Dataset Information

Effect of educational outreach to nurses on tuberculosis case detection and primary care of respiratory illness: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop and implement an educational outreach programme for the integrated case management of priority respiratory diseases (practical approach to lung health in South Africa; PALSA) and to evaluate its effects on respiratory care and detection of tuberculosis among adults attending primary care clinics.

Design

Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, with clinics as the unit of randomisation.

Setting

40 primary care clinics, staffed by nurse practitioners, in the Free State province, South Africa.

Participants

1999 patients aged 15 or over with cough or difficult breathing (1000 in intervention clinics, 999 in control clinics).

Intervention

Between two and six educational outreach sessions delivered to nurse practitioners by usual trainers from the health department. The emphasis was on key messages drawn from the customised clinical practice guideline for the outreach programme, with illustrative support materials.

Main outcome measures

Sputum screening for tuberculosis, tuberculosis case detection, inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions for obstructive lung disease, and antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections.

Results

All clinics and almost all patients (92.8%, 1856/1999) completed the trial. Although sputum testing for tuberculosis was similar between the groups (22.6% in outreach group v 19.3% in control group; odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.80), the case detection of tuberculosis was higher in the outreach group (6.4% v 3.8%; 1.72, 1.04 to 2.85). Prescriptions for inhaled corticosteroids were also higher (13.7% v 7.7%; 1.90, 1.14 to 3.18) but the number of antibiotic prescriptions was similar (39.7% v 39.4%; 1.01, 0.74 to 1.38).

Conclusions

Combining educational outreach with integrated case management provides a promising model for improving quality of care and control of priority respiratory diseases, without extra staff, in resource poor settings.

Trial registration

Current controlled trials ISRCTN13438073.

SUBMITTER: Fairall LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1239979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn many low-income countries, care for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health conditions is provided by nurses. The benefits of nurse substitution and supplementation in NCD care in high-income settings are well recognised, but evidence from low- and middle-income countries is limited. Primary Care 101 (PC101) is a programme designed to support and expand nurses' role in NCD care, comprising educational outreach to nurses and a clinical management tool with enhanced prescribing provisions. We evaluated the effect of the programme on primary care nurses' capacity to manage NCDs.Methods and findingsIn a cluster randomised controlled trial design, 38 public sector primary care clinics in the Western Cape Province, South Africa, were randomised. Nurses in the intervention clinics were trained to use the PC101 management tool during educational outreach sessions delivered by health department trainers and were authorised to prescribe an expanded range of drugs for several NCDs. Control clinics continued use of the Practical Approach to Lung Health and HIV/AIDS in South Africa (PALSA PLUS) management tool and usual training. Patients attending these clinics with one or more of hypertension (3,227), diabetes (1,842), chronic respiratory disease (1,157) or who screened positive for depression (2,466), totalling 4,393 patients, were enrolled between 28 March 2011 and 10 November 2011. Primary outcomes were treatment intensification in the hypertension, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease cohorts, defined as the proportion of patients in whom treatment was escalated during follow-up over 14 mo, and case detection in the depression cohort. Primary outcome data were analysed for 2,110 (97%) intervention and 2,170 (97%) control group patients. Treatment intensification rates in intervention clinics were not superior to those in the control clinics (hypertension: 44% in the intervention group versus 40% in the control group, risk ratio [RR] 1.08 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; p = 0.252]; diabetes: 57% versus 50%, RR 1.10 [0.97 to 1.24; p = 0.126]; chronic respiratory disease: 14% versus 12%, RR 1.08 [0.75 to 1.55; p = 0.674]), nor was case detection of depression (18% versus 24%, RR 0.76 [0.53 to 1.10; p = 0.142]). No adverse effects of the nurses' expanded scope of practice were observed. Limitations of the study include dependence on self-reported diagnoses for inclusion in the patient cohorts, limited data on uptake of PC101 by users, reliance on process outcomes, and insufficient resources to measure important health outcomes, such as HbA1c, at follow-up.ConclusionsEducational outreach to primary care nurses to train them in the use of a management tool involving an expanded role in managing NCDs was feasible and safe but was not associated with treatment intensification or improved case detection for index diseases. This notwithstanding, the intervention, with adjustments to improve its effectiveness, has been adopted for implementation in primary care clinics throughout South Africa.Trial registrationThe trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN20283604).

Project description:BackgroundRobust evidence of the effectiveness of task shifting of antiretroviral therapy (ART) from doctors to other health workers is scarce. We aimed to assess the effects on mortality, viral suppression, and other health outcomes and quality indicators of the Streamlining Tasks and Roles to Expand Treatment and Care for HIV (STRETCH) programme, which provides educational outreach training of nurses to initiate and represcribe ART, and to decentralise care.MethodsWe undertook a pragmatic, parallel, cluster-randomised trial in South Africa between Jan 28, 2008, and June 30, 2010. We randomly assigned 31 primary-care ART clinics to implement the STRETCH programme (intervention group) or to continue with standard care (control group). The ratio of randomisation depended on how many clinics were in each of nine strata. Two cohorts were enrolled: eligible patients in cohort 1 were adults (aged ?16 years) with CD4 counts of 350 cells per ?L or less who were not receiving ART; those in cohort 2 were adults who had already received ART for at least 6 months and were being treated at enrolment. The primary outcome in cohort 1 was time to death (superiority analysis). The primary outcome in cohort 2 was the proportion with undetectable viral loads (<400 copies per mL) 12 months after enrolment (equivalence analysis, prespecified difference <6%). Patients and clinicians could not be masked to group assignment. The interim analysis was blind, but data analysts were not masked after the database was locked for final analysis. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN46836853.Findings5390 patients in cohort 1 and 3029 in cohort 2 were in the intervention group, and 3862 in cohort 1 and 3202 in cohort 2 were in the control group. Median follow-up was 16·3 months (IQR 12·2-18·0) in cohort 1 and 18·0 months (18·0-18·0) in cohort 2. In cohort 1, 997 (20%) of 4943 patients analysed in the intervention group and 747 (19%) of 3862 in the control group with known vital status at the end of the trial had died. Time to death did not differ (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·76-1·15). In a preplanned subgroup analysis of patients with baseline CD4 counts of 201-350 cells per ?L, mortality was slightly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (0·73, 0·54-1.00; p=0·052), but it did not differ between groups in patients with baseline CD4 of 200 cells per ?L or less (0·94, 0·76-1·15; p=0·577). In cohort 2, viral load suppression 12 months after enrolment was equivalent in intervention (2156 [71%] of 3029 patients) and control groups (2230 [70%] of 3202; risk difference 1·1%, 95% CI -2·4 to 4·6).InterpretationExpansion of primary-care nurses' roles to include ART initiation and represcription can be done safely, and improve health outcomes and quality of care, but might not reduce time to ART or mortality.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Development Cooperation Ireland, and Canadian International Development Agency.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis is a common problem, but often underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care as compared to evidence-based guidelines. Educational outreach visits are an effective strategy to improve guideline adherence, but its contribution to knee osteoarthritis management is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall effectiveness of educational outreach visits on process quality indicators for knee osteoarthritis management, more specifically on the referral for physical therapy.MethodsAn educational intervention study, non-randomized and controlled, was designed for general practitioners (GPs) in Belgium. During four months, 426 GPs were visited by academic detailers and allocated to the intervention group. The control group was selected from GPs not visited by academic detailers during the study period. Six months post-intervention, both groups received a questionnaire with two case-vignettes to measure the effectiveness of the educational outreach. Outcomes were assessed with a Belgian set of quality indicators for knee osteoarthritis management and focused on the number of prescriptions for appropriate physical therapy (i.e. muscle strengthening, aerobic, functional or range of motion exercises) and the adherence to eight additional quality indicators related to knee osteoarthritis management. For the analysis, multivariable logistic regression models were used and Generalized Estimating Equations to handle the correlation between the multiple results per GP.ResultsThe intervention group showed a tendency to prescribe more frequently at least one appropriate physical therapy for a case (43.8%), compared to the control group (31.3%, p = 0.057). Muscle strengthening exercises were the most frequently prescribed therapy with 37.0% in the intervention versus 26.9% in the control group. The adherence to the other quality indicators showed no significant difference between the intervention and control group and varied between 8.9 and 100% in the intervention group.ConclusionsThis intervention did not alter significantly the adherence to quality indicators and in particular the probability of prescribing physical therapy. To change general practitioners' prescription behavior, more extensive or combined interventional approaches seem warranted.

Project description:BACKGROUND:For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS:In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS:153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION:General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Project description:BackgroundThe potential for transmission of infectious diseases offered by the school environment are likely to be an important contributor to the rates of infectious disease experienced by children. This study aimed to test whether the addition of hand sanitiser in primary school classrooms compared with usual hand hygiene would reduce illness absences in primary school children in New Zealand.Methods and findingsThis parallel-group cluster randomised trial took place in 68 primary schools, where schools were allocated using restricted randomisation (1:1 ratio) to the intervention or control group. All children (aged 5 to 11 y) in attendance at participating schools received an in-class hand hygiene education session. Schools in the intervention group were provided with alcohol-based hand sanitiser dispensers in classrooms for the winter school terms (27 April to 25 September 2009). Control schools received only the hand hygiene education session. The primary outcome was the number of absence episodes due to any illness among 2,443 follow-up children whose caregivers were telephoned after each absence from school. Secondary outcomes measured among follow-up children were the number of absence episodes due to specific illness (respiratory or gastrointestinal), length of illness and illness absence episodes, and number of episodes where at least one other member of the household became ill subsequently (child or adult). We also examined whether provision of sanitiser was associated with experience of a skin reaction. The number of absences for any reason and the length of the absence episode were measured in all primary school children enrolled at the schools. Children, school administrative staff, and the school liaison research assistants were not blind to group allocation. Outcome assessors of follow-up children were blind to group allocation. Of the 1,301 and 1,142 follow-up children in the hand sanitiser and control groups, respectively, the rate of absence episodes due to illness per 100 child-days was similar (1.21 and 1.16, respectively, incidence rate ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18). The provision of an alcohol-based hand sanitiser dispenser in classrooms was not effective in reducing rates of absence episodes due to respiratory or gastrointestinal illness, the length of illness or illness absence episodes, or the rate of subsequent infection for other members of the household in these children. The percentage of children experiencing a skin reaction was similar (10.4% hand sanitiser versus 10.3% control, risk ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.30). The rate or length of absence episodes for any reason measured for all children also did not differ between groups. Limitations of the study include that the study was conducted during an influenza pandemic, with associated public health messaging about hand hygiene, which may have increased hand hygiene among all children and thereby reduced any additional effectiveness of sanitiser provision. We did not quite achieve the planned sample size of 1,350 follow-up children per group, although we still obtained precise estimates of the intervention effects. Also, it is possible that follow-up children were healthier than non-participating eligible children, with therefore less to gain from improved hand hygiene. However, lack of effectiveness of hand sanitiser provision on the rate of absences among all children suggests that this may not be the explanation.ConclusionsThe provision of hand sanitiser in addition to usual hand hygiene in primary schools in New Zealand did not prevent disease of severity sufficient to cause school absence.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000478213. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.