Frailty
Conditions
Keywords
primary care, rural, intervention
Brief summary
Primary Care General Practitioners (GPs) are always looking at ways to improve the care of older people and ways to prevent older people from losing their independence. Pro-active provision of support often involves lifestyle advice and is a potentially important aspect of that, as it supports older people before acute care is needed. It's preventative caring, rather than reactive caring. But, implementing pro-active care is hampered by the high current workload of acute care, the uncertainty of 'what works' and whether patients are responsive to pro-active care plans. This project will explore different ways of providing pro-active support to older people who could be at risk of losing their independence and requiring frequent acute care. The benefits of pro-active care are arguably the greatest in these individuals.
Detailed description
This is randomised control trial design with a cluster randomisation, whereby each cluster (a GP surgery) will have a different intervention. As it's a feasibility study, there will only be one cluster per intervention. Participants will be recruited from 4 local primary care surgeries, and if participants take part, they will have 4 visits, and will be randomly allocation of an intervention arm, or a control arm receiving usual care. At the start, the participant would have 2 visits of a maximum of 2 hours to the participant's local GP surgery to undergo a variety of tasks and assessments about the participant's well-being, health and physical functioning. That could lead to an 'action plan' that is implemented. The participant will have the 3rd visit after 3 months, and a final (fourth) visit after 12 months. During the 3rd and 4th visit the participant will repeat various tasks and assessments done in visit 1 and 2. The project comprises different activities in the different GP surgeries. The project compares different approaches that each surgery takes. Generally, each surgery will assess relevant aspects that are associated with 'getting older' and provide support in the coming months. The specific approaches are based on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, the World Health Organisation's recommendation and resources for the Integrated Care of Older People (ICOPE) model, the recommendations from the International Conference of Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) and the Functional Fitness test battery. All of these approaches would lead to an 'personal care plan' developed by the medical student, with actions that are specific to the participant's circumstances.
Interventions
OTHERFrailty care pathway for older people in a rural primary care setting
This intervention will take place in different primary care providers in a rural environment. Each provider will have one intervention and a no-intervention group, which will be part of the feasibility evaluation. The intervention will comprise a consultation with the participant, based on the different approaches described in the arm descriptions.
Sponsors
Aberystwyth University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
There will be different people assigned to the delivery and the intervention. The effectiveness of this will be established as part of the feasibility evaluation.
Intervention model description
A feasibility trial employing a cluster randomized control trial design.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
60 Years to 105 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
The study focuses on community-dwelling frail older people (≥ 60 years). Each GP surgery will complete the electronic Frailty Index (eFI) to stratify older people based on their level of frailty (non-frail, mildly frail, and frail). Participants will be stratified into four strata, * participants without complex care needs and with a relatively low frailty level (non-frail); * participants with some chronic conditions that could put them at risk in the future (mild frailty) * frail participants at risk of complex care needs (frailty) * participants with complex care needs (severe frailty). Inclusion Criteria: * adults aged 60 years or older * mild frailty or frailty based on the eFI, * without severe cognitive impairment diagnoses, * not currently taking part in other research or in the previous 6 months, * willing to provide informed consent
Exclusion criteria
1. are terminally ill 2. have severe cognitive or psychological impairments, 3. have experienced a severe, disabling stroke within the previous 6 months 4. are unable to communicate in English. 5. are currently taking part in other research project, or was part of research in the previous 6 months. 6. have experienced a heart attack, or unstable angina within the previous 3 months. 7. already receive advice that includes exercise and diet by health professionals and were referred at discharge for condition-specific rehabilitation (e.g. pulmonary rehabilitation, stroke rehabilitation) within the previous 6 months
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Recruitment rate (feasibility determination) | 6 months | The recruitment rate reflects the recruitment method and number of eligible patients and general interest to take part. |
| Drop out rate (feasibility determination) | 12 months | The drop out rate reflects the number of participants lost to follow up, response rates and adherence/compliance to the intervention. |
| Frequency of health care use | 12 months | The number of hospital admissions and GP visits in the preceding 12 months |
| electronic Frailty Index | 12 months | This score reflects the number of accumulated deficits |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Physical Activity Level | 12 months | Quantified by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) |
| Usual Walking Speed | 12 months | The average speed of walking at a usual pace over a short distance of several meters |
| Grip Strength | 12 months | Maximal strength assessed using a hand held dynamometer |
Countries
United Kingdom
Outcome results
None listed