Dataset Information

Non-pharmacological Options in Postoperative Hospital-Based and Rehabilitation Pain Management (NOHARM): Protocol for a Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Opioids 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.

Methods

We 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 outcomes

Patients' 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04570371.

SUBMITTER: Redmond S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9314477 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStepped 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.MethodsBased 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.ResultsSite 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).ConclusionsFuture 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 registrationClinicalsTrials.gov NCT03300336 . Prospectively registered on 3 October 2017.

Project description:BackgroundThe study was conducted to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of enhanced multi-disciplinary teams (EMDTs) vs. 'usual care' for the treatment of pressure ulcers in long term care (LTC) facilities in Ontario, CanadaMethodsWe conducted a multi-method study: a pragmatic cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial, ethnographic observation and in-depth interviews, and an economic evaluation. Long term care facilities (clusters) were randomly allocated to start dates of the intervention. An advance practice nurse (APN) with expertise in skin and wound care visited intervention facilities to educate staff on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, supported by an off-site hospital based expert multi-disciplinary wound care team via email, telephone, or video link as needed. The primary outcome was rate of reduction in pressure ulcer surface area (cm2/day) measured on before and after standard photographs by an assessor blinded to facility allocation. Secondary outcomes were time to healing, probability of healing, pressure ulcer incidence, pressure ulcer prevalence, wound pain, hospitalization, emergency department visits, utility, and cost.Results12 of 15 eligible LTC facilities were randomly selected to participate and randomized to start date of the intervention following the stepped wedge design. 137 residents with a total of 259 pressure ulcers (stage 2 or greater) were recruited over the 17 month study period. No statistically significant differences were found between control and intervention periods on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation demonstrated a mean reduction in direct care costs of $650 per resident compared to 'usual care'. The qualitative study suggested that onsite support by APN wound specialists was welcomed, and is responsible for reduced costs through discontinuation of expensive non evidence based treatments. Insufficient allocation of nursing home staff time to wound care may explain the lack of impact on healing.ConclusionEnhanced multi-disciplinary wound care teams were cost effective, with most benefit through cost reduction initiated by APNs, but did not improve the treatment of pressure ulcers in nursing homes. Policy makers should consider the potential yield of strengthening evidence based primary care within LTC facilities, through outreach by APNs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01232764.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with dementia are susceptible to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). However, they are not always closely monitored for potential problems relating to their medicines: structured nurse-led ADR Profiles have the potential to address this care gap. We aimed to assess the number and nature of clinical problems identified and addressed and changes in prescribing following introduction of nurse-led medicines' monitoring.DesignPragmatic cohort stepped-wedge cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of structured nurse-led medicines' monitoring versus usual care.SettingFive UK private sector care homes.Participants41 service users, taking at least one antipsychotic, antidepressant or anti-epileptic medicine.InterventionNurses completed the West Wales ADR (WWADR) Profile for Mental Health Medicines with each participant according to trial step.OutcomesProblems addressed and changes in medicines prescribed.Data collection and analysisInformation was collected from participants' notes before randomisation and after each of five monthly trial steps. The impact of the Profile on problems found, actions taken and reduction in mental health medicines was explored in multivariate analyses, accounting for data collection step and site.ResultsFive of 10 sites and 43 of 49 service users approached participated. Profile administration increased the number of problems addressed from a mean of 6.02 [SD 2.92] to 9.86 [4.48], effect size 3.84, 95% CI 2.57-4.11, P <0.001. For example, pain was more likely to be treated (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 3.84, 1.78-8.30), and more patients attended dentists and opticians (aOR 52.76 [11.80-235.90] and 5.12 [1.45-18.03] respectively). Profile use was associated with reduction in mental health medicines (aOR 4.45, 1.15-17.22).ConclusionThe WWADR Profile for Mental Health Medicines can improve the quality and safety of care, and warrants further investigation as a strategy to mitigate the known adverse effects of prescribed medicines.Trial registrationISRCTN 48133332.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether primary care outreach facilitation improves the quality of care for general practice patients from refugee backgrounds.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with stepped wedge allocation to early or late intervention groups.Setting, participants31 general practices in three metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne with high levels of refugee resettlement, November 2017 - August 2019.InterventionTrained facilitators made three visits to practices over six months, using structured action plans to help practice teams optimise routines of refugee care.Major outcome measureChange in proportion of patients from refugee backgrounds with documented health assessments (Medicare billing). Secondary outcomes were refugee status recording, interpreter use, and clinician-perceived difficulty in referring patients to appropriate dental, social, settlement, and mental health services.ResultsOur sample comprised 14 633 patients. The intervention was associated with an increase in the proportion of patients with Medicare-billed health assessments during the preceding six months, from 19.1% (95% CI, 18.6-19.5%) to 27.3% (95% CI, 26.7-27.9%; odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.42-2.50). The impact of the intervention was greater in smaller practices, practices with larger proportions of patients from refugee backgrounds, recent training in refugee health care, or higher baseline provision of health assessments for such patients. There was no impact on refugee status recording, interpreter use increased modestly, and reported difficulties in refugee-specific referrals to social, settlement and dental services were reduced.ConclusionsLow intensity practice facilitation may improve some aspects of primary care for people from refugee backgrounds. Facilitators employed by local health services could support integrated approaches to enhancing the quality of primary care for this vulnerable population.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001970235 (retrospective).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.