Implementation and acceptability of high efficiency particulate air filters to reduce respiratory infections in care homes: Process evaluation of the AFRI-c cluster randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Respiratory infections are easily transmitted within care homes. Within a clinical trial (called AFRI-c), which tested the effectiveness of high-efficiency-particulate-air (HEPA) filters to reduce respiratory infections in care home residents, we conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation. We aimed to understand their acceptability, fidelity, and implementation to aid interpretation of the effectiveness findings. We used qualitative remote and face-to-face interviews with staff (n = 25), residents (n = 20), and relatives (n = 12) from care homes (n = 22) in the AFRI-c trial. We purposively sampled homes for variation in size, nursing or residential provision, and deprivation. We used reflexive thematic analysis, drawing on normalisation process theory to understand implementation. We used staff questionnaires (n ranges from 191 to 351 depending on questionnaire) and resident (n = 1158) questionnaires with descriptive and regression analyses. We used the triangulation protocol to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings. The use of HEPA filters became normalised, although some residents disliked the draught. Self-reported intervention fidelity was high, which is important context for interpreting the trial’s null outcome for infection reduction. HEPA filters made no difference to resident or staff satisfaction with the care home environment. We found no evidence that using HEPA filters changed infection control and prevention practices. While staff felt it was a priority to prevent respiratory infections, residents were more concerned about quality of life and care. Our mixed methods process evaluation of the AFRI-c trial found the use of HEPA filters was acceptable, with high levels of adherence and low levels of contamination, suggesting that the null trial results were not due to poor adherence. Some effort was required to ensure they were kept on. Approaches to data collection may have caused under-reporting of mild infections. We should not assume that infection prevention is always a priority for residents.