English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Hammersmith and Fulham Community Independence Service (CIS), runs a “virtual ward” to allow people to remain independent in their own homes where possible. Place-of-care decisions made for community-dwelling older people who lack capacity are formulated in a best-interest meeting (BIM), involving health and social care professionals, family and carers. Often BIMs centre around beliefs and wishes of the patient or family but fail to objectively evaluate risks and mitigants of staying at home versus placement. We observed that BIMs were not being held on a consistent basis, and when held lacked the necessary structure for an effective decision-making forum. Even experienced professionals find it difficult to chair BIMs because of the complexity of the decision-making process. Not all involved parties may be represented. We found BIMs more likely to be held, attended and effective when structured to identify the major relevant considerations. Method The CIS “virtual ward” team developed a BIM decision toolkit, comprising: a check-list of risks and mitigants for home versus care home; a list of required attendees; who should document and chair the meeting; and who should action the interventions raised. From 6th January to 25th October 2019, BIMs were held for 48 patients on the CIS “virtual ward”. Results 234 interventions were carried out following toolkit-led BIMs. 1 month after BIM, 34 of 44 patients’ wishes (77%) were honoured (3 not recorded, 1 died). 3 months after BIM, 23 of 31 patients’ wishes (74%) were honoured (15 not recorded, 2 died). Case studies are included in the presentation. Conclusion We developed a toolkit to support decision-making for older community dwellers who lack capacity regarding their place of care. The toolkit assures standardisation and structure to minimise bias, whilst recognising personal beliefs and preferences. It enables any member of the multidisciplinary team to hold and lead a BIM, to reliably identify appropriate interventions and care plans which may not otherwise have been implemented or recognised. The majority of the patients reviewed using the BIM toolkit remained in their preferred place of care well after the team’s interventions. Further evaluation is required to compare CIS BIM toolkit-based outcomes against other community services which do not use this toolkit, and appraise the toolkit in a hospital setting.

age and ageing

55 The Case for A Best-Interest Meeting Decision Toolkit to Guide Preferred Place of Care and Interventions For Community Dwelling Older People Who Lack Mental Capacity