Dataset Information

Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: the BEACON trial.

ABSTRACT: Widespread implementation of palliative care treatment plans could reduce suffering in the last days of life by adopting best practices of traditionally home-based hospice care in inpatient settings.To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-modal intervention strategy to improve processes of end-of-life care in inpatient settings.Implementation trial with an intervention staggered across hospitals using a multiple-baseline, stepped wedge design.Six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs).Staff training was targeted to all hospital providers and focused on identifying actively dying patients and implementing best practices from home-based hospice care, supported with an electronic order set and paper-based educational tools.Several processes of care were identified as quality endpoints for end-of-life care (last 7 days) and abstracted from electronic medical records of veterans who died before or after intervention (n?=?6,066). Primary endpoints were proportion with an order for opioid pain medication at time of death, do-not-resuscitate order, location of death, nasogastric tube, intravenous line infusing, and physical restraints. Secondary endpoints were administration of opioids, order/administration of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and scopolamine (for death rattle); sublingual administration; advance directives; palliative care consultations; and pastoral care services. Generalized estimating equations were conducted adjusting for longitudinal trends.Significant intervention effects were observed for orders for opioid pain medication (OR: 1.39), antipsychotic medications (OR: 1.98), benzodiazepines (OR: 1.39), death rattle medications (OR: 2.77), sublingual administration (OR: 4.12), nasogastric tubes (OR: 0.71), and advance directives (OR: 1.47). Intervention effects were not significant for location of death, do-not-resuscitate orders, intravenous lines, or restraints.This broadly targeted intervention strategy led to modest but statistically significant changes in several processes of care, indicating its potential for widespread dissemination to improve end-of-life care for thousands of patients who die each year in inpatient settings.

SUBMITTER: Bailey FA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4026508 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: the BEACON trial.

Bailey F Amos FA Williams Beverly R BR Woodby Lesa L LL Goode Patricia S PS Redden David T DT Houston Thomas K TK Granstaff U Shanette US Johnson Theodore M TM Pennypacker Leslye C LC Haddock K Sue KS Painter John M JM Spencer Jessie M JM Hartney Thomas T Burgio Kathryn L KL

Journal of general internal medicine 20140601 6

<h4>Background</h4>Widespread implementation of palliative care treatment plans could reduce suffering in the last days of life by adopting best practices of traditionally home-based hospice care in inpatient settings.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-modal intervention strategy to improve processes of end-of-life care in inpatient settings.<h4>Design</h4>Implementation trial with an intervention staggered across hospitals using a multiple-baseline, stepped wedge design. ...[more]

PMID: 24449032

Similar Datasets

Project description:We conducted a cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of an intervention to increase the use of osteoporosis medications in high-risk patients receiving home health care. The trial did not find a significant difference in medication use in the intervention arm.This study aims to test an evidence implementation intervention to improve the quality of care in the home health care setting for patients at high risk for fractures.We conducted a cluster randomized trial of a multimodal intervention targeted at home care for high-risk patients (prior fracture or physician-diagnosed osteoporosis) receiving care in a statewide home health agency in Alabama. Offices throughout the state were randomized to receive the intervention or to usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of high-risk home health patients treated with osteoporosis medications. A t test of difference in proportions was conducted between intervention and control arms and constituted the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included logistic regression estimating the effect of individual patients being treated in an intervention arm office on the likelihood of a patient receiving osteoporosis medications. A follow-on analysis examined the effect of an automated alert built into the electronic medical record that prompted the home health care nurses to deploy the intervention for high-risk patients using a pre-post design.There were 11 offices randomized to each of the treatment and control arms; these offices treated 337 and 330 eligible patients, respectively. Among the offices in the intervention arm, the average proportion of eligible patients receiving osteoporosis medications post-intervention was 19.1 %, compared with 15.7 % in the usual care arm (difference in proportions 3.4 %, 95 % CI, -2.6 to 9.5 %). The overall rates of osteoporosis medication use increased from 14.8 % prior to activation of the automated alert to 17.6 % afterward, a nonsignificant difference.The home health intervention did not result in a significant improvement in use of osteoporosis medications in high-risk patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Most patients with type 2 diabetes have suboptimal control of their glucose, blood pressure (BP), and lipids - three risk factors for diabetes complications. Although the chronic care model (CCM) provides a roadmap for improving these outcomes, developing theoretically sound implementation strategies that will work across diverse primary care settings has been challenging. One explanation for this difficulty may be that most strategies do not account for the complex adaptive system (CAS) characteristics of the primary care setting. A CAS is comprised of individuals who can learn, interconnect, self-organize, and interact with their environment in a way that demonstrates non-linear dynamic behavior. One implementation strategy that may be used to leverage these properties is practice facilitation (PF). PF creates time for learning and reflection by members of the team in each clinic, improves their communication, and promotes an individualized approach to implement a strategy to improve patient outcomes. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:The specific objectives of this protocol are to: evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of PF to improve risk factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes across a variety of primary care settings; assess the implementation of the CCM in response to the intervention; examine the relationship between communication within the practice team and the implementation of the CCM; and determine the cost of the intervention both from the perspective of the organization conducting the PF intervention and from the perspective of the primary care practice. INTERVENTION:The study will be a group randomized trial conducted in 40 primary care clinics. Data will be collected on all clinics, with 60 patients in each clinic, using a multi-method assessment process at baseline, 12, and 24 months. The intervention, PF, will consist of a series of practice improvement team meetings led by trained facilitators over 12 months. Primary hypotheses will be tested with 12-month outcome data. Sustainability of the intervention will be tested using 24 month data. Insights gained will be included in a delayed intervention conducted in control practices and evaluated in a pre-post design. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:To test hypotheses, the unit of randomization will be the clinic. The unit of analysis will be the repeated measure of each risk factor for each patient, nested within the clinic. The repeated measure of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c will be the primary outcome, with BP and Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol as secondary outcomes. To study change in risk factor level, a hierarchical or random effect model will be used to account for the nesting of repeated measurement of risk factor within patients and patients within clinics.

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic.MethodsWe conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation.ResultsThe effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit.ConclusionsCovid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Project description:ImportanceAlthough brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).ObjectiveTo determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.InterventionsParticipants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.ResultsMean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceA one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.

Dataset Information

Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: the BEACON trial.

Publications

Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: the BEACON trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets