Dataset Information

The Seamless Transfer-of-Care Protocol: a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an electronic transfer-of-care communication tool.

ABSTRACT: The transition between acute care and community care represents a vulnerable period in health care delivery. The vulnerability of this period has been attributed to changes to patients' medication regimens during hospitalization, failure to reconcile discrepancies between admission and discharge and the burdening of patients/families to take over care responsibilities at discharge and to relay important information to the primary care physician. Electronic communication platforms can provide an immediate link between acute care and community care physicians (and other community providers), designed to ensure consistent information transfer. This study examines whether a transfer-of-care (TOC) communication tool is efficacious and cost-effective for reducing hospital readmission, adverse events and adverse drug events as well as reducing death.A randomized controlled trial conducted on the Medical Teaching Unit of a Canadian tertiary care centre will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a TOC communication tool. Medical in-patients admitted to the unit will be considered for this study. Data will be collected upon admission, and a total of 1400 patients will be randomized. The control group's acute care stay will be summarized using a traditional dictated summary, while the intervention group will have a summary generated using the TOC communication tool. The primary outcome will be a composite, at 3 months, of death or readmission to any Alberta acute-care hospital. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of post-discharge adverse events and adverse drug events at 1 month post discharge. Patients with adverse outcomes will have their cases reviewed by two Royal College certified internists or College-certified family physicians, blinded to patients' group assignments, to determine the type, severity, preventability and ameliorability of all detected adverse outcomes. An accompanying economic evaluation will assess the cost per life saved, cost per readmission avoided and cost per QALY gained with the TOC communication tool compared to traditional dictation summaries.This paper outlines the study protocol for a randomized controlled trial evaluating an electronic transfer-of-care communication tool, with sufficient statistical power to assess the impact of the tool on the significant outcomes of post-discharge death or readmission. The study findings will inform health systems around the world on the potential benefits of such tools, and the value for money associated with their widespread implementation.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402609.

SUBMITTER: Okoniewska BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3529105 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Seamless Transfer-of-Care Protocol: a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an electronic transfer-of-care communication tool.

Okoniewska Barbara M BM Santana Maria J MJ Holroyd-Leduc Jayna J Flemons Ward W O'Beirne Maeve M White Deborah D Clement Fiona F Forster Alan A Ghali William A WA

BMC health services research 20121121

<h4>Background</h4>The transition between acute care and community care represents a vulnerable period in health care delivery. The vulnerability of this period has been attributed to changes to patients' medication regimens during hospitalization, failure to reconcile discrepancies between admission and discharge and the burdening of patients/families to take over care responsibilities at discharge and to relay important information to the primary care physician. Electronic communication platfo ...[more]

PMID: 23170814

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTransitions in care are vulnerable periods in health care that can expose patients to preventable errors due to incomplete or delayed communication between health care providers. Transitioning critically ill patients from intensive care units (ICUs) to other patient care units (PCUs) is particularly risky, due to the high acuity of the patients and the diversity of health care providers involved in their care. Instituting structured documentation to standardize written communication between health care providers during transitions has been identified as a promising means to reduce communication breakdowns. We developed an evidence-informed, computer-enabled, ICU-specific structured tool-an electronic transfer (e-transfer) tool-to facilitate and standardize the composition of written transfer summaries in the ICUs of one Canadian city. The tool consisted of 10 primary sections with a user interface combination of structured, automated, and free-text fields.ObjectiveOur overarching goal is to evaluate whether implementation of our e-transfer tool will improve the completeness and timeliness of transfer summaries and streamline communications between health care providers during high-risk transitions.MethodsThis study is a cluster-specific pre-post trial, with randomized and staggered implementation of the e-transfer tool in four hospitals in Calgary, Alberta. Hospitals (ie, clusters) were allocated randomly to cross over every 2 months from control (ie, dictation only) to intervention (ie, e-transfer tool). Implementation at each site was facilitated with user education, point-of-care support, and audit and feedback. We will compare transfer summaries randomly sampled over 6 months postimplementation to summaries randomly sampled over 6 months preimplementation. The primary outcome will be a binary composite measure of the timeliness and completeness of transfer summaries. Secondary measures will include overall completeness, timeliness, and provider ratings of transfer summaries; hospital and ICU lengths of stay; and post-ICU patient outcomes, including ICU readmission, adverse events, cardiac arrest, rapid response team activation, and mortality. We will use descriptive statistics (ie, medians and means) to describe demographic characteristics. The primary outcome will be compared within each hospital pre- and postimplementation using separate logistic regression models for each hospital, with adjustment for patient characteristics.ResultsParticipating hospitals were cluster randomized to the intervention between July 2018 and January 2019. Preliminary extraction of ICU patient admission lists was completed in September 2019. We anticipate that evaluation data collection will be completed by early 2021, with first results ready for publication in spring or summer 2021.ConclusionsThis study will report the impact of implementing an evidence-informed, computer-enabled, ICU-specific structured transfer tool on communication and preventable medical errors among patients transferred from the ICU to other hospital care units.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03590002; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03590002.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/18675.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To complete an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the use of an electronic discharge communication tool (eDCT) compared with usual care. SETTING:Patients being discharged from a single tertiary care centre's internal medicine Medical Teaching Units. PARTICIPANTS:Between January 2012 and December 2013, 1399 patients were randomised to a discharge mechanism. Forty-five patients were excluded from the economic evaluation as they did not have data for the index hospitalisation cost; 1354 patients contributed to the economic evaluation. INTERVENTION:eDCT generated at discharge containing structured content on reason for admission, details of the hospital stay, treatments received and follow-up care required. The control group was discharged via traditional dictation methods. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included the cost per death avoided and the cost per readmission avoided. RESULTS:The average transcription cost was $C22.28 per patient, whereas the estimated cost of the eDCT was $C13.33 per patient. The cost per QALY gained was $C239 933 in the eDCT arm compared with usual care due to the very small gains in effectiveness and approximately $C800difference in resource utilisation costs. The bootstrap analyses resulted in eDCT being more effective and more costly in 29.2% of samples, less costly and more effective in 29.2% of samples, less effective and more costly in 23.9% of samples and finally, less costly and less effective in 17.7% of samples. CONCLUSIONS:The eDCT reduced per patient costs of the generation of discharge summaries. The bootstrap estimates demonstrate considerable uncertainty supporting the finding of neutrality reported in the clinical component of the RCT. The immediate transcription cost savings and previously documented provider and patient satisfaction may increase the impetus for organisations to invest in such systems, provided they have a foundation of eHealth infrastructure and readiness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01402609.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of a definitive trial in primary care of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for possible oesophago-gastric (O-G) cancer.Design and settingFeasibility study in 42 general practices in two regions of England, cluster randomised controlled trial design without blinding, nested qualitative and health economic evaluation.ParticipantsPatients aged 55 years or older, presenting to their general practitioner (GP) with symptoms associated with O-G cancer. 530 patients (mean age 68 years, 58% female) participated.InterventionPractices randomised 1:1 to usual care (control) or to receive a previously piloted eCDS tool for suspected cancer (intervention), for use at the discretion of the GPs, supported by a theory-based implementation package and ongoing support. We conducted semistructured interviews with GPs in intervention practices. Recruitment lasted 22 months.OutcomesPatient participation rate, use of eCDS, referrals and route to diagnosis, O-G cancer diagnoses; acceptability to GPs; cost-effectiveness. Participants followed up 6 months after index encounter.ResultsFrom control and intervention practices, we screened 3841 and 1303 patients, respectively; 1189 and 434 were eligible, 392 and 138 consented to participate. Ten patients (1.9%) had O-G cancer. eCDS was used eight times in total by five unique users. GPs experienced interoperability problems between the eCDS tool and their clinical system and also found it did not fit with their workflow. Unexpected restrictions on software installation caused major problems with implementation.ConclusionsThe conduct of this study was hampered by technical limitations not evident during an earlier pilot of the eCDS tool, and by regulatory controls on software installation introduced by primary care trusts early in the study. This eCDS tool needed to integrate better with clinical workflow; even then, its use for suspected cancer may be infrequent. Any definitive trial of eCDS for cancer diagnosis should only proceed after addressing these constraints.Trial registration numberISRCTN125595588.

Project description:IntroductionGout is increasing despite effective therapies to lower serum urate concentrations to 0.36?mmol/L or less, which, if sustained, significantly reduces acute attacks of gout. Adherence to urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is poor, with rates of less than 50% 1?year after initiation of ULT. Attempts to increase adherence in gout patients have been disappointing. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of use of a personal, self-management, 'smartphone' application (app) to achieve target serum urate concentrations in people with gout. We hypothesise that personalised feedback of serum urate concentrations will improve adherence to ULT.Methods and analysisSetting and designPrimary care. A prospective, cluster randomised (by general practitioner (GP) practices), controlled trial.ParticipantsGP practices will be randomised to either intervention or control clusters with their patients allocated to the same cluster.InterventionThe intervention group will have access to the Healthy.me app tailored for the self-management of gout. The control group patients will have access to the same app modified to remove all functions except the Gout Attack Diary.Primary and secondary outcomesThe proportion of patients whose serum urate concentrations are less than or equal to 0.36?mmol/L after 6 months. Secondary outcomes will be proportions of patients achieving target urate concentrations at 12 months, ULT adherence rates, serum urate concentrations at 6 and 12 months, rates of attacks of gout, quality of life estimations and process and economic evaluations. The study is designed to detect a ?30%?improvement in the intervention group above the expected 50% achievement of target serum urate at 6 months in the control group: power 0.80, significance level 0.05, assumed 'dropout' rate 20%.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee. Study findings will be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberACTRN12616000455460.

Dataset Information

The Seamless Transfer-of-Care Protocol: a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an electronic transfer-of-care communication tool.

Publications

The Seamless Transfer-of-Care Protocol: a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an electronic transfer-of-care communication tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets