Innovation to enhance health in care homes and evaluation of tools for measuring outcomes of care: rapid evidence synthesis
Authors: Hanratty Barbara , Craig Dawn , Brittain Katie , Spilsbury Karen , Vines John , Wilson Paul 
Published: July 2019

BackgroundFlexible, integrated models of service delivery are being developed to meet the changing demands of an ageing population. To underpin the spread of innovative models of care across the NHS, summaries of the current research evidence are needed. This report focuses exclusively on care homes and reviews work in four specific areas, identified as key enablers for the NHS England vanguard programme.AimTo conduct a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhancing health in care homes across four key areas: technology, communication and engagement, workforce and evaluation.Objectives(1) To map the published literature on the uses, benefits and challenges of technology in care homes; flexible and innovative uses of the nursing and support workforce to benefit resident care; communication and engagement between care homes, communities and health-related organisations; and approaches to the evaluation of new models of care in care homes. (2) To conduct rapid, systematic syntheses of evidence to answer the following questions. Which technologies have a positive impact on resident health and well-being? How should care homes and the NHS communicate to enhance resident, family and staff outcomes and experiences? Which measurement tools have been validated for use in UK care homes? What is the evidence that staffing levels (i.e. ratio of registered nurses and support staff to residents or different levels of support staff) influence resident outcomes?Data sourcesSearches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and Index to Theses. Grey literature was sought via Google™ (Mountain View, CA, USA) and websites relevant to each individual search.DesignMapping review and rapid, systematic evidence syntheses.SettingCare homes with and without nursing in high-income countries.Review methodsPublished literature was mapped to a bespoke framework, and four linked rapid critical reviews of the available evidence were undertaken using systematic methods. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis, and are presented in narrative syntheses.ResultsSeven hundred and sixty-one studies were mapped across the four topic areas, and 65 studies were included in systematic rapid reviews. This work identified a paucity of large, high-quality research studies, particularly from the UK. The key findings include the following. (1) Technology: some of the most promising interventions appear to be games that promote physical activity and enhance mental health and well-being. (2) Communication and engagement: structured communication tools have been shown to enhance communication with health services and resident outcomes in US studies. No robust evidence was identified on care home engagement with communities. (3) Evaluation: 6 of the 65 measurement tools identified had been validated for use in UK care homes, two of which provide general assessments of care. The methodological quality of all six tools was assessed as poor. (4) Workforce: joint working within and beyond the care home and initiatives that focus on staff taking on new but specific care tasks appear to be associated with enhanced outcomes. Evidence for staff taking on traditional nursing tasks without qualification is limited, but promising.LimitationsThis review was restricted to English-language publications after the year 2000. The rapid methodology has facilitated a broad review in a short time period, but the possibility of omissions and errors cannot be excluded.ConclusionsThis review provides limited evidential support for some of the innovations in the NHS vanguard programme, and identifies key issues and gaps for future research and evaluation.Future workFuture work should provide high-quality evidence, in particular experimental studies, economic evaluations and research sensitive to the UK context.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052933, CRD42016052933, CRD42016052937 and CRD42016052938.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.