Dataset Information

Implementation of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate a hospital mobility program.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRT) are increasingly used to evaluate new clinical programs, yet there is limited guidance on practical aspects of applying this design. We report our early experiences conducting a SW-CRT to examine an inpatient mobility program (STRIDE) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We provide recommendations for future research using this design to evaluate clinical programs. METHODS:Based on data from study records and reflections from the investigator team, we describe and assess the design and initial stages of a SW-CRT, from site recruitment to program launch in 8 VHA hospitals. RESULTS:Site recruitment consisted of thirty 1-h conference calls with representatives from 22 individual VAs who expressed interest in implementing STRIDE. Of these, 8 hospitals were enrolled and randomly assigned in two stratified blocks (4 hospitals per block) to a STRIDE launch date. Block 1 randomization occurred in July 2017 with first STRIDE launch in December 2017; block 2 randomization occurred in April 2018 with first STRIDE launch in January 2019. The primary study outcome of discharge destination will be assessed using routinely collected data in the electronic health record (EHR). Within randomized blocks, two hospitals per sequence launched STRIDE approximately every 3?months with primary outcome assessment paused during the 3-month time period of program launch. All sites received 6-8 implementation support calls, according to a pre-specified schedule, from the time of recruitment to program launch, and all 8 sites successfully launched within their assigned 3-month window. Seven of the eight sites initially started with a limited roll out (for example on one ward) or modified version of STRIDE (for example, using existing staff to conduct walks until new positions were filled). CONCLUSIONS:Future studies should incorporate sufficient time for site recruitment and carefully consider the following to inform design of SW-CRTs to evaluate rollout of a new clinical program: (1) whether a blocked randomization fits study needs, (2) the amount of time and implementation support sites will need to start their programs, and (3) whether clinical programs are likely to include a "ramp-up" period. Successful execution of SW-CRT designs requires both adherence to rigorous design principles and also careful consideration of logistical requirements for timing of program roll out. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalsTrials.gov NCT03300336 . Prospectively registered on 3 October 2017.

SUBMITTER: Hastings SN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7574435 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate a hospital mobility program.

Hastings Susan N SN Stechuchak Karen M KM Choate Ashley A Mahanna Elizabeth P EP Van Houtven Courtney C Allen Kelli D KD Wang Virginia V Sperber Nina N Zullig Leah L Bosworth Hayden B HB Coffman Cynthia J CJ

Trials 20201016 1

<h4>Background</h4>Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRT) are increasingly used to evaluate new clinical programs, yet there is limited guidance on practical aspects of applying this design. We report our early experiences conducting a SW-CRT to examine an inpatient mobility program (STRIDE) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We provide recommendations for future research using this design to evaluate clinical programs.<h4>Methods</h4>Based on data from study records and refl ...[more]

PMID: 33076997

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn trials, hospital walking programs have been shown to improve functional ability after discharge, but little evidence exists about their effectiveness under routine practice conditions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of implementation of a supervised walking program known as STRIDE (AssiSTed EaRly MobIlity for HospitalizeD VEterans) on discharge to a skilled-nursing facility (SNF), length of stay (LOS), and inpatient falls.DesignStepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03300336).Setting8 Veterans Affairs hospitals from 20 August 2017 to 19 August 2019.PatientsAnalyses included hospitalizations involving patients aged 60 years or older who were community dwelling and admitted for 2 or more days to a participating medicine ward.InterventionHospitals were randomly assigned in 2 stratified blocks to a launch date for STRIDE. All hospitals received implementation support according to the Replicating Effective Programs framework.MeasurementsThe prespecified primary outcomes were discharge to a SNF and hospital LOS, and having 1 or more inpatient falls was exploratory. Generalized linear mixed models were fit to account for clustering of patients within hospitals and included patient-level covariates.ResultsPatients in pre-STRIDE time periods (n = 6722) were similar to post-STRIDE time periods (n = 6141). The proportion of patients with any documented walk during a potentially eligible hospitalization ranged from 0.6% to 22.7% per hospital. The estimated rates of discharge to a SNF were 13% pre-STRIDE and 8% post-STRIDE. In adjusted models, odds of discharge to a SNF were lower among eligible patients hospitalized in post-STRIDE time periods (odds ratio [OR], 0.6 [95% CI, 0.5 to 0.8]) compared with pre-STRIDE. Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no differences in LOS (rate ratio, 1.0 [CI, 0.9 to 1.1]) or having an inpatient fall (OR, 0.8 [CI, 0.5 to 1.1]).LimitationDirect program reach was low.ConclusionAlthough the reach was limited and variable, hospitalizations occurring during the STRIDE hospital walking program implementation period had lower odds of discharge to a SNF, with no change in hospital LOS or inpatient falls.Primary funding sourceU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (Optimizing Function and Independence QUERI).

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care.MethodsIn a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching).ConclusionsThe process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important in health care. However, despite scientific evidence, effective implementation strategies, and a prominent position on the health policy agenda, SDM is not widely implemented in routine practice so far. Therefore, we developed a program for routine implementation of SDM in oncology by conducting an analysis of the current state and a needs assessment in a pilot study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Based on these results, the main aim of our current study is to evaluate the process and outcome of this theoretically and empirically grounded multicomponent implementation program designed to foster SDM in routine cancer care. METHODS:We use a stepped wedge design, a variant of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention to be implemented is SDM. Three participating clinics of one comprehensive cancer center will be randomized and receive the multicomponent SDM implementation program in a time-delayed sequence. The program consists of the following strategies: (a) SDM training for health care professionals, (b) individual coaching for physicians, (c) patient activation strategy, (d) provision of patient information material and decision aids, (e) revision of the clinics' quality management documents, and (f) critical reflection of current organization of multidisciplinary team meetings. We will conduct a mixed methods outcome and process evaluation. The outcome evaluation will consist of four measurement points. The primary outcome is adoption of SDM, measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. A range of other implementation outcomes will be assessed (i.e., acceptability, readiness for implementing change, appropriateness, penetration). The implementation process will be evaluated using stakeholder interviews and field notes. This will allow adapting interventions if necessary. DISCUSSION:This study is the first large study on routine implementation of SDM conducted in German cancer care. We expect to foster implementation of SDM at the enrolled clinics. Insights gained from this study, using a theoretically and empirically grounded approach, can inform other SDM implementation studies and health policy developments, both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 . Registered 8 January 2018.

Project description:ImportanceInfections and complications following cesarean delivery are a significant source of maternal mortality in Ethiopia.ObjectiveTo study the effectiveness of a program to strengthen compliance with perioperative standards and reduce postoperative complications following cesarean delivery.Design, setting, and participantsThis stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial included patients undergoing cesarean delivery from August 24, 2021, to January 31, 2023, at 9 hospitals organized into 5 clusters in Ethiopia.InterventionClean Cut, a multimodal surgical quality improvement program that includes process-mapping 6 perioperative standards and creating site-specific, systems-level improvements. The control period was the period before implementation of the intervention.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was surgical site infection rate, and secondary end points were maternal mortality and perinatal mortality and a composite outcome of infections and both mortality outcomes. All were assessed at 30 days postoperatively in the intervention and control groups, adjusting for clustering and demographics. Compliance with standards and the relationship between compliance and outcomes were also compared between the 2 arms.ResultsAmong 9755 women undergoing cesarean delivery, 5099 deliveries (52.3%) occurred during the control period (2722 emergency cases [53.4%]) and 4656 (47.7%) during the intervention period (2346 emergency cases [50.4%]). Mean (SD) patient age was 27.04 (0.05) years. Thirty-day follow-up was completed for 5153 patients (52.8%). No significant reduction in infection rates was detected after the intervention (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55-1.27; P = .40). Intraoperative infection prevention standards improved significantly in the intervention arm vs control arm for compliance with at least 5 of the 6 standards (odds ratio [OR], 2.95; 95% CI, 2.40-3.62; P < .001). Regardless of trial arm, high compliance was associated with reduced odds of maternal (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.93; P = .04) and perinatal (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.89; P = .008) mortality.Conclusions and relevanceIn this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing cesarean delivery, no significant reductions in surgical site infections were observed. However, compliance with perioperative standards improved following the intervention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04812522; Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: PACTR202108717887402.

Project description:BackgroundAsthma is a prevalent chronic disease that is difficult to manage and associated with marked disparities in outcomes. One promising approach to addressing disparities is shared decision making (SDM), a method by which the patient and provider cooperatively make a decision about asthma care. SDM is associated with improved outcomes for patients; however, time constraints and staff availability are noted implementation barriers. Use of health information technology (IT) solutions may facilitate the utilization of SDM. Coach McLungsSM is a collaborative web-based application that involves pediatric patients, their caregivers, and providers in a personalized experience while gathering patient-reported data. Background logic provides decision support so both audiences can develop a well-informed treatment plan together. The goal of this study is to evaluate the implementation of the Coach McLungsSM intervention into primary care.MethodsImplementation will be evaluated using a stepped wedge randomized control study design at 21 pediatric and family medicine practices within a large, integrated, nonprofit healthcare system. We will measure changes in emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and oral steroid use, which serve as surrogate measures for patient-centered asthma outcomes. We will use a generalized linear mixed models with logit link to test the hypothesis for the reduction in exacerbation rates specifying the fixed effects of intervention and time and random effects for practice and practice*time. This design achieves 84% power to detect the hypothesized effect size difference of 10% in overall exacerbation between control (40%) and intervention (30%) periods (two-sided, p = 0.05). Implementation will be guided using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), a compilation of implementation strategies, and evaluated using the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) and RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance).DiscussionWe anticipate that a tailored implementation of Coach McLungsSM across diverse primary care practices will lead to a decrease in emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and oral steroid use for patients in the intervention group as compared to the control condition.Trial registrationClincaltrials.gov, NCT05059210. Registered 28 September 2021, https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov/ct2/show/NCT05059210.

Project description:BackgroundRisk of overdose, suicide, and other adverse outcomes are elevated among sub-populations prescribed opioid analgesics. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)-a provider-facing dashboard that utilizes predictive analytics to stratify patients prescribed opioids based on risk for overdose/suicide.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the case review mandate on serious adverse events (SAEs) and all-cause mortality among high-risk Veterans.DesignA 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in all 140 VHA medical centers between 2018 and 2020.ParticipantsA total of 44,042 patients actively prescribed opioid analgesics with high STORM risk scores (i.e., percentiles 1% to 5%) for an overdose or suicide-related event.InterventionA mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on opioid analgesic-prescribed patients at high risk of overdose/suicide.Main measuresNine serious adverse events (SAEs), case review completion, number of risk mitigation strategies, and all-cause mortality.Key resultsMandated review inclusion was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality within 4 months of inclusion (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). There was no detectable effect on SAEs. Stepped-wedge analyses found that mandated review patients were five times more likely to receive a case review than non-mandated patients with similar risk (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.64-7.23) and received more risk mitigation strategies than non-mandated patients (0.498; CI: 0.39-0.61).ConclusionsAmong VHA patients prescribed opioid analgesics, identifying high risk patients and mandating they receive an interdisciplinary case review was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality. Results suggest that providers can leverage predictive analytic-targeted population health approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve patient outcomes.Trial registrationISRCTN16012111.

Project description:ImportanceDelirium significantly worsens elective surgery outcomes and costs. Delirium risk is highest in elderly populations, whose surgical health care resource consumption (50%) exceeds their demographic proportion (15% to 18%) in high-resource countries. Effective nonpharmacologic delirium prevention could safely improve care in these vulnerable patients, but data from procedure-specific studies are insufficiently compelling to drive changes in practice. Delirium prevention approaches applicable to different surgical settings remain unexplored.ObjectiveTo examine whether a multifaceted prevention intervention is effective in reducing postoperative delirium incidence and prevalence after various major surgical procedures.Design, setting, and participantsThis stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial recruited 1470 patients 70 years and older undergoing elective orthopedic, general, or cardiac surgery from November 2017 to April 2019 from 5 German tertiary medical centers. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to July 2021.InterventionsFirst, structured delirium education was provided to clinical caregivers at each site. Then, the study delirium prevention team assessed patient delirium risk factors and symptoms daily. Prevention was tailored to individual patient needs and could include: cognitive, motor, and sensory stimulation; meal companionship; accompaniment during diagnostic procedures; stress relaxation; and sleep promotion.Main outcomes and measuresPostoperative delirium incidence and duration.ResultsOf 1470 included patients, 763 (51.9%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 77 (74-81) years. Overall, the intervention reduced postoperative delirium incidence (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98; P = .02) and percentage of days with delirium (intervention, 5.3%; control, 6.9%; P = .03). The effect was significant in patients undergoing orthopedic or abdominal surgery (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; P = .047) but not cardiac surgery (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.70-1.99; P = .54).Conclusions and relevanceThis multifaceted multidisciplinary prevention intervention reduced postoperative delirium occurrence and days with delirium in older patients undergoing different elective surgical procedures but not cardiac procedures. These results suggest implementing this delirium prevention program will improve care and outcomes in older patients undergoing elective general and orthopedic procedures.

Project description:In 2012, as a pilot for Botswana's national Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) rollout plans, intensified tuberculosis (TB) case finding (ICF) activities were strengthened at 22 HIV treatment clinics prior to phased activation of 13 Xpert instruments. Together, the strengthened ICF intervention and Xpert activation are referred to as the "Xpert package".The evaluation, called the Xpert Package Rollout Evaluation using a Stepped-wedge design (XPRES), has two key objectives: (1) to compare sensitivity of microscopy-based and Xpert-based pulmonary TB diagnostic algorithms in diagnosing sputum culture-positive TB; and (2) to evaluate impact of the "Xpert package" on all-cause, 6-month, adult antiretroviral therapy (ART) mortality. A pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial design was chosen. The design involves enrollment of three cohorts: (1) cohort R, a retrospective cohort of all study clinic ART enrollees in the 24 months before study initiation (July 31, 2012); (2) cohort A, a prospective cohort of all consenting patients presenting to study clinics after study initiation, who received the ICF intervention and the microscopy-based TB diagnostic algorithm; and (3) cohort B, a prospective cohort of all consenting patients presenting to study clinics after Xpert activation, who received the ICF intervention and the Xpert-based TB diagnostic algorithm. TB diagnostic sensitivity will be compared between TB culture-positive enrollees in cohorts A and B. All-cause, 6-month ART-mortality will be compared between cohorts R and B. With anticipated cohort R, A, and B sample sizes of about 10,131, 1,878, and 4,258, respectively, the study is estimated to have >80 % power to detect differences in pre-versus post-Xpert TB diagnostic sensitivity if pre-Xpert sensitivity is ?52.5 % and post-Xpert sensitivity ?82.5 %, and >80 % power to detect a 40 % reduction in all-cause, 6-month, ART mortality between cohorts R and B if cohort R mortality is ?13/100 person-years.Only one small previous trial (N?=?424) among ART enrolees in Zimbabwe evaluated, in a secondary analysis, Xpert impact on all-cause 6-month ART mortality. No mortality impact was observed. This Botswana trial, with its larger sample size and powered specifically to detect differences in all-cause 6-month ART mortality, remains well-positioned to contribute understanding of Xpert impact.Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02538952 .

Dataset Information

Implementation of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate a hospital mobility program.

Publications

Implementation of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate a hospital mobility program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets