Recovery and Renewal of Co-Design Approaches in Health: Protocol for a Realist Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly transformed the landscape of work and collaboration, impacting design research methodologies and techniques. Co-design approaches have been both negatively and positively affected by the pandemic, prompting a need to investigate and understand the extent of these impacts, changes, and adaptations, specifically in the health sector. Despite the challenges that the pandemic imposed on conducting co-design and related projects, it also encouraged a re-evaluation of co-design practices, leading to innovative solutions and techniques. Designers and researchers have explored alternative ways to engage stakeholders and end users, leveraging digital workshops and participatory digital platforms. These adaptations have the potential to enhance inclusivity, allowing for a wider range of individuals to contribute their perspectives and insights through co-design and thus contribute to healthcare change. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the impacts of the pandemic on co-design and related practices, focusing on co-design practices in healthcare that have been gained, adapted, or enhanced, with a specific focus on issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion. METHODS: The study uses a realist synthesis methodology to identify and analyze the effects of the pandemic on co-design approaches in health, drawing on a range of sources including first-person experiences, gray literature, and academic literature. A community of practice in co-design in health will be engaged to support this process. RESULTS: By examining the experiences and insights of professionals, practitioners, and communities who were actively involved in co-design and have navigated the challenges and opportunities of the pandemic, we can gain a deeper understanding of the strategies, tools, and techniques that have facilitated effective co-design during the pandemic, contributing to building resilience and capacity in co-design in health beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: By involving community partners, community of practice (research), and design practitioners, we expect closer proximity to practice with capacity building occurring through the realist process, thus enabling rapid adoption and refinement of new techniques or insights that emerge. Ultimately, this research will contribute to the advancement of co-design methodologies and inform the future of co-design in health. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/58318.

Impact of a prospective feedback loop aimed at reducing non-beneficial treatments in older people admitted to hospital and potentially nearing the end of life. A cluster stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if a prospective feedback loop that flags older patients at risk of death can reduce non-beneficial treatment at end of life. DESIGN: Prospective stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with usual care and intervention phases. SETTING: Three large tertiary public hospitals in south-east Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 14 clinical teams were recruited across the three hospitals. Teams were recruited based on a consistent history of admitting patients aged 75+ years, and needed a nominated lead specialist consultant. Under the care of these teams, there were 4,268 patients (median age 84 years) who were potentially near the end of life and flagged at risk of non-beneficial treatment. INTERVENTION: The intervention notified clinicians of patients under their care determined as at-risk of non-beneficial treatment. There were two notification flags: a real-time notification and an email sent to clinicians about the at-risk patients at the end of each screening day. The nudge intervention ran for 16-35 weeks across the three hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. The secondary outcomes examined times from patients being flagged at-risk. RESULTS: There was no improvement in the primary outcome of reduced ICU admissions (mean probability difference [intervention minus usual care] = -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.08 to 0.01). There were no differences for the times to death, discharge, or medical emergency call. There was a reduction in the probability of re-admission to hospital during the intervention phase (mean probability difference -0.08, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to -0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This nudge intervention was not sufficient to reduce the trial's non-beneficial treatment outcomes in older hospital patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12619000675123 (registered 6 May 2019).

Predictors of mortality shortly after entering a long-term care facility.

OBJECTIVE: Moving into a long-term care facility (LTCF) requires substantial personal, societal and financial investment. Identifying those at high risk of short-term mortality after LTCF entry can help with care planning and risk factor management. This study aimed to: (i) examine individual-, facility-, medication-, system- and healthcare-related predictors for 90-day mortality at entry into an LTCF and (ii) create risk profiles for this outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Registry of Senior Australians. SUBJECTS: Individuals aged ≥ 65 years old with first-time permanent entry into an LTCF in three Australian states between 01 January 2013 and 31 December 2016. METHODS: A prediction model for 90-day mortality was developed using Cox regression with the purposeful variable selection approach. Individual-, medication-, system- and healthcare-related factors known at entry into an LTCF were examined as predictors. Harrell's C-index assessed the predictive ability of our risk models. RESULTS: 116,192 individuals who entered 1,967 facilities, of which 9.4% (N = 10,910) died within 90 days, were studied. We identified 51 predictors of mortality, five of which were effect modifiers. The strongest predictors included activities of daily living category (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.99-5.88 for high vs low), high level of complex health conditions (HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.58-1.77 for high vs low), several medication classes and male sex (HR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.53-1.65). The model out-of-sample Harrell's C-index was 0.773. CONCLUSIONS: Our mortality prediction model, which includes several strongly associated factors, can moderately well identify individuals at high risk of mortality upon LTCF entry.

Contextually appropriate nurse staffing models: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions about nurse staffing models are a concern for health systems globally due to workforce retention and well-being challenges. Nurse staffing models range from all Registered Nurse workforce to a mix of differentially educated nurses and aides (regulated and unregulated), such as Licensed Practical or Vocational Nurses and Health Care Aides. Systematic reviews have examined relationships between specific nurse staffing models and client, staff and health system outcomes (eg, mortality, adverse events, retention, healthcare costs), with inconclusive or contradictory results. No evidence has been synthesised and consolidated on how, why and under what contexts certain staffing models produce different outcomes. We aim to describe how we will (1) conduct a realist review to determine how nurse staffing models produce different client, staff and health system outcomes, in which contexts and through what mechanisms and (2) coproduce recommendations with decision-makers to guide future research and implementation of nurse staffing models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using an integrated knowledge translation approach with researchers and decision-makers as partners, we are conducting a three-phase realist review. In this protocol, we report on the final two phases of this realist review. We will use Citation tracking, tracing Lead authors, identifying Unpublished materials, Google Scholar searching, Theory tracking, ancestry searching for Early examples, and follow-up of Related projects (CLUSTER) searching, specifically designed for realist searches as the review progresses. We will search empirical evidence to test identified programme theories and engage stakeholders to contextualise findings, finalise programme theories document our search processes as per established realist review methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (Study ID Pro00100425). We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations, regional briefing sessions, webinars and lay summary.

Hospital and out-of-hospital services provided by public geriatric medicine departments in Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the types of hospital and out-of-hospital services provided by public geriatric medicine departments in Australia and New Zealand, and to explore head of department (HOD) views on issues in current and future service provision. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to HODs of public geriatric medicine departments. RESULTS: Seventy-six (89%) of 85 identified HODs completed the survey. Seventy-one (93%) departments admit inpatients and 51 (67%) admit acute inpatients, with variable admission criteria. Sixty-four (84%) have hospitals with an inpatient general medicine service, and 58 (91%) of these admit older patients with acute geriatric issues. Sixty (79%) departments provide inpatient rehabilitation. Forty (53%) have beds for behavioural symptoms of dementia and/or delirium. Seventy (92%) provide a proactive orthogeriatric service. In terms of out-of-hospital services, 74 (97%) departments have outpatient clinics, 59 (78%) have telehealth and 68 (89%) perform home visits. Forty-five (59%) provide an inreach/outreach service to nursing homes. The most frequent gaps in service provision identified by HODs were acute geriatrics, surgical liaison, a designated dementia/delirium behavioural management unit, geriatricians in Emergency, outreach/inreach to residential care and shared care with some medical specialities. Increasing staff numbers and government policy change were the most frequently identified ways to address these gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric medicine service provision is variable across Australia and New Zealand, with key gaps identified. These findings will inform future directions in implementation of geriatric medicine models of care and discussions with various levels of government about the ongoing development of geriatric medicine services.

Implementation outcomes of a digital, trauma-informed care, educational intervention targeting health professionals in a paediatric burns setting: A mixed methods process evaluation.

Trauma-informed care practices are associated with a culture of safety following traumatic experiences, including medical trauma. An interactive, web-based training package ('Responsive CARE') was developed for voluntary uptake by paediatric burns health professionals to increase staff knowledge about trauma-informed practice. This paper reports on a mixed methods process evaluation conducted alongside a preliminary effectiveness study of 'Responsive CARE'. The process evaluation was conducted using The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a logic model, to examine feasibility of both the intervention and implementation strategy. Health practitioners (including senior managers) delivering care to children and caregivers attending an outpatient burns service were eligible to enrol in 'Responsive CARE'. Qualitative interview data and quantitative metadata were used to evaluate the implementation outcomes (adoption, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility and preliminary effectiveness). Children and caregivers attending an outpatient service for change of burn wound dressing or burn scar management during the 3-month control or 3-month intervention period were eligible to enrol in the effectiveness study. The impact on child pain and distress, as well as cost, was investigated using a pretest-posttest design. Thirteen (from anticipated 50 enrolled) health professionals (all female) with mean 10 years (SD=11) of experience with paediatric burns hospital-based outpatient care completed an average of 65% (range 36% to 88%) of available content. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were completed with health practitioners (21 female) and with 14 caregivers (11 female). Four themes were identified as influencing feasibility and acceptability of the intervention: 1) Keeping a trauma-informed lens; 2) Ways of incorporating trauma-informed care; 3) Working within system constraints; and 4) Being trauma-informed. Preliminary effectiveness data included 177 participants (median age 2 years, and median total body surface area burn 1%). Causal assumptions within the logic model were unable to be fully tested, secondary to lower-than-expected adoption and fidelity. We found no significant difference for pain, distress and per-patient hospital care costs between groups (pre- and post-intervention). Future implementation strategies should include organizational support to keep a trauma-informed lens and to incorporate trauma-informed principles within a medical model of care. Despite efforts to co-design a staff education intervention and implementation approach focused on stakeholder engagement, adaptations are indicated to both the intervention and implementation strategies to promote uptake highlighting the complexity of changing clinician behaviours.

Primary, allied health, selected specialists, and mental health service utilisation by home care recipients in Australia before and after accessing the care, 2017-2019.

OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in primary, allied health, selected specialists, and mental health service utilisation by older people in the year before and after accessing home care package (HCP) services. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using the Registry of Senior Australians Historical National Cohort (≥ 65 years old), including individuals accessing HCP services between 2017 and 2019 (N = 109,558), was conducted. The utilisation of general practice (GP) attendances, health assessments, chronic disease management plans, allied health services, geriatric, pain, palliative, and mental health services, subsidised by the Australian Government Medicare Benefits Schedule, was assessed in the 12 months before and after HCP access, stratified by HCP level (1-2 vs. 3-4, i.e., lower vs. higher care needs). Relative changes in service utilisation 12 months before and after HCP access were estimated using adjusted risk ratios (aRR) from Generalised Estimating Equation Poisson models. RESULTS: Utilisation of health assessments (7-10.2%), chronic disease management plans (19.7-28.2%), and geriatric, pain, palliative, and mental health services (all ≤ 2.5%) remained low, before and after HCP access. Compared to 12 months prior to HCP access, 12 months after, GP after-hours attendances increased (HCP 1-2 from 6.95 to 7.5%, aRR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11; HCP 3-4 from 7.76 to 9.32%, aRR = 1.20, 95%CI 1.13-1.28) and allied health services decreased (HCP 1-2 from 34.8 to 30.7%, aRR = 0.88, 95%CI 0.87-0.90; HCP levels 3-4 from 30.5 to 24.3%, aRR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.77-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Most MBS subsidised preventive, management and specialist services are underutilised by older people, both before and after HCP access and small changes are observed after they access HCP.

Process evaluation of a tailored nudge intervention to promote appropriate care and treatment of older patients at the end-of-life.

BACKGROUND: Non-beneficial treatment affects a considerable proportion of older people in hospital, and some will choose to decline invasive treatments when they are approaching the end of their life. The Intervention for Appropriate Care and Treatment (InterACT) intervention was a 12-month stepped wedge randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation in three hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. The aim was to increase appropriate care and treatment decisions for older people at the end-of-life, through implementing a nudge intervention in the form of a prospective feedback loop. However, the trial results indicated that the expected practice change did not occur. The process evaluation aimed to assess implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, identify barriers and enablers to implementation and provide insights into the lack of effect of the InterACT intervention. METHODS: Qualitative data collection involved 38 semi-structured interviews with participating clinicians, members of the executive advisory groups overseeing the intervention at a site level, clinical auditors, and project leads. Online interviews were conducted at two times: implementation onset and completion. Data were coded to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and deductively analysed. RESULTS: Overall, clinicians felt the premise and clinical reasoning behind InterACT were strong and could improve patient management. However, several prominent barriers affected implementation. These related to the potency of the nudge intervention and its integration into routine clinical practice, clinician beliefs and perceived self-efficacy, and wider contextual factors at the health system level. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention designed to change clinical practice for patients at or near to end-of-life did not have the intended effect. Future interventions targeting this area of care should consider using multi-component strategies that address the identified barriers to implementation and clinician change of practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12619000675123p (approved 06/05/2019).

Primary health care service utilisation before and after entry into long-term care in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To examine utilisation of primary health care services (subsidised by the Australian Government, Medicare Benefits Schedule, MBS) before and after entry into long-term care (LTC) in Australia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of older people (aged ≥65 years) who entered LTC in Australia between 2012 and 2016 using the Historical Cohort of the Registry of Senior Australians. MBS-subsidised general attendances (general practitioner (GP), medical and nurse practitioners), health assessment and management plans, allied health, mental health services and selected specialist attendances accessed in 91-day periods 12 months before and after LTC entry were examined. Adjusted relative changes in utilisation 0-3 months before and after LTC entry were estimated using risk ratios (RR) calculated using Generalised Estimating Equation Poisson models. RESULTS: 235,217 residents were included in the study with a median age of 84 years (interquartile range 79-89) and 61.1% female. In the first 3 months following LTC entry, GP / medical practitioner attendances increased from 86.6% to 95.6% (aRR 1.10 95%CI 1.10-1.11), GP / medical practitioner urgent after hours (from 12.3% to 21.1%; aRR 1.72, 95%CI 1.70-1.74) and after-hours attendances (from 18.5% to 33.8%; aRR 1.83, 95%CI 1.81-1.84) increased almost two-fold. Pain, palliative and geriatric specialist medicine attendances were low in the 3 months prior (<3%) and decreased further following LTC admission. CONCLUSION: There is an opportunity to improve the utilisation of primary health care services following LTC entry to ensure that residents' increasingly complex care needs are adequately met.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Flinders Chronic Condition Management Program in outpatient drug and alcohol settings in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing call for drug and/or alcohol dependence to be managed as a chronic condition. The Flinders Chronic Condition Management Program (Flinders Program) was implemented in a drug and alcohol service in Australia in 2019-2022 to explore the feasibility of chronic condition management in outpatient clinics. Implementation involved: adaptation of the Flinders Program; adaptation of clinical procedures; training clinicians and managers; training Flinders Program Accredited Trainers; and system integration. This study aims to explore barriers and enablers to implementation. METHODS: A qualitative formative evaluation was undertaken. Data included implementation documents (n = 7), responses to open-ended questions in post-training surveys (n = 27), and focus groups and interviews with implementation staff, clinicians, managers and a trainer (n = 16). Data were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research in a 'coding reliability' approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants responded positively to the Flinders Program's philosophy, processes, tools and training. However, barriers were identified across three Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains: (i) outer setting (client suitability and incompatibility with external policies and incentives); (ii) characteristics of individuals (low self-efficacy); and (iii) inner setting (lack of system and workflow integration). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Executive support and systems integration are important for the implementation of the Flinders Program in drug and alcohol services. This needs to be achieved within externally mandated key performance indicators for outpatient services. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the potential of a chronic condition management framework in Australian outpatient drug and alcohol services.

From pilot to a multi-site trial: refining the Early Detection of Deterioration in Elderly Residents (EDDIE +) intervention.

BACKGROUND: Early Detection of Deterioration in Elderly Residents (EDDIE +) is a multi-modal intervention focused on empowering nursing and personal care workers to identify and proactively manage deterioration of residents living in residential aged care (RAC) homes. Building on successful pilot trials conducted between 2014 and 2017, the intervention was refined for implementation in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 RAC homes from March 2021 to May 2022. We report the process used to transition from a small-scale pilot intervention to a multi-site intervention, detailing the intervention to enable future replication. METHODS: The EDDIE + intervention used the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to guide the intervention development and refinement process. We conducted an environmental scan; multi-level context assessments; convened an intervention working group (IWG) to develop the program logic, conducted a sustainability assessment and deconstructed the intervention components into fixed and adaptable elements; and subsequently refined the intervention for trial. RESULTS: The original EDDIE pilot intervention included four components: nurse and personal care worker education; decision support tools; diagnostic equipment; and facilitation and clinical support. Deconstructing the intervention into core components and what could be flexibly tailored to context was essential for refining the intervention and informing future implementation across multiple sites. Intervention elements considered unsustainable were updated and refined to enable their scalability. Refinements included: an enhanced educational component with a greater focus on personal care workers and interactive learning; decision support tools that were based on updated evidence; equipment that aligned with recipient needs and available organisational support; and updated facilitation model with local and external facilitation. CONCLUSION: By using the i-PARIHS framework in the scale-up process, the EDDIE + intervention was tailored to fit the needs of intended recipients and contexts, enabling flexibility for local adaptation. The process of transitioning from a pilot to larger scale implementation in practice is vastly underreported yet vital for better development and implementation of multi-component interventions across multiple sites. We provide an example using an implementation framework and show it can be advantageous to researchers and health practitioners from pilot stage to refinement, through to larger scale implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620000507987, registered 23/04/2020).

Factors that influence the implementation of innovation in aged care: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify factors that influence the implementation of innovation in aged care. INTRODUCTION: Aged care is a dynamic sector experiencing rapid change. Implementation of innovations in aged care has received relatively little research attention compared to health care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included studies of any design, that examined the implementation of innovations in aged care settings. METHODS: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, AgeLine, and ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection for studies published between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2022. The titles and abstracts of retrieved citations were screened by two independent reviewers. Full-text articles were screened by one reviewer to determine inclusion. Data were extracted in NVivo using a tool developed by the research team. Factors that influenced implementation were inductively coded, interpreted, and grouped into categories in a series of workshops. RESULTS: Of the 2530 studies that were screened, 193 were included. Of the included papers, the majority (74%) related to residential aged care, 28% used an implementation theory or framework, and 15% involved consumers. Five key categories of factors influencing implementation were identified: organizational context including resourcing and culture; people's attitudes and capabilities; relationships between people; the intervention and its appropriateness; and implementation actions such as stakeholder engagement and implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can be used to develop practical resources to support implementation efforts, and highlight the importance of resourcing for successful implementation. Attention to community-based aged care, and greater engagement with theory and community is needed to promote research rigor, relevance and applicability.

Codesigning implementation strategies to improve evidence-based stroke rehabilitation: A feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: People with lived experience are rarely involved in implementation science research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of codesigning and delivering implementation strategies with people with lived experience of stroke and health professionals to improve evidence-based stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: We used Experience-Based CoDesign to design and deliver strategies to implement Stroke Clinical Guideline recommendations at one Australian inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit. Workgroups were formed with health professionals and people with 6-12 months experience of living with stroke (survivors and carers). Feasibility of the codesign approach (focusing on acceptability, implementation fidelity, signal of promise) was evaluated using mixed methods, using data from interviews, observations and inpatient self-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 18 people with stroke invited, eight (44%) agreed to join the lived experience workgroup. All disciplines with ≥1 full-time staff members on the stroke unit were represented on the health professional workgroup. Median workgroup attendance over 6 months was n = 8 health professionals, n = 4 survivors of stroke and n = 1 carers. Workgroup members agreed to focus on two Guideline recommendations: information provision and amount of therapy. Workgroup members indicated that the codesign approach was enjoyable and facilitated effective partnerships between health professionals and lived experience workgroup members. Both cohorts reported contributing valuable input to all stages of the project, with responsibility shifting between groups at different project stages. The codesigned strategies signalled promise for improving aspects of information provision and creating additional opportunities for therapy. We could not compare patient-reported outcomes before and after the implementation period due to high variability between the preimplementation and postimplementation patient cohorts. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to codesign implementation strategies in inpatient rehabilitation with people with lived experience of stroke and health professionals. More research is required to determine the effect of the codesigned strategies on patient and service outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of stroke codesigned and evaluated implementation strategies. Author F. C. has lived experience of stroke and being an inpatient at the inpatient rehabilitation service, and has provided input into analysis of the findings and preparation of this manuscript.

Development of the Preferred Components for Co-Design in Research Guideline and Checklist: Protocol for a Scoping Review and a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that co-design can lead to more engaging, acceptable, relevant, feasible, and even effective interventions. However, no guidance is provided on the specific designs and associated methods or methodologies involved in the process. We propose the development of the Preferred Components for Co-design in Research (PRECISE) guideline to enhance the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting co-design studies used to develop complex health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to develop the first iteration of the PRECISE guideline. The purpose of the PRECISE guideline is to improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use co-design to develop complex health interventions. METHODS: The aim will be achieved by addressing the following objectives: to review and synthesize the literature on the models, theories, and frameworks used in the co-design of complex health interventions to identify their common elements (components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes); and by using the results of the scoping review, prioritize the co-design components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes to be included in the PRECISE guideline. RESULTS: The project has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CONCLUSIONS: The collective results of this project will lead to a ready-to-implement PRECISE guideline that outlines a minimum set of items to include when reporting the co-design of complex health interventions. The PRECISE guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reports of studies. Additionally, it will include guidance on how to enact or enable the values or principles of co-design for meaningful and collaborative solutions (interventions). PRECISE might also be used by peer reviewers and editors to improve the review of manuscripts involving co-design. Ultimately, the PRECISE guideline will facilitate more efficient use of new results about complex health intervention development and bring better returns on research investments. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50463.

Implementing a Screen-Clean-Hydrate bundle of care for improving swallow screening, oral health, and hydration in acute stroke: Protocol for a Type 2 hybrid-effectiveness pre-post study.

Stroke clinical guidelines recommend care processes that optimize patient outcomes and minimize hospital-acquired complications. However, audits and surveys illustrate that recommended care is not always consistently or thoroughly implemented. This paper outlines the methods for implementing and evaluating a new bundle of care. Screen-Clean-Hydrate bundles together recommendations from the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management and supplements these with evidence-informed best practice from the literature for: swallow screening within 4 h of presentation to hospital (Screen); oral health assessment and delivery of oral care (Clean); and hydration assessment and management (Hydrate). The study is a pre-post Type 2 hybrid effectiveness/implementation design with an embedded process evaluation, which will be conducted in two acute stroke units in a capital city of Australia. The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) framework will be used to guide study design, conduct, and evaluation. Clinical effectiveness will be measured by rates of hospital-acquired complications and proxy measures of cost (length of stay, procedure costs) for 60 patient participants pre- and postimplementation. Implementation outcomes will focus on acceptability, feasibility, uptake and fidelity, and identification of barriers and enablers to implementation through staff interviews, medical record audits, and researcher field notes. Due to its design as a hybrid effectiveness/implementation study, once completed, the study will provide information on both intervention and implementation effectiveness, including details of successful and unsuccessful multidisciplinary implementation strategies. This will inform a larger multisite effectiveness/implementation trial for future upscale, leading to improved compliance with stroke guidelines and therefore stroke outcomes.

Navigating the facilitation journey: a qualitative, longitudinal evaluation of 'Eat Walk Engage' novice and experienced facilitators.

BACKGROUND: The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) and integrated-PARIHS (i-PARIHS) frameworks position facilitation as an overarching strategy to enable implementation. In the revised i-PARIHS framework, facilitation is operationalised through a multi-level model with novice, experienced and expert facilitators working together in a network structure to build facilitation knowledge and skills along a continuum. To date, there has been limited evaluation of this facilitation model in practice, which is the aim of the study reported here. METHODS: A descriptive, qualitative longitudinal study was undertaken to track a team of four novice and two experienced facilitators involved in facilitating the implementation of an intervention known as 'Eat Walk Engage' to improve multidisciplinary team delivery of age-friendly care principles in hospital. Over an 18-month period, repeat interviews were conducted to explore the learning, development, and evolving roles of novice facilitators and the roles of the experienced facilitators in providing support and mentoring. Interview data were analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach and findings were interpreted in collaboration with the participating facilitators. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated experiential learning in both the novice and experienced facilitator groups as they enacted their roles in practice. The novice facilitators progressively transitioned to becoming more experienced facilitators and the experienced facilitators became increasingly expert, in line with the i-PARIHS concept of a facilitation journey from novice to expert. Strategies to support this development included a staggered approach to learning, regular meetings between the experienced and novice facilitators, reflective writing and informal peer support and networking. However, the roles were not without challenge and these challenges changed over time, from a more specific focus on the demands of the facilitator role to concerns about embedding and sustaining improvements in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Within a network of peers and a mentored relationship with more experienced facilitators, individuals who are new to an implementation facilitator role can transition along a continuum to become experienced facilitators. Building implementation facilitation capability in this way takes time and requires tailored support and mentorship using a mix of structured and flexible approaches incorporating opportunities for reflection to support individual and group learning.

Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research.

The saying "horses for courses" refers to the idea that different people and things possess different skills or qualities that are appropriate in different situations. In this paper, we apply the analogy of "horses for courses" to stimulate a debate about how and why we need to get better at selecting appropriate implementation research methods that take account of the context in which implementation occurs. To ensure that implementation research achieves its intended purpose of enhancing the uptake of research-informed evidence in policy and practice, we start from a position that implementation research should be explicitly connected to implementation practice. Building on our collective experience as implementation researchers, implementation practitioners (users of implementation research), implementation facilitators and implementation educators and subsequent deliberations with an international, inter-disciplinary group involved in practising and studying implementation, we present a discussion paper with practical suggestions that aim to inform more practice-relevant implementation research.

Implementing a ward-based programme to improve care for older inpatients: process evaluation of the cluster randomised CHERISH trial.

BACKGROUND: Older inpatients are at high risk of hospital-associated complications, particularly delirium and functional decline. These can be mitigated by consistent attention to age-friendly care practices such as early mobility, adequate nutrition and hydration, and meaningful cognitive and social activities. Eat Walk Engage is a ward-based improvement programme theoretically informed by the i-PARIHS framework which significantly reduced delirium in a four-hospital cluster trial. The objective of this process evaluation was to understand how Eat Walk Engage worked across trial sites. METHODS: Prospective multi-method implementation evaluation on medical and surgical wards in four hospitals implementing Eat Walk Engage January 2016-May 2017. Using UK Medical Research Council guidance, this process evaluation assessed context, implementation (core components, implementation strategies and improvements) and mechanisms of impact (practice changes measured through older person interviews, structured mealtime observations and activity mapping) at each site. RESULTS: The four wards had varied contextual barriers which altered dynamically with time. One ward with complex outer organisational barriers showed poorer implementation and fewer practice changes. Two experienced facilitators supported four novice site facilitators through interactive training and structured reflection as well as data management, networking and organisational influence. Novice site facilitators used many implementation strategies to facilitate 45 discrete improvements at individual, team and system level. Patient interviews (42 before and 38 after implementation) showed better communication about program goals in three sites. Observations of 283 meals before and 297 after implementation showed improvements in mealtime positioning and assistance in all sites. Activity mapping in 85 patients before and 111 patients after implementation showed improvements in cognitive and social engagement in three sites, but inconsistent changes in mobility. The improvements in mealtime care and cognitive and social engagement are plausible mediators of reduced delirium observed in the trial. The lack of consistent mobility improvements may explain why the trial did not show reduction in functional decline. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-level enabling facilitation approach supported adaptive implementation to varied contexts to support mechanisms of impact which partly achieved the programme goals. Contexts changed over time, suggesting the need for adequate time and continued facilitation to embed, enhance and sustain age-friendly practices on acute care wards and optimise outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The CHERISH trial was prospectively registered with the ANZCTR ( http://www.anzctr.org.au ): ACTRN12615000879561.

Implementation of a frailty intervention in the transition from hospital to home: a realist process evaluation protocol for the FORTRESS trial.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty in Older people: Rehabilitation, Treatment, Research Examining Separate Settings (the FORTRESS study) is a multisite, hybrid type II, stepped wedge, cluster, randomised trial examining the uptake and outcomes of a frailty intervention. The intervention is based on the 2017 Asia Pacific Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Frailty and begins in the acute hospital setting and transitions to the community. The success of the intervention will require individual and organisational behaviour change within a dynamic health system. This process evaluation will examine the multiple variables at play in the context and mechanism of the frailty intervention to enhance understanding of the outcomes of the FORTRESS study and how the outcomes can be translated from the trial into broader practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FORTRESS intervention will recruit participants from six wards in New South Wales and South Australia, Australia. Participants of the process evaluation will include trial investigators, ward-based clinicians, FORTRESS implementation clinicians, general practitioners and FORTRESS participants. The process evaluation has been designed using realist methodology and will occur in parallel to the FORTRESS trial. A mixed-method approach will be used with qualitative and quantitative data collected from interviews, questionnaires, checklists and outcome assessments. Qualitative and quantitative data will be examined for CMOCs (Context, Mechanism, Outcome Configurations) and programme theories will be developed, tested and refined. This will facilitate development of more generalisable theories to inform translation of frailty intervention within complex healthcare systems. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the FORTRESS trial, inclusive of the process evaluation, has been obtained from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committees reference number 2020/ETH01057. Recruitment for the FORTRESS trial uses opt-out consent. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000760976p (FORTRESS trial).

Primary, allied health, geriatric, pain and palliative healthcare service utilisation by aged care residents, 2012-2017.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the incidence and trends in primary care, allied health, geriatric, pain and palliative care service use by permanent residential aged care (PRAC) residents and the older Australian population. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional analyses on PRAC residents (N = 318,484) and the older (≥65 years) Australian population (N ~ 3.5 million). Outcomes were Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) subsidised primary care, allied health, geriatric, pain and palliative services between 2012-13 and 2016-17. GEE Poisson models estimated incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: In 2016-17, PRAC residents had a median of 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 5-19) regular general medical practitioner (GP) attendances, 3 (IQR 1-6) after-hours attendances and 5% saw a geriatrician. Highlights of utilisation changes from 2012-13 to 2016-17 include the following: GP attendances increased by 5%/year (IRR = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.05) for residents compared to 1%/year (IRR = 1.01, 95%CI 1.01-1.01) for the general population. GP after-hours attendances increased by 15%/year (IRR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.14-1.15) for residents and 9%/year (IRR = 1.08, 95%CI 1.07-1.20) for the general population. GP management plans increased by 12%/year (IRR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.11-1.12) for residents and 10%/year (IRR = 1.10, 95%CI 1.09-1.11) for the general population. Geriatrician consultations increased by 28%/year (IRR = 1.28, 95%CI 1.27-1.29) for residents compared to 14%/year (IRR = 1.14, 95%CI 1.14-1.15) in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The utilisation of most examined services increased in both cohorts over time. Preventive and management care, by primary care and allied health care providers, was low and likely influences the utilisation of other attendances. PRAC residents' access to pain, palliative and geriatric medicine services is low and may not address the residents' needs.