Implementing a Pain Self-Management Protocol in Home Care: A Cluster-Randomized Pragmatic Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Reid MC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5555786 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Implementing a Pain Self-Management Protocol in Home Care: A Cluster-Randomized Pragmatic Trial.
Reid M Carrington MC Henderson Charles R CR Trachtenberg Melissa A MA Beissner Katherine L KL Bach Eileen E Barrón Yolanda Y Sridharan Sridevi S Murtaugh Christopher M CM
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20170309 8
<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral pain self-management (CBPSM) protocol delivered by physical therapists (PTs) for use by older adults with activity-limiting pain receiving home care.<h4>Design</h4>A randomized pragmatic trial comparing delivery of the intervention plus usual care with usual care alone.<h4>Setting</h4>Community.<h4>Participants</h4>Individuals aged 55 and older admitted with orders for physical therapy who endorsed activity-limiting pain ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOverdose deaths from prescription opioid analgesics are a continuing crisis in the United States. Opioid analgesics are among the most frequently prescribed drugs by dentists. An estimated 5 million people undergo third-molar extractions in the United States each year, resulting in postoperative pain. Studies show that, in most cases, the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen is an effective alternative to commonly prescribed opioid analgesics for the management of postextraction pain. Nevertheless, many dentists routinely prescribe opioids after dental extractions.ObjectiveWe describe the rationale, design, and methods for a randomized trial of interventions designed to de-implement opioid prescribing by dentists while implementing effective nonopioid analgesics following dental extractions.MethodsUsing a prospective, 3-arm, cluster randomized trial design with dentists as the unit randomized and patient-level prescribing data as the primary outcome, we will compare different strategies to reduce the reliance on opioids and increase the use of alternative pain management approaches utilizing information support tools aimed at both providers and their patients. The study will test the efficacy of 2 interventions to decrease opioid prescribing following dental extractions: clinical decision support with (CDS-E) and without patient education (CDS). Providers will be randomized to CDS, CDS-E, or standard practice. Patient-level outcomes will be determined via review of comprehensive electronic health records. We will compare study arms on differential change in prescribing patterns from pre- to postimplementation of the intervention. The primary outcome of interest is a binary indicator of whether or not the patient received an opioid prescription on the day of the extraction encounter. We will also examine recommendations or prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics, patients' perceptions of shared decision making, and patients' pain experiences following the extraction.ResultsThe HealthPartners Institutional Review Board approved the study. All study materials including the CDS and patient education materials have been developed and pilot tested, and the protocol has been approved by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. The intervention was implemented in February 2020, with 51 dentists who were randomized to 1 of the 3 arms.ConclusionsIf the intervention strategies are shown to be effective, they could be implemented more broadly in dental settings with high levels of opioid prescribing.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03584789.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/24342.
| S-EPMC8076983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Home care clients are increasingly medically complex, have limited access to effective chronic disease management and have very high emergency department (ED) visitation rates. There is a need for more appropriate and targeted supportive chronic disease management for home care clients. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and preliminary cost effectiveness of a targeted, person-centred cardiorespiratory management model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Detection of Indicators and Vulnerabilities of Emergency Room Trips (DIVERT) - Collaboration Action Research and Evaluation (CARE) trial is a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, multicentre superiority trial of a flexible multicomponent cardiorespiratory management model based on the best practice guidelines. The trial will be conducted in partnership with three regional, public-sector, home care providers across Canada. The primary outcome of the trial is the difference in time to first unplanned ED visit (hazard rate) within 6?months. Additional secondary outcomes are to identify changes in patient activation, changes in cardiorespiratory symptom frequencies and cost effectiveness over 6?months. We will also investigate the difference in the number of unplanned ED visits, number of inpatient hospitalisations and changes in health-related quality of life. Multilevel proportional hazard and generalised linear models will be used to test the primary and secondary hypotheses. Sample size simulations indicate that enrolling 1100 home care clients across 36 clusters (home care caseloads) will yield a power of 81% given an HR of 0.75. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board as well as each participating site's ethics board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and for presentation at relevant conferences. Home care service partners will also be informed of the study's results. The results will be used to inform future support strategies for older adults receiving home care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03012256.
| S-EPMC6924743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOlder adults with serious illness frequently receive post-acute rehabilitative care in nursing homes (NH) under the Part A Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Benefit. Treatment is commonly focused on disease-modifying therapies with minimal consideration for goals of care, symptom relief, and other elements of palliative care.InterventionThe evidence-based Primary Palliative Care in Post-Acute Care (PPC-PAC) intervention for older adults is delivered by nurse practitioners (NP). PPC-PAC NPs assess and manage symptoms, conduct goals of care discussions and assist with decision making; they communicate findings with NH staff and providers. Implementation of PPC-PAC includes online and face-to-face training of NPs, ongoing facilitation, and a template embedded in the NH electronic health record to document PPC-PAC.ObjectivesThe objectives of this pilot pragmatic clinical trial are to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the PPC-PAC intervention and its implementation for 80 seriously ill older adults newly admitted to a NH for post-acute care.MethodsDesign is a two-arm nonequivalent group multi-site pilot pragmatic clinical trial. The unit of assignment is at the NP and unit of analysis is NH patients. Recruitment occurs at NHs in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. Effectiveness (patient quality of life) data are collected at two times points-baseline and 14-21 days.ConclusionThis will be the first study to evaluate the implementation of an evidence-based primary palliative care intervention specifically designed for older adults with serious illness who are receiving post-acute NH care.
| S-EPMC8340123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoordinated efforts between the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs have built the capacity for large-scale clinical research investigating the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic pain treatments. This is an encouraging development; however, what constitutes best practice for nonpharmacologic management of low back pain (LBP) is largely unknown.DesignThe Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial is an embedded pragmatic cluster-randomized trial that will examine the effectiveness of two different care pathways for LBP. Sixteen primary care clinics will be randomized 1:1 to receive training in delivery of 1) an integrated sequenced-care pathway or 2) a coordinated pain navigator pathway. Primary outcomes are pain interference and physical function (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form [PROMIS-SF]) collected in the electronic health record at 3 months (n=1,680). A subset of veteran participants (n=848) have consented to complete additional surveys at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for supplementary pain and other measures.SummaryAIM-Back care pathways will be tested for effectiveness, and treatment heterogeneity will be investigated to identify which veterans may respond best to a given pathway. Health care utilization patterns (including opioid use) will also be compared between care pathways. Therefore, the AIM-Back trial will provide important information that can inform the future delivery of nonpharmacologic treatment of LBP.
| S-EPMC7734660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnrelieved pain among nursing home (NH) residents is a well-documented problem. Attempts have been made to enhance pain management for older adults, including those in NHs. Several evidence-based clinical guidelines have been published to assist providers in assessing and managing acute and chronic pain in older adults. Despite the proliferation and dissemination of these practice guidelines, research has shown that intensive systems-level implementation strategies are necessary to change clinical practice and patient outcomes within a health-care setting. One promising approach is the embedding of guidelines into explicit protocols and algorithms to enhance decision making.PurposeThe goal of the article is to describe several issues that arose in the design and conduct of a study that compared the effectiveness of pain management algorithms coupled with a comprehensive adoption program versus the effectiveness of education alone in improving evidence-based pain assessment and management practices, decreasing pain and depressive symptoms, and enhancing mobility among NH residents.MethodsThe study used a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) design in which the individual NH was the unit of randomization. The Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory provided the framework for the intervention. Outcome measures were surrogate-reported usual pain, self-reported usual and worst pain, and self-reported pain-related interference with activities, depression, and mobility.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 485 NH residents from 27 NHs. The investigators were able to use a staggered enrollment strategy to recruit and retain facilities. The adaptive randomization procedures were successful in balancing intervention and control sites on key NH characteristics. Several strategies were successfully implemented to enhance the adoption of the algorithm. LIMITATIONS/LESSONS: The investigators encountered several methodological challenges that were inherent to both the design and implementation of the study. The most problematic issue concerned the measurement of outcomes in persons with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. It was difficult to identify valid, reliable, and sensitive outcome measures that could be applied to all NH residents regardless of the ability to self-report. Another challenge was the inability to incorporate advances in implementation science into the ongoing studyConclusionsMethodological challenges are inevitable in the conduct of an RCT. The need to optimize internal validity by adhering to the study protocol is compromised by the emergent logistical issues that arise during the course of the study.
| S-EPMC4426859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOpioids may be necessary for guideline-concordant acute perioperative pain management, but their use carries risks for unintended prolonged use and addiction. Guidelines recommend use of validated non-pharmacological pain care (NPPC) approaches in conjunction with prescribed opioids and other analgesics. Our protocol outlines a population-level, pragmatic trial that will test a bundled intervention comprised of an electronic health record (EHR) portal-based conversation guide, EHR clinical decision support (CDS), and a suite of self-management educational and support materials to encourage and advance NPPC use.MethodsWe are conducting a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pragmatic trial spanning seven surgical specialties across six geographically diverse locations within the Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Thirty two surgical practices across six locations (Rochester, Minnesota; Mankato, Minnesota; La Crosse, Wisconsin; Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Phoenix, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida) comprise 22 distinct practice clusters that are randomly assigned to one of five steps using constrained randomization. Steps "go live" by initiating the intervention at 7-month intervals between March 2021 and July 2023. Patients over 18 years of age who are scheduled for qualifying procedures within "live" consenting practices are sent a Healing After Surgery guide via their patient portals pre-operatively, directing them to identify their preferred NPPC modalities among 13 approaches. These selections create CDS options for care teams to support patients with self-management materials that reinforce safe NPPC use.Planned outcomesPatients' clinical, demographic, and outcome data will be abstracted from the Epic EHR. Primary outcomes will be the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and physical functioning computer adaptive tests (CAT) collected at 1, 2, and 3 months postoperatively via the patient portal. We will mail printed versions of the 6-item PROMIS short forms to portal non-responders to minimize bias. Secondary outcomes will include the PROMIS anxiety CAT, opioid consumption, and self-reported NPPC use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04570371.
| S-EPMC9314477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough risk-stratifying patients with acute lower back pain is a promising approach for improving long-term outcomes, efforts to implement stratified care in the US healthcare system have had limited success. The objectives of this process evaluation were to 1) examine variation in two essential processes, risk stratification of patients with low back pain and referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy and 2) identify barriers and facilitators related to the risk stratification and referral processes.MethodsWe used a sequential mixed methods study design to evaluate implementation of stratified care at 33 primary care clinics (17 intervention, 16 control) participating in a larger pragmatic trial. We used electronic health record data to calculate: 1) clinic-level risk stratification rates (proportion of patients with back pain seen in the clinic over the study period who completed risk stratification questionnaires), 2) rates of risk stratification across different points in the clinical workflow (front desk, rooming, and time with clinician), and 3) rates of referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy among intervention clinics. We purposively sampled 13 clinics for onsite observations, which occurred in month 24 of the 26-month study.ResultsThe overall risk stratification rate across the 33 clinics was 37.8% (range: 14.7-64.7%). Rates were highest when patients were identified as having back pain by front desk staff (overall: 91.9%, range: 80.6-100%). Rates decreased as the patient moved further into the visit (rooming, 29.3% [range: 0-83.3%]; and time with clinician, 11.3% [range: 0-49.3%]. The overall rate of referrals of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy across the 17 intervention clinics was 42.1% (range: 8.3-70.8%). Barriers included staffs' knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, patients' needs, technology issues, lack of physician engagement, and lack of time. Adaptability of the processes was a facilitator.ConclusionsAdherence to key stratified care processes varied across primary care clinics and across points in the workflow. The observed variation suggests room for improvement. Future research is needed to build on this work and more rigorously test strategies for implementing stratified care for patients with low back pain in the US healthcare system.Trial registrationTrial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02647658 ). Registered January 6, 2016.
| S-EPMC7689997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is one of the most common, disabling, and expensive public health problems in the United States. Interdisciplinary pain management treatments that employ behavioral approaches have been successful in helping patients with chronic pain reduce symptoms and regain functioning. However, most patients lack access to such treatments. We are conducting a pragmatic clinical trial to test the hypothesis that patients who receive an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention, the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT), at their primary care clinic will have a greater reduction in pain impact in the year following than patients receiving usual care.Methods/designThis is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid pragmatic clinical trial in which we randomize clusters of primary care providers and their patients with chronic pain who are on long-term opioid therapy to 1) receive an interdisciplinary behavioral intervention in conjunction with their current health care or 2) continue with current health care services. Our primary outcome is pain impact (a composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) measured using the PEG, a validated three-item assessment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related disability, patient satisfaction, opioids dispensed and health care utilization. An economic evaluation assesses the resources and costs necessary to deliver the intervention and its cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. A formative evaluation employs mixed methods to understand the context for implementation in the participating health care systems.DiscussionThis trial will inform the feasibility of implementing interdisciplinary behavioral approaches to pain management in the primary care setting, potentially providing a more effective, safer, and more satisfactory alternative to opioid-based chronic pain treatment. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.
| S-EPMC5931339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Advanced primary care models emphasize patient-centered care, including self-management support (SMS), but the effective use of SMS for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains a challenge. Interactive behavior-change technology (IBCT) can facilitate the adoption of SMS interventions. To meet the need for effective SMS intervention, we have developed Connection to Health (CTH), a comprehensive, evidence-based SMS program that enhances interactions between primary care clinicians and patients to resolve self-management problems and improve outcomes. Uptake and maintenance of programs such as CTH in primary care have been limited by the inability of practices to adapt and implement program components into their culture, patient flow, and work processes. Practice facilitation has been shown to be effective in helping practices make the changes required for optimal program implementation. The proposed research is designed to promote the translation of SMS into primary care practices for patients with T2DM by combining two promising lines of research, specifically, (a) testing the effectiveness of CTH in diverse primary-care practices, and (b) evaluating the impact of practice facilitation to enhance implementation of the intervention. METHODS:A three-arm, cluster-randomized trial will evaluate three discrete strategies for implementing SMS for patients with T2DM in diverse primary care practices. Practices will be randomly assigned to receive and implement the CTH program, the CTH program plus practice facilitation, or a SMS academic detailing educational intervention. Through this design, we will compare the effectiveness, adoption and implementation of these three SMS practice implementation strategies. Primary effectiveness outcomes including lab values and evidence of SMS will be abstracted from medical records covering baseline through 18 months post-baseline. Data from CTH assessments and action plans completed by patients enrolled in CTH will be used to evaluate practice implementation of CTH and the impact of CTH participation. Qualitative data including field notes from encounters with the practices and interviews of practice personnel will be analyzed to assess practice implementation of SMS. DISCUSSION:This study will provide important information on the implementation of SMS in primary care, the effectiveness of an IBCT tool such as CTH, and the use of practice facilitation to assist implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov - ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01945918 , date 08/27/2013. Modifications have been updated.
| S-EPMC6058364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceStandardized, evidenced-based approaches to conducting advance care planning (ACP) in nursing homes are lacking.ObjectiveTo test the effect of an ACP video program on hospital transfers, burdensome treatments, and hospice enrollment among long-stay nursing home residents with and without advanced illness.Design, setting, and participantsThe Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes was a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial conducted between February 1, 2016, and May 31, 2019, at 360 nursing homes (119 intervention and 241 control) in 32 states owned by 2 for-profit corporations. Participants included 4171 long-stay residents with advanced dementia or cardiopulmonary disease (hereafter referred to as advanced illness) in the intervention group and 8308 long-stay residents with advanced illness in the control group, 5764 long-stay residents without advanced illness in the intervention group, and 11 773 long-stay residents without advanced illness in the control group. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.InterventionsFive 6- to 10-minute ACP videos were made available on tablet computers or online. Designated champions (mostly social workers) in intervention facilities were instructed to offer residents (or their proxies) the opportunity to view a video(s) on admission and every 6 months. Control facilities used usual ACP practices.Main outcomes and measuresTwelve-month outcomes were measured for each resident. The primary outcome was hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive in the advanced illness cohort. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of residents with or without advanced illness experiencing 1 or more hospital transfer, 1 or more burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment. To monitor fidelity, champions completed reports in the electronic record whenever they offered to show residents a video.ResultsThe study included 4171 long-stay residents with advanced illness in the intervention group (2970 women [71.2%]; mean [SD] age, 83.6 [9.1] years), and 8308 long-stay residents with advanced illness in the control group (5857 women [70.5%]; mean [SD] age, 83.6 [8.9] years), 5764 long-stay residents without advanced illness in the intervention group (3692 women [64.1%]; mean [SD] age, 81.5 [9.2] years), and 11 773 long-stay residents without advanced illness in the control group (7467 women [63.4%]; mean [SD] age, 81.3 [9.2] years). There was no significant reduction in hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive in the intervention vs control groups (rate [SE], 3.7 [0.2]; 95% CI, 3.4-4.0 vs 3.9 [0.3]; 95% CI, 3.6-4.1; rate difference [SE], -0.2 [0.3]; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.2). Secondary outcomes did not significantly differ between trial groups among residents with and without advanced illness. Based on champions' reports, 912 of 4171 residents with advanced illness (21.9%) viewed ACP videos. Facility-level rates of showing ACP videos ranged from 0% (14 of 119 facilities [11.8%]) to more than 40% (22 facilities [18.5%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that an ACP video program was not effective in reducing hospital transfers, decreasing burdensome treatment use, or increasing hospice enrollment among long-stay residents with or without advanced illness. Intervention fidelity was low, highlighting the challenges of implementing new programs in nursing homes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02612688.
| S-EPMC7399750 | biostudies-literature