Evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in care home residents (the Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) study): Protocol for a pilot cluster randomised trial

10Citations
Citations of this article
189Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction Acute hospital admission is distressing for care home residents. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions, such as respiratory and urinary tract infections, are conditions that can cause unplanned hospital admission but may have been avoidable with timely detection and intervention in the community. The Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) programme has feasibility tested and will pilot a multicomponent intervention to reduce these avoidable hospital admissions. The BHiRCH intervention comprises an early warning tool for noting changes in resident health, a care pathway (clinical guidance and decision support system) and a structured method for communicating with primary care, adapted for use in the care home. We use practice development champions to support implementation and embed changes in care. Methods and analysis Cluster randomised pilot trial to test study procedures and indicate whether a further definitive trial is warranted. Fourteen care homes with nursing (nursing homes) will be randomly allocated to intervention (delivered at nursing home level) or control groups. Two nurses from each home become Practice Development Champions trained to implement the intervention, supported by a practice development support group. Data will be collected for 3 months preintervention, monthly during the 12-month intervention and 1 month after. Individual-level data includes resident, care partner and staff demographics, resident functional status, service use and quality of life (for health economic analysis) and the extent to which staff perceive the organisation supports person centred care. System-level data includes primary and secondary health services contacts (ie, general practitioner and hospital admissions). Process evaluation assesses intervention acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, ease of implementation in practice and study procedures (ie, consent and recruitment rates). Ethics and dissemination Approved by Research Ethics Committee and the UK Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated via academic and policy conferences, peer-reviewed publications and social media (eg, Twitter). Trial registration number ISRCTN74109734; Pre-results.

References Powered by Scopus

Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: Theoretical and practical challenges

823Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice

440Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ambulatory care sensitive conditions: terminology and disease coding need to be more specific to aid policy makers and clinicians

309Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice - A citation analysis of the literature

80Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A group intervention to improve quality of life for people with advanced dementia living in care homes: The namaste feasibility cluster RCT

31Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Pilot cluster randomised trial of an evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in nursing home residents (Better Health in Residents of Care Homes with Nursing - BHiRCH-NH Study)

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sampson, E. L., Feast, A., Blighe, A., Froggatt, K., Hunter, R., Marston, L., … Downs, M. (2019). Evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in care home residents (the Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) study): Protocol for a pilot cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026510

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 56

64%

Researcher 18

20%

Lecturer / Post doc 8

9%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 36

43%

Nursing and Health Professions 29

35%

Social Sciences 12

14%

Psychology 6

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free