Dataset Information

Piloting I-SLEEP: a patient-centered education and empowerment intervention to improve patients' in-hospital sleep.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sleep disturbances in hospitalized patients are linked to poor recovery. In preparation for a future randomized controlled trial, this pilot study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-component intervention (I-SLEEP) that educates and empowers inpatients to advocate for fewer nighttime disruptions in order to improve sleep during periods of hospitalization.

Methods

Eligible inpatients received I-SLEEP, which included an educational video, brochure, sleep kit, and three questions patients can ask their team to reduce nighttime disruptions. Following I-SLEEP, inpatients were surveyed on the primary feasibility outcomes of satisfaction with and use of I-SLEEP components. Inpatients were also surveyed regarding empowerment and understanding of intervention materials. Patient charts were reviewed to collect data on nighttime (11 PM-7 AM) vital sign and blood draws disruptions.

Results

Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of patients were satisfied with the brochure and 87% (n = 27/31) with the video. Nearly all (95%, n = 36/37) patients felt empowered to ask their providers to minimize nighttime disruptions and 68% (n = 26/37) intended to alter sleep habits post-discharge. Forty-nine percent (n = 18/37) of patients asked an I-SLEEP question. Patients who asked an I-SLEEP question were significantly more likely to experience nights with fewer disruptions due to nighttime vitals (19% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.008).

Conclusion

This pilot study found that I-SLEEP was well-accepted and enabled hospitalized patients to advocate for less disrupted sleep. Educating patients to advocate for reducing nighttime disruptions may be a patient-centered, low-cost strategy to improve patients' care and in-hospital experience. These results suggest that I-SLEEP is ready to be evaluated against routine care in a future randomized controlled trial.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT04151251 .

SUBMITTER: Mason NR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375174 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe management of coronary disease epitomizes the call to better engage patients in shared medical decision-making. Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is the foundation of diagnosis, risk stratification, and subsequent therapy; however, MPI reports are currently interpretable by specialists but not patients.ObjectiveTo design and test a patient-centered report for stress MPI test results.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study of outpatients who underwent an MPI stress test and clinicians used a mixed methods approach. Phase 1 (December 2018 to July 2019) used qualitative methods to design a patient-centered reporting tool, with 5 focus groups with 36 patients and 2 focus groups with 27 clinicians. Phase 2 (June to September 2019) consisted of pilot testing the reporting tool with feedback from a structured survey given to patients who received MPI reports before and after implementing the tool.Main outcomes and measuresKey themes around patient experiences with the current MPI reporting and their desire for a more useful report were identified, which led to a sample reporting tool after serial iterations with feedback. Differences in patient knowledge and engagement were assessed between patients before and after implementation of the new reporting tool using χ2 tests.ResultsFrom patient focus groups (26 patients; mean [SD] age, 66.3 [9.6] years, 9 [35%] women), 3 themes on the inadequacies of current MPI reporting were identified: (1) inconsistent delivery of results, (2) use of medical jargon, and (3) unclear posttest course. We identified 5 themes for a more patient-centered MPI report: desire for written information, discussion of the report with medical personnel, presentation of results in simple language with use of visual graphics, comparisons with normal results, and personalized risk estimates. In a pilot survey with 123 patients split into a pre-implementation group (69 patients; mean [SD] age, 68.2 [8.5] years; 27 [51%] women) and a postimplementation group (54 patients; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [8.7] years; 30 [56%] women), the patient-centered report led to more patients reading the entire report (45 [83%] vs 46 [67%]; P = .04) and improved knowledge of future risk of cardiac events (41 [76%] vs 20 [29%]; P < .001). There was also a numerically higher percentage of patients who found the report easy to read (45 [83%] vs 44 [68%]; P = .05) and understand (42 [78%] vs 43 [66%]; P = .16), although these results were not statistically significant.Conclusions and relevanceThis study identified key elements of a patient-centered report design for stress MPI test results, which improved patient engagement and knowledge. These preliminary data support further implementation and study of a more patient-centered MPI report.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network-Scleroderma Support group Leader EDucation (SPIN-SSLED) Programme was designed to improve confidence and self-efficacy and to reduce burden for support group leaders. Objectives were to (1) evaluate feasibility of programme delivery, including required resources, management issues and scientific aspects (eg, performance of outcome measures) and (2) assess user satisfaction and identify any modifications needed to improve programme content or delivery based on participant feedback. DESIGN:Non-randomised feasibility trial. SETTING:North American patient organisations. PARTICIPANTS:Current support group leaders or potential new leaders referred by patient organisations. INTERVENTION:The programme included 13 modules delivered live via videoconference over 3 months (April to July 2018) in 60 to 90?min sessions. OUTCOME MEASURES:(1) Elements of feasibility, including enrolment and consent procedures, percentage of referred group leaders who consented to participate, session attendance and technical support requirements; (2) programme usability, understandability, organisation and clarity; (3) leader satisfaction with the programme and (4) planned trial outcome measures, including support group leader self-efficacy, burnout, emotional distress and physical function. RESULTS:All 12 referred potential participants consented to enrol, and 10 were included in two training groups of five participants each. Participants attended 95% of sessions. Required technical support was minimal, and videoconferencing technology functioned well. Overall programme satisfaction rating was 9.4/10. Mean item rating on the eight items of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 was 3.83 (1=low satisfaction; 4=high satisfaction). Pre-post scores on the Scleroderma Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale increased by 1.7 SDs (large effect); scores on burnout, emotional distress and physical function improved by 0.44, 0.38 and 0.45 SDs (moderate effects). CONCLUSION:The SPIN-SSLED Programme was feasibly delivered, including management, resource and scientific aspects. Participant satisfaction was high. The programme is ready to be tested in a full-scale randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03508661.