ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Does proactive care in care homes improve survival? A quality improvement project.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNHS England's 'Enhanced Health in Care Homes' specification aims to make the healthcare of care home residents more proactive. Primary care networks (PCNs) are contracted to provide this, but approaches vary widely: challenges include frailty identification, multidisciplinary team (MDT) capability/capacity and how the process is structured and delivered.
aimTo determine whether a proactive healthcare model could improve healthcare outcomes for care home residents. DESIGN AND
settingQuality improvement project involving 429 residents in 40 care homes in a non-randomised crossover cohort design. The headline outcome was 2-year survival.
methodAll care home residents had healthcare coordinated by the PCN's Older Peoples' Hub. A daily MDT managed the urgent healthcare needs of residents. Proactive healthcare, comprising information technology-assisted comprehensive geriatric assessment (i-CGA) and advanced care planning (ACP), were completed by residents, with prioritisation based on clinical needs.Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was used with patients divided into two groups:Control group: received routine and urgent (reactive) care only.Intervention group: additional proactive i-CGA and ACP.
resultsBy 2 years, control group survival was 8.6% (n=108), compared with 48.1% in the intervention group (n=321), p<0.001. This represented a 39.6% absolute risk reduction in mortality, 70.2% relative risk reduction and the number needed to treat of 2.5, with little changes when adjusting for confounding variables.
conclusionA PCN with an MDT-hub offering additional proactive care (with an i-CGA and ACP) in addition to routine and urgent/reactive care may improve the 2-year survival in older people compared with urgent/reactive care alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.