Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Poor sleep is ubiquitous in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and is associated with a myriad of negative symptoms. Non-pharmacological interventions can improve sleep, yet sustainability has not been demonstrated. The Improving Sleep Using Mentored Behavioral and Environmental Restructuring (SLUMBER) trial will test whether a staff mentoring approach to address resident sleep issues positively impacts sleep quality and whether improved sleep benefits mood, cognitive performance, and activity engagement for residents living in SNFs. INTERVENTION/METHODS:This is a four-year hybrid type I effectiveness/implementation randomized stepped-wedge trial using a comprehensive sleep improvement program conducted in three urban SNFs. METHODS:We will provide SNF staff with sleep promotion strategies over a four-month intervention. Staff will have access to in-person workshops, webinars, weekly sleep pearls via text messaging, environmental data, and expert program mentors. We will consent residents for data collection (at baseline, end of intervention, and three- and six-months post-intervention) including resident observations, questionnaires, and wrist actigraphy (to objectively measure sleep). We will also use selected Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) measures. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:SLUMBER uses a unique strategy to iteratively improve sleep interventions through SNF staff buy-in, expert mentoring, and technological supports within a quality improvement framework. As a stepped-wedge trial, the initial SNF units provide opportunities for program improvement in subsequent units, accounting for variation across resident populations at different sites. Protocol limitations include strategies which may require substantial customization for greater spread. A comprehensive staff training program that addresses both sleep quality and related symptoms has the opportunity for considerable dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:USGOV Clinical Trials ID: NCT03327324.

Fostering diverse, equitable, and inclusive collaborative research networks is important for advancing the field of aging research. Despite sizeable investment in research consortia and career development programs, there has been only moderate progress toward diversifying the research workforce studying aging. Without critically examining what works and what does not, continuing to place more resources into these same strategies may not result in a substantial improvement in diversity or the creation of collaborative networks. Using meta-research to rigorously evaluate potential strategies to promote diversity and collaboration may yield important insights that can be used to improve upon current efforts. For this reason, we sought to describe meta-research and highlight how its principles can be used to achieve the aging research community's collaboration and diversity goals.

BACKGROUND:Homebound older adults are medically complex and often have difficulty accessing outpatient medical care. Home-based primary care (HBPC) may improve care and outcomes for this population but data from randomized trials of HBPC in the United States are limited. METHODS:We conducted a randomized controlled trial of HBPC versus office-based primary care for adults ages ≥65 years who reported ≥1 hospitalization in the prior 12 months and met the Medicare definition of homebound. HBPC was provided by teams consisting of a physician, nurse practitioner, nurse, and social worker. Data were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-months. Outcomes were quality of life, symptoms, satisfaction with care, hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits. Recruitment was terminated early because more deaths were observed for intervention patients. RESULTS:The study enrolled 229 patients, 65.4% of planned recruitment. The mean age was 82 (9.0) years and 72.3% had dementia. Of those assigned to HBPC, 34.2% never received it. Intervention patients had greater satisfaction with care than controls (2.26, 95% CI 1.46-3.06, p < 0.0001; effect size 0.74) and lower hospitalization rates (-17.9%, 95% CI -31.0% to -1.0%; p = 0.001; number needed to treat 6, 95% CI 3-100). There were no significant differences in quality of life (1.25, 95% CI -0.39-2.89, p = 0.13), symptom burden (-1.92, 95% CI -5.22-1.37, p = 0.25) or ED visits (1.2%, 95% CI -10.5%-12.4%; p = 0.87). There were 24 (21.1%) deaths among intervention patients and 12 (10.7%) among controls (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:HBPC was associated with greater satisfaction with care and lower hospitalization rates but also more deaths compared to office-based primary care. Additional research is needed to understand the nature of the higher death rate for HBPC patients, as well as to determine the effects of HBPC on quality of life and symptom burden given the trial's early termination.