Dataset Information

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve hospital discharge: process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients.

Design

Extension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering.

Setting

General internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals.

Participants

Convenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs.

Implementation strategy

Two-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine.

Process evaluation components

Data collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis.

Outcome measures

Intervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies.

Results

Recruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs.

Conclusions

The results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN18427377.

SUBMITTER: Rachamin Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8162085 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:India has high prevalence of hypertension but low awareness, treatment and control rate. A cluster randomised trial entitled 'm-Power Heart Project' is being implemented to test the effectiveness of a nurse care coordinator (NCC) led complex intervention to address uncontrolled hypertension in the community health centres (CHCs). The trial's process evaluation will assess the fidelity and quality of implementation, clarify the causal mechanisms and identify the contextual factors associated with variation in the outcomes. The trial will use a theory-based mixed-methods process evaluation, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The process evaluation will be conducted in the CHCs of Visakhapatnam (southern India). The key stakeholders involved in the intervention development and implementation will be included as participants. In-depth interviews will be conducted with intervention developers, doctors, NCCs and health department officials and focus groups with patients and their caregivers. NCC training will be evaluated using Kirkpatrick's model for training evaluation. Key process evaluation indicators (number of patients recruited and retained; concordance between the treatment plans generated by the electronic decision support system and treatment prescribed by the doctor and so on) will be assessed. Fidelity will be assessed using Borrelli et al's framework. Qualitative data will be analysed using the template analysis technique. Quantitative data will be summarised as medians (IQR), means (SD) and proportions as appropriate. Mixed-methods analysis will be conducted to assess if the variation in the mean reduction of systolic blood pressure between the intervention CHCs is influenced by patient satisfaction, training outcome, attitude of doctors, patients and NCCs about the intervention, process indicators etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committees at Public Health Foundation of India and Deakin University. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03164317; Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Joint contractures in frail older people are associated with serious restrictions in participation. We developed the Participation Enabling CAre in Nursing (PECAN) intervention, a complex intervention to enable nurses to promote participation in nursing home residents with joint contractures. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of the implementation strategy and to identify enablers and barriers for a successful implementation. METHODS:The implementation of PECAN was investigated in a 6-month pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial (c-RCT). As a key component of the implementation strategy, nominated nurses were trained as facilitators in a one-day workshop and supported by peer-mentoring (visit, telephone counselling). A mixed-methods approach was conducted in conjunction with the pilot trial and guided by a framework for process evaluations of c-RCTs. Data were collected using standardised questionnaires (nursing staff), documentation forms, problem-centred qualitative interviews (facilitators, therapists, social workers, relatives, peer-mentors), and a group discussion (facilitators). A set of predefined criteria on the nursing home level was examined. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS:Seven nursing homes (n =?4 intervention groups, n =?3 control groups) in two regions of Germany took part in the study. Facilitators responded well to the qualification measures (workshop participation: 14/14; workshop rating: "good"; peer-mentor visit participation: 10/14). The usage of peer-mentoring via telephone varied (one to seven contacts per nursing home). Our implementation strategy was not successful in connection with supplying the intervention to all the nurses. The clear commitment of the entire nursing home and the respect for the expertise of different healthcare professionals were emphasised as enablers, whereas a lack of impact on organisational conditions and routines and a lack of time and staff competence were mentioned as barriers. CONCLUSION:The PECAN intervention was delivered as planned to the facilitators but was unable to produce comprehensive changes in the nursing homes and subsequently for the residents. Strategies to systematically include the management and the nursing team from the beginning are needed to support the facilitators during implementation in the main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German clinical trials register, DRKS00010037 . Registered 12 February 2016.

Project description:BackgroundBronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users' perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data.MethodsA pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use.ConclusionOur targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415 .

Project description:BackgroundThe Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer research programme sought to improve treatment decision-making for older women with breast cancer by developing and testing, in a cluster randomised trial (n = 1339 patients), two decision support interventions (DESIs). Both DESIs were used in the intervention arm and each comprised an online risk prediction model, brief decision aid and information booklet. One DESI supported the decision to have either primary endocrine therapy (PET) or surgery with adjuvant therapies and the second supported the decision to have adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery or not.MethodsSixteen sites were randomly selected to take part in the process evaluation. Multiple methods of data collection were used. Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for the evaluation of complex interventions were used.ResultsEighty-two patients, mean age 75.5 (range 70-93), provided data for the process evaluation. Seventy-three interviews were completed with patients. Ten clinicians from six intervention sites took part in telephone interviews. Dose: Ninety-one members of staff in the intervention arm received intervention training. Reach: The online tool was accessed on 324 occasions by 27 clinicians. Reasons for non-use of the online tool were commonly that the patient had already made a decision or that there was no online access in the clinic. Of the 32 women for whom there were data available, fifteen from the intervention arm and six from the usual care arm were offered a choice of treatment. Fidelity: Clinicians used the online tool in different ways, with some using it during the consultation and others checking the online survival estimates before the consultation. Adaptation: There was evidence of adaptation when using the DESIs. A lack of infrastructure, e.g. internet access, was a barrier to the use of the online tool. The brief decision aid was rarely used. Mediators: Shared decision-making: Most patients felt able to contribute to decision-making and expressed high levels of satisfaction with the process. Participants' responses to intervention: Six patients reported the DESIs to be very useful, one somewhat useful and two moderately useful.ConclusionsClinicians who participated were mainly supportive of the interventions and had attempted some adaptations to make the interventions applicable, but there were practical and engagement barriers that led to sub-optimal adoption in routine practice.Trial registrationISRCTN46099296 . Registered on 11 August 2016-retrospectively registered.

Project description:PurposeTo examine the use of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to establish if, and in what ways, the AMBER care bundle can be successfully normalised into acute hospital practice, and to identify necessary modifications to optimise its implementation.MethodMulti-method process evaluation embedded within a mixed-method feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in two district general hospitals in England. Data were collected using (i) focus groups with health professionals (HPs), (ii) semi-structured interviews with patients and/or carers, (iii) non-participant observations of multi-disciplinary team meetings and (iv) patient clinical note review. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, with interpretation guided by NPT components (coherence; cognitive participation; collective action; reflexive monitoring). Data triangulated across sources.ResultsTwo focus groups (26 HPs), nine non-participant observations, 12 interviews (two patients, 10 relatives), 29 clinical note reviews were conducted. While coherence was evident, with HPs recognising the value of the AMBER care bundle, cognitive participation and collective action presented challenges. Specifically: (1) HPs were unable and unwilling to operationalise the concept of 'risk of dying' intervention eligibility criteria (2) integration relied on a 'champion' to drive participation and ensure sustainability; and (3) differing skills and confidence led to variable engagement with difficult conversations with patients and families about, for example, nearness to end of life. Opportunities for reflexive monitoring were not routinely embedded within the intervention. Reflections on the use of the AMBER care bundle from HPs and patients and families, including recommended modifications became evident through this NPT-driven analysis.ConclusionTo be successfully normalised, new clinical practices, such as the AMBER care bundle, must be studied within the wider context in which they operate. NPT can be used to the aid identification of practical strategies to assist in normalisation of complex interventions where the focus of care is on clinical uncertainty in acute hospital settings.