Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a pragmatic trial to improve advance care planning in the nursing home setting.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes (PROVEN) aims to test the effectiveness of an advance care planning (ACP) video intervention. Relatively little is known about the challenges associated with implementing ACP interventions in the nursing home (NH) setting, especially within a pragmatic trial. To address this research gap, this report sought to identify facilitators of and barriers to implementing PROVEN from the perspective of the Champions charged with introducing the ACP video program delivery to patients and families. METHODS:In semi-structured telephone interviews at 4 and 15?months of the 18-month implementation period, ACP Champions at all PROVEN intervention facilities (N =?119) were asked about their perceptions of program implementation. Forty interviews were purposively sampled, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid deductive/inductive approach to thematic analysis incorporating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research's domains: Intervention Characteristics (IC), Inner Setting (IS), Characteristics of Individuals (CI), Outer Setting (OS), and Process (P). RESULTS:Implementation facilitators identified by Champions included: the intervention's adaptable mode of presentation and minimal time burden (IC) as well as the program's customizable delivery to patients and families and opportunity for group reflection on implementation among ACP Champions (P). Barriers included mandated protocol-driven aspects of the program (OS), limited time to deliver the intervention (IS), and lack of perceived relevance and emotional readiness for ACP amongst stakeholders (CI). CONCLUSIONS:Despite the promise of PROVEN's intervention for improving ACP in nursing homes, unchangeable setting and characteristics of Champions, patients, and family members presented implementation barriers. Researchers need to engage all program participants (i.e., facility staff, patients, and families), in addition to corporate-level stakeholders, in early pragmatic trial design to minimize such obstacles. Further, despite the facilitating nature of PROVEN's implementation processes, the study encountered tension between scientific rigor and real-world demands. Researchers need to optimize the real-world authenticity of pragmatic trial design while avoiding excessive implementation protocol deviations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02612688. Registered 19 November 2015.

SUBMITTER: Palmer JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6664774 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a pragmatic trial to improve advance care planning in the nursing home setting.

Palmer Jennifer A JA Parker Victoria A VA Mor Vincent V Volandes Angelo E AE Barre Lacey R LR Belanger Emmanuelle E Carter Phoebe P Loomer Lacey L McCreedy Ellen E Mitchell Susan L SL

BMC health services research 20190729 1

<h4>Background</h4>The PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes (PROVEN) aims to test the effectiveness of an advance care planning (ACP) video intervention. Relatively little is known about the challenges associated with implementing ACP interventions in the nursing home (NH) setting, especially within a pragmatic trial. To address this research gap, this report sought to identify facilitators of and barriers to implementing PROVEN from the perspective of the Champions charged with i ...[more]

PMID: 31357993

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:While various initiatives have been taken to improve advance care planning in nursing homes, it is difficult to find enough details about interventions to allow comparison, replication and translation into practice. OBJECTIVES:We report on the development and description of the ACP+ program, a multi-component theory-based program that aims to implement advance care planning into routine nursing home care. We aimed to 1) specify how intervention components can be delivered; 2) evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the program; 3) describe the final program in a standardized manner. DESIGN:To develop and model the intervention, we applied multiple study methods including a literature review, expert discussions and individual and group interviews with nursing home staff and management. We recruited participants through convenience sampling. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Management and staff (n = 17) from five nursing homes in Flanders (Belgium), a multidisciplinary expert group and a palliative care nurse-trainer. METHODS:The work was carried out by means of 1) operationalization of key intervention components-identified as part of a previously developed theory on how advance care planning is expected to lead to its desired outcomes in nursing homes-into specific activities and materials, through expert discussions and review of existing advance care planning programs; 2) evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the program through interviews with nursing home management and staff and expert revisions; and 3) standardized description of the final program according to the TIDieR checklist. During step 2, we used thematic analysis. RESULTS:The original program with nine key components was expanded to include ten intervention components, 22 activities and 17 materials to support delivery into routine nursing home care. The final ACP+ program includes ongoing training and coaching, management engagement, different roles and responsibilities in organizing advance care planning, conversations, documentation and information transfer, integration of advance care planning into multidisciplinary meetings, auditing, and tailoring to the specific setting. These components are to be implemented stepwise throughout an intervention period. The program involves the entire nursing home workforce. The support of an external trainer decreases as nursing home staff become more autonomous in organizing advance care planning. CONCLUSIONS:The multicomponent ACP+ program involves residents, family, and the different groups of people working in the nursing home. It is deemed feasible and acceptable by nursing home staff and management. The findings presented in this paper, alongside results of the subsequent randomized controlled cluster trial, can facilitate comparison, replicability and translation of the intervention into practice.

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.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the disease's progressive nature, advance care planning (ACP) is recommended for people with early stage dementia. General practitioners (GPs) should initiate ACP because of their longstanding relationships with their patients and their early involvement with the disease, however ACP is seldom applied.AimTo determine the barriers and facilitators faced by GPs related to ACP with people with dementia.Data sourcesWe systematically searched the relevant databases for papers published between January 1995 and December 2016, using the terms: primary healthcare, GP, dementia, and ACP. We conducted a systematic integrative review following Whittemore and Knafl's method. Papers containing empirical data about GP barriers and/or facilitators regarding ACP for people with dementia were included. We evaluated quality using the Mixed-Method-Appraisal-Tool and analyzed data using qualitative content analysis.ResultsTen qualitative, five quantitative, and one mixed-method paper revealed four themes: timely initiation of ACP, stakeholder engagement, important aspects of ACP the conversation, and prerequisites for ACP. Important barriers were: uncertainty about the timing of ACP, how to plan for an uncertain future, lack of knowledge about dementia, difficulties assessing people with dementia's decisional capacities, and changing preferences. Facilitators for ACP were: an early start when cognitive decline is still mild, inclusion of all stakeholders, and discussing social and medical issues aimed at maintaining normal life.ConclusionDiscussing future care is difficult due to uncertainties about the future and the decisional capacities of people with dementia. Based on the facilitators, we recommend that GPs use a timely and goal-oriented approach and involve all stakeholders. ACP discussions should focus on the ability of people with dementia to maintain normal daily function as well as on their quality of life, instead of end-of-life-discussions only. GPs need training to acquire knowledge and skills to timely initiate collaborative ACP discussions.

Project description:Background/aimsA significant number of people with Alzheimer's disease or related dementia diagnoses will be cared for in nursing homes near the end of life. Advance care planning (ACP), the process of eliciting and documenting patient-centered preferences for care, is considered essential to providing high quality care for this population. Nursing homes are currently required by regulations to offer ACP to residents and families, but no training requirements exist for nursing home staff, and approaches to fulfilling this regulatory and ethical responsibility vary. As a result, residents may receive care inconsistent with their goals, such as unwanted hospitalizations. Pragmatic trials offer a way to develop and test ACP in real-world settings to increase the likelihood of adoption of sustainable best practices.MethodsThe "Aligning Patient Preferences-a Role Offering Alzheimer's patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers Education and Support (APPROACHES)" project is designed to pragmatically test and evaluate a staff-led program in 137 nursing homes (68 = intervention, 69 = control) owned by two nursing home corporations. Existing nursing home staff receive standardized training and implement the ACP Specialist program under the supervision of a corporate lead. The primary trial outcome is the annual rate of hospital transfers (admissions and emergency department visits). Consistent with the spirit of a pragmatic trial, study outcomes rely on data already collected for quality improvement, clinical, or billing purposes. Configurational analysis will also be performed to identify conditions associated with implementation.ResultsPartnerships with large corporate companies enable the APPROACHES trial to rely on corporate infrastructure to roll out the intervention, with support for a corporate implementation lead who is charged with the initial introduction and ongoing support for nursing home-based ACP Specialists. These internal champions connect the project with other company priorities and use strategies familiar to nursing home leaders for the initiation of other programs. Standardized data collection across nursing homes also supports the conduct of pragmatic trials in this setting.DiscussionMany interventions to improve care in nursing homes have failed to demonstrate an impact or, if successful, maintain an impact over time. Pragmatic trials, designed to test interventions in real-world contexts that are evaluated through existing data sources collected routinely as part of clinical care, are well suited for the nursing home environment. A robust program that increases access to ACP for nursing home residents has the potential to increase goal-concordant care and is expected to reduce hospital transfers. If successful, the ACP Specialist Program will be primed for rapid translation into nursing home practice to reduce unwanted, burdensome hospitalizations and improve the quality of care for residents with dementia.

Project description:ObjectivesAdvance care planning (ACP) is important to ensure that nursing home (NH) residents receive care concordant with their goals. Video interventions have been developed to improve the process of ACP. Yet, little is known about which NH characteristics are associated with implementation of ACP video interventions in clinical practice. Our objective was to examine NH-level characteristics associated with the implementation of an ACP video intervention as part of the Pragmatic trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes (PROVEN) trial.DesignCross-sectional study of NHs in PROVEN.Setting and participants119 NHs randomized to receive the ACP video intervention.MeasurementsThe outcomes were the proportion of short- (<100 days) and long-stay (≥100 days) NH residents who were (1) offered to watch a video and (2) shown a video, aggregated to the NH-level, and measured using electronic forms of video offers. The association between outcomes and NH facility characteristics (eg, staffing, resident acuity) and participation in other aspects of the PROVEN trial (eg, monthly check-in calls) were estimated using multivariate linear regression models. NH characteristics were measured using data from Online Survey Certification and Reporting data, Long-term Care: Facts on Care in the US and NH Compare.ResultsOffer rates were 69% [standard deviation (SD): 28] for short-stay and 56% (SD: 20) for long-stay residents. Show rates were 19% (SD: 21) for short-stay and 17% (SD: 17) for long-stay residents. After adjusting for NH characteristics, compared to 1-star NHs, higher star-rated NHs had higher offer rates. Champions' participation in check-in calls was positively associated with both outcomes for long-stay residents.Conclusions/implicationsLower-quality NHs seem unable to integrate a novel ACP video education program into routine care processes. Ongoing support for and engagement with NH staff to champion the intervention throughout implementation is important for the success of a pragmatic trial within NHs.

Project description:BackgroundSafety net hospitals, which serve vulnerable and underserved populations and often operate on smaller budgets than non-safety net hospitals, may experience unique implementation challenges. We sought to describe common barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of improvement initiatives in a safety net hospital, and identify potentially transferable lessons to enhance implementation efforts in similar settings.MethodsWe interviewed leaders within five inpatient departments and asked them to identify the priority inpatient improvement initiative from the last year. We then conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with 25 stakeholders across the five settings. Interviewees included individuals serving in implementation oversight, champion, and frontline implementer roles. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the discussion guide and a priori codes for directed content analysis.ResultsDespite pursuing diverse initiatives in different clinical departments, safety net hospital improvement stakeholders described common barriers and facilitators related to inner and outer setting dynamics, characteristics of individuals involved, and implementation processes. Implementation barriers included (1) limited staffing resources, (2) organizational recognition without financial investment, and (3) the use of implementation strategies that did not adequately address patients' biopsychosocial complexities. Facilitators included (1) implementation approaches that combined passive and active communication styles, (2) knowledge of patient needs and competitive pressure to perform well against non-SNHs, (3) stakeholders' personal commitment to reduce health inequities, and (4) the use of multidisciplinary task forces to drive implementation activities.ConclusionInner and outer setting dynamics, individual's characteristics, and process factors served as implementation barriers and facilitators within the safety net. Future work should seek to leverage findings from this study toward efforts to enact positive change within safety net hospitals.

Project description:BackgroundClose to half of all deaths in Norway occur in nursing homes, which signals a need for good communication on end-of-life care. Advance care planning (ACP) is one means to that end, but in Norwegian nursing homes, ACP is not common. This paper describes the protocol of a project evaluating an ACP-intervention in Norwegian nursing homes. The aims of this research project were to promote the possibility for conversations about the end of life with patients and relatives; promote patient autonomy; create a better foundation for important decisions in the case of medical emergencies and at the end of life; and gain experiences in order to find out what characterizes good ACP and good implementation strategies.Methods/designThis study was a mixed method study including a cluster-randomized clinical trial. Eight nursing home wards or "clusters" were pair-matched, and one ward from each pair was randomly selected for a 12-month intervention. The intervention consisted of implementing an ACP-guideline. Implementation strategies were training and supervision of project teams and staff in using the guideline, written information to patients and next of kin, and information meetings with nursing home staff. The project was evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative data, and both outcome and process evaluation. Quantitative data included patient chart reviews of ACP, diagnoses, patient preferences for decision-making and treatment, values and wishes that are more general, documented life-prolonging treatment and hospitalizations, and concordance between patient wishes and treatment. The primary outcome was documented ACP. Qualitative data included observations of conversations, interviews with patients, next of kin and health care personnel, logs from project coordinators and conversations, and transcripts from meetings with project teams in the intervention group.DiscussionThis project attempted to increase the quality and use of ACP in Norwegian nursing homes (NH). A mixed methods approach, inclusion of patients with dementia, attempts to involve, as many patients as possible, and a sustainable implementation plan adapted to real life in nursing homes were strengths of the project.

Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a pragmatic trial to improve advance care planning in the nursing home setting.

Publications

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a pragmatic trial to improve advance care planning in the nursing home setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets