Abstract
Introduction Vitamin D supplements are recommended for elderly care home residents with little sunlight exposure. However, their use in care homes is limited and vitamin D deficiency in residents is widespread. This study aimed to understand perceived responsibility for the vitamin D status of residents and the determinants of current practice around supplementation.
Methods Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants in two areas of Southern England including care home managers, general practitioners (GPs) and public health professionals. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Results Inductive thematic analysis identified four themes – medical framing; professional and sector boundaries; awareness of national guidance; and ethical and practical issues. Vitamin D supplements were not routinely given to residents, and most participants, including the GPs, believed the vitamin D status of residents was the responsibility of the GP. Care home managers felt unable to make decisions about vitamin D and vulnerable to suggestions of wrongdoing in administering over-the-counter vitamin tablets. This results in vitamin D requiring prescription by medical professionals and few care home residents receiving vitamin D supplements.
Conclusion The medical framing of vitamin D supplements in care homes is a practical barrier to residents receiving them and is out of step with public health recommendations. Vitamin D levels in care home residents could be improved through universal supplementation. This requires a paradigm shift so that vitamin D is understood as a protective nutrient as well as a medicine, and a public health as well as a medical responsibility. The failure to ensure vitamin D adequacy of residents may emerge as a factor in the spread and severity of COVID-19 in care homes and gives increased urgency to addressing this issue.
What is already known about the subject?Nutrition guidelines recommend elderly care home residents take vitamin D supplements as a preventative measure. This is rarely implemented in practice and vitamin D inadequacy is widespread.
What are the new findings?Medical framing of vitamin D in the care sector puts elderly residents at risk of vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D supplements are perceived as medicines requiring an individual prescription and diagnosis by a medical professional. This is out of step with public health recommendations. The system’s failure to protect the vitamin D status of the elderly in care homes may have implications in the context of COVID-19.
How might these results change the focus of research or practice?Prompt a review of current guidelines and regulations in England to establish responsibility for implementing public health recommendations on vitamin D supplementation in care homes. Further research on feasibility of implementation strategies is needed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding recieved
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the University of Brighton, School of Health Sciences Research Ethics and Governance Panel February 2018.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data not publicly available because interview transcripts contain information that could compromise research participant privacy and consent. Data redacted to ensure anonymity are available to researchers from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
