literature searches on DFIs were performed through two systematic online database searches of PubMed, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL and Google scholar. Papers were only included if they evaluated outcomes using empirical data from people with dementia or caregivers. Data collection and analysis were guided by the categorization in the DEM‐FACT taxonomy and RAMESES guidelines for realist reviews.Results: Of 7154 records identified, 22 papers were included with qualitative, mixed method and quantitative study designs. The synthesis led to a description of programme theories addressing caring, stimulating and activating communities. Outcomes for people with dementia and caregivers included having contact with others, enjoyment and decrease of stress and, lastly, support. This synthesis also indicated how people with dementia participated in a specific role in DFIs, such as patient, team member or active citizen.Conclusions: DFIs generate different outcomes for people with dementia and caregivers, depending on the kind of initiative and the specific role for people with dementia. These findings could be a catalyst for initiation and further development of DFIs in a dementia friendly community (DFC). This draws attention to the multiple aspects of DFCs and supports reflection on their essential principles.

The Breakthrough Series Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) initiative is a well-developed and widely used approach, but most of what we know about it has come from healthcare settings. In this article, those leading QICs to improve care in care homes provide detailed accounts of six QICs and share their learning of applying the QIC approach in the care home sector. Overall, five care home-specific lessons were learnt: (i) plan for the resources needed to support collaborative teams with collecting, processing, and interpreting data; (ii) create encouraging and safe working environments to help collaborative team members feel valued; (iii) recruit collaborative teams, QIC leads, and facilitators who have established relationships with care homes; (iv) regularly check project ideas are aligned with team members’ job roles, responsibilities, and priorities; and (v) work flexibly and accept that planned activities may need adapting as the project progresses. These insights are targeted at teams delivering QICs in care homes. These insights demonstrate the need to consider the care home context when applying improvement tools and techniques in this setting.

Purpose: We conducted a scoping review of quality improvement in care homes. We aimed to identify participating occupational groups and methods for evaluation. Secondly, we aimed to describe resident-level interventions and which outcomes were measured. Methods: Following extended PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews, we conducted systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and ASSIA (2000–2019). Furthermore, we searched systematic reviews databases including Cochrane Library and JBI, and the grey literature database, Greylit. Four co-authors contributed to selection and data extraction. Results: Sixty five studies were included, 6 of which had multiple publications (75 articles overall). A range of quality improvement strategies were implemented, including audit feedback and quality improvement collaboratives. Methods consisted of controlled trials, quantitative time series and qualitative interview and observational studies. Process evaluations, involving staff of various occupational groups, described experiences and implementation measures. Many studies measured resident-level outputs and health outcomes. 14 studies reported improvements to a clinical measure; however, four of these articles were of low quality. Larger randomised controlled studies did not show statistically significant benefits to resident health outcomes. Conclusion: In care homes, quality improvement has been applied with several different strategies, being evaluated by a variety of measures. In terms of measuring benefits to residents, process outputs and health outcomes have been reported. There was no pattern of which quality improvement strategy was used for which clinical problem. Further development of reporting of quality improvement projects and outcomes could facilitate implementation.