• Evaluating the systematic implementation of the 'Let Me Decide' advance care planning programme in long term care through focus groups: staff perspectives.

      Cornally, Nicola; McGlade, Ciara; Weathers, Elizabeth; Daly, Edel; Fitzgerald, Carol; O'Caoimh, Rónán; Coffey, Alice; Molloy, D William (BMC Palliative Care, 2015-11)
      The 'Let Me Decide' Advance Care Planning (LMD-ACP) programme offers a structured approach to End-of-Life (EoL) care planning in long-term care for residents with and without capacity to complete an advance care directive/plan. The programme was implemented in three homes in the South of Ireland, with a view to improving quality of care at end of life. This paper will present an evaluation of the systematic implementation of the LMD-ACP programme in the homes.
    • Risk prediction in the community: A systematic review of case-finding instruments that predict adverse healthcare outcomes in community-dwelling older adults.

      O'Caoimh, Rónán; Cornally, Nicola; Weathers, Elizabeth; O'Sullivan, Ronan; Fitzgerald, Carol; Orfila, Francesc; Clarnette, Roger; Paúl, Constança; Molloy, D William (Maturitas, 2015-09)
      Few case-finding instruments are available to community healthcare professionals. This review aims to identify short, valid instruments that detect older community-dwellers risk of four adverse outcomes: hospitalisation, functional-decline, institutionalisation and death. Data sources included PubMed and the Cochrane library. Data on outcome measures, patient and instrument characteristics, and trial quality (using the Quality In Prognosis Studies [QUIPS] tool), were double-extracted for derivation-validation studies in community-dwelling older adults (>50 years). Forty-six publications, representing 23 unique instruments, were included. Only five were externally validated. Mean patient age range was 64.2-84.6 years. Most instruments n=18, (78%) were derived in North America from secondary analysis of survey data. The majority n=12, (52%), measured more than one outcome with hospitalisation and the Probability of Repeated Admission score the most studied outcome and instrument respectively. All instruments incorporated multiple predictors. Activities of daily living n=16, (70%), was included most often. Accuracy varied according to instruments and outcomes; area under the curve of 0.60-0.73 for hospitalisation, 0.63-0.78 for functional decline, 0.70-0.74 for institutionalisation and 0.56-0.82 for death. The QUIPS tool showed that 5/23 instruments had low potential for bias across all domains. This review highlights the present need to develop short, reliable, valid instruments to case-find older adults at risk in the community.
    • Which part of a short, global risk assessment, the Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community, predicts adverse healthcare outcomes?

      O’Caoimh, Rónán; FitzGerald, Carol; Cronin, Una; Svendrovski, Anton; Gao, Yang; Healy, Elizabeth; O’Connell, Elizabeth; O’Keeffe, Gabrielle; O’Herlihy, Eileen; Weathers, Elizabeth; et al. (Journal of Aging Research, 2015)
      The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is a short, global risk assessment to identify community-dwelling older adults’ one-year risk of institutionalisation, hospitalisation, and death. We investigated the contribution that the three components of the RISC ( concern , its severity , and the ability of the caregiver network to manage concern) make to the accuracy of the instrument, across its three domains (mental state, activities of daily living (ADL), and medical state), by comparing their accuracy to other assessment instruments in the prospective Community Assessment of Risk and Treatment Strategies study. RISC scores were available for 782 patients. Across all three domains each subtest more accurately predicted institutionalisation compared to hospitalisation or death. The caregiver network’s ability to manage ADL more accurately predicted institutionalisation (AUC 0.68) compared to hospitalisation (AUC 0.57, P = 0.01 ) or death (AUC 0.59, P = 0.046 ), comparing favourably with the Barthel Index (AUC 0.67). The severity of ADL (AUC 0.63), medical state (AUC 0.62), Clinical Frailty Scale (AUC 0.67), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC 0.66) scores had similar accuracy in predicting mortality. Risk of hospitalisation was difficult to predict. Thus, each component, and particularly the caregiver network , had reasonable accuracy in predicting institutionalisation. No subtest or assessment instrument accurately predicted risk of hospitalisation.