The implementation of a perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery service: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: The international scale and spread of evidence-based perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) services has not yet been fully realised. Implementation science provides a structured approach to understanding factors that act as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of POPS services. In this study, we aimed to identify factors that influence the implementation of POPS services in the UK. METHODS: A qualitative case study at three UK health services was undertaken. The health services differed across contextual factors (population, workforce, size) and stages of POPS service implementation maturity. Semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled clinicians (perioperative medical, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy) and managers (n = 56) were conducted. Data were inductively coded, then thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Fourteen factors across all five CFIR domains were relevant to the implementation of POPS services. Key shared facilitators included stakeholders understanding the rationale of the POPS service, with support from their networks, POPS champions, and POPS clinical leads. We found substantial variation and flexibility in the way that health services responded to these shared facilitators and this was relevant to the implementation of POPS services. CONCLUSIONS: Health services planning to implement a POPS service should use health service-specific strategies to respond flexibly to local factors that are acting as barriers or facilitators to implementation. To support implementation of a POPS service, we recommend health services prioritise understanding local networks, identifying POPS champions, and ensuring that stakeholders understand the rationale for the POPS service. Our study also provides a structure for future research to understand the factors associated with 'unsuccessful' implementation of a POPS service, which can inform ongoing efforts to implement evidence-based perioperative models of care for older people.

Patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate postoperative quality of life in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To appraise the measurement properties of generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring postoperative quality of life in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PROMs administered after elective abdominal surgery. We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature database, and the Cochrane Library from earliest available dates to July 24, 2021, using relevant search terms. Articles were included if they reported assessment of measurement properties of a generic PROM/s measuring postoperative quality of life in adults who had undergone elective abdominal surgery. We used the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist to assess methodological quality. We synthesized the data and used the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 12,121 identified articles, nine articles assessing five PROMs (SF-6D, EQ-5D, SF-36, SF-12, PROMIS-10) met inclusion criteria. Measurement properties assessed included internal consistency (n = 2), construct validity (n = 5), and responsiveness (n = 8). Two PROMs had high quality evidence for a single measurement property each. The SF-6D demonstrated high quality evidence for responsiveness and the EQ-5D had high quality evidence for construct validity. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the choice of a specific generic PROM to evaluate quality of life following elective abdominal surgery. Clinicians and researchers should be aware of the current limitations in knowledge of the measurement properties of available PROMs.

Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient's perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives. METHODS: PROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development. RESULTS: 24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text. CONCLUSIONS: Only nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient's perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.

Exploring patient-reported outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common cardiac procedure used to treat obstructive coronary artery disease. Patient-centred care is a priority in cardiovascular health having been shown to increase patient satisfaction, engagement with rehabilitation activities and reduce anxiety. Evidence indicates that patient-centred care is best achieved by routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have limited the patient involvement in their development. AIMS: To identify and explore outcomes, patients perceive as important following PCI. METHODS: A qualitative design was adopted. Eight focus groups and five semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients who had undergone PCI in the previous 6 months. Outcomes were identified and mapped under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) patient-reported outcome (PROs) domains of feeling (physical and psychological outcomes), function and evaluation. Inductive and deductive analysis methods were used with open, axial and thematic coding. RESULTS: Consistent with prior studies, patients identified feeling and function outcomes such as reductions in physical and psychological symptoms and the ability to perform usual activities as important. Participants also identified a range of new outcomes, including confidence to return to usual activities and evaluation domains such as adverse effects of medications and the importance of patient communication. CONCLUSION: The findings of this research should be considered in the design of a cardiac PROM for PCI patients. A PROM which adequately assesses these outcomes can provide clinicians and hospital staff with a foundation in which to address these concerns or symptoms.

Implementation fidelity of a nurse-led falls prevention program in acute hospitals during the 6-PACK trial.

BACKGROUND: When tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 31,411 patients, the nurse-led 6-PACK falls prevention program did not reduce falls. Poor implementation fidelity (i.e., program not implemented as intended) may explain this result. Despite repeated calls for the examination of implementation fidelity as an essential component of evaluating interventions designed to improve the delivery of care, it has been neglected in prior falls prevention studies. This study examined implementation fidelity of the 6-PACK program during a large multi-site RCT. METHODS: Based on the 6-PACK implementation framework and intervention description, implementation fidelity was examined by quantifying adherence to program components and organizational support. Adherence indicators were: 1) falls-risk tool completion; and for patients classified as high-risk, provision of 2) a 'Falls alert' sign; and 3) at least one additional 6-PACK intervention. Organizational support indicators were: 1) provision of resources (executive sponsorship, site clinical leaders and equipment); 2) implementation activities (modification of patient care plans; training; implementation tailoring; audits, reminders and feedback; and provision of data); and 3) program acceptability. Data were collected from daily bedside observation, medical records, resource utilization diaries and nurse surveys. RESULTS: All seven intervention components were delivered on the 12 intervention wards. Program adherence data were collected from 103,398 observations and medical record audits. The falls-risk tool was completed each day for 75% of patients. Of the 38% of patients classified as high-risk, 79% had a 'Falls alert' sign and 63% were provided with at least one additional 6-PACK intervention, as recommended. All hospitals provided the recommended resources and undertook the nine outlined program implementation activities. Most of the nurses surveyed considered program components important for falls prevention. CONCLUSIONS: While implementation fidelity was variable across wards, overall it was found to be acceptable during the RCT. Implementation failure is unlikely to be a key factor for the observed lack of program effectiveness in the 6-PACK trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The 6-PACK cluster RCT is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000332921 (29 March 2011).

Development of an implementation plan for the 6-PACK falls prevention programme as part of a randomised controlled trial: protocol for a series of preimplementation studies.

BACKGROUND: Inhospital falls cause morbidity, staff burden and increased healthcare costs. It is unclear if the persistent problem of inhospital falls is due to the use of ineffective interventions or their suboptimal implementation. The 6-PACK programme appears to reduce fall injuries and a randomised controlled trial (RCT) was undertaken to confirm effects. This paper describes the protocol for the preimplementation studies that aimed to identify moderators of the effective use of the 6-PACK programme to inform the development of an implementation plan to be applied in the RCT. METHODS: The 6-PACK project included five preimplementation studies: (1) a profile of safety climate; (2) review of current falls prevention practice; (3) epidemiology of inhospital falls; (4) acceptability of the 6-PACK programme; and (5) barriers and enablers to implementation of the 6-PACK programme. The Theoretical Domain Framework that includes 12 behaviour change domains informed the design of these studies that involved 540 staff and 8877 patients from 24 wards from six Australian hospitals. Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied with data collected via: structured bedside observation; daily nurse unit manager verbal report of falls; audit of medical records, incident reporting and hospital administrative data; surveys of ward nurses; focus groups with ward nurses; and key informant interviews with senior staff. DISCUSSION: Information on contextual, system, intervention, patient and provider level factors is critical to the development of an implementation plan. Information gained from these studies was used to develop a plan applied in the RCT that addressed the barriers and harnessed enablers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The RCT is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000332921.

The association between chronic illness, multimorbidity and depressive symptoms in an Australian primary care cohort.

PURPOSE: To assess the link between multimorbidity, type of chronic physical health problems and depressive symptoms METHOD: The study was a cross-sectional postal survey conducted in 30 General Practices in Victoria, Australia as part of the diamond longitudinal study. Participants included 7,620 primary care attendees; 66% were females; age range from 18 to 76 years (mean = 51 years SD = 14); 81% were born in Australia; 64% were married and 67% lived in an urban area. The main outcome measures include the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and a study-specific self-report check list of 12 common chronic physical health problems. RESULTS: The prevalence of probable depression increased with increasing number of chronic physical conditions (1 condition: 23%; 2 conditions: 27%; 3 conditions: 30%; 4 conditions: 31%; 5 or more conditions: 41%). Only 16% of those with no listed physical conditions recorded CES-D scores of 16 or above. Across the listed physical conditions the prevalence of 'probable depression' ranged from 24% for hypertension; 35% for emphysema; 35% for dermatitis to 36% for stroke. The dose-response relationship is reduced when functional limitations and self-rated health are taken into account, suggesting that these factors mediate the relationship. CONCLUSIONS: A clear dose-response relationship exists between the number of chronic physical problems and depressive symptoms. The relationship between multimorbidity and depression appears to be mediated via self-perceived health related quality of life. Primary care practitioners will identify more cases of depression if they focus on those with more than one chronic health problem, no matter what the problems may be, being especially aware in the group who rate their health as poor/fair.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Inform Care of People With Dementia-A Systematic Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) captures the patient's perspective regarding quality of life, daily functioning, symptom severity, and overall health, and how these may be impacted by health care or other interventions. PROMs are used in clinical quality registries (CQRs) for a number of diseases to assess the patient's perspective of the impact of clinical care on quality-of-life. This scoping review aimed to identify dementia-specific PROMs, determine how the PROMs are being used, and whether they are used within dementia registries. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three electronic databases were searched using Medical Subject Heading terms for dementia, quality of life, and patient-reported outcomes. Data were extracted on the PROMs used and the methods and mode of administering the PROM. RESULTS: Seven dementia-specific PROMs were identified, however none were used in a dementia registry. All the PROMs were used at the patient level to identify patient needs and health service impacts. Three PROMs were also used at a system level to examine difference in care models. The majority of the PROMs were administered via a researcher or clinician and were predominantly completed by a proxy. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: PROMs provide an opportunity for a patient with dementia to share experiences and perspectives of care. A number of dementia-specific PROMs exist, yet none are used in dementia registries and the majority of studies utilize PROMs via a proxy. The use of PROM for patients with dementia, particularly in the context of dementia registries, requires further exploration and consideration.

Defining patient-centered recovery after critical illness - A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To explore perspectives of adult critical illness survivors and identify important aspects to care and recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive, qualitative study of adult survivors of prolonged critical illness, six-months after Intensive Care Unit (ICU) discharge, using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. The study was undertaken in an academic, tertiary, regional hospital in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients participated in the study. Most were male (69%) with median age 64 years. Admissions were predominantly medical (51%), followed by cardiothoracic (26%) and general surgical (23%). Median ICU and hospital length of stay were 5 and 17 days respectively. Qualitative analysis revealed two key theme categories, recovery status and care experience. Three recovery states were identified based on physical and neuropsychological recovery. Care experiences varied across recovery states, including care encounters, communication, support and impact on family and friends, and use of community health services. CONCLUSION: Critical illness survivors frame their recovery in terms of recovery status and care experience, reflecting existing qualitative domains of physical health, psychological health, cognitive function, social health and life satisfaction. Theme content varied with recovery status, raising the possibility that modifying care experiences or patient perceptions could change recovery outcomes.

What matters most to patients following percutaneous coronary interventions? A new patient-reported outcome measure developed using Rasch analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Measuring patient reported outcomes can improve the quality and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The aim of this study was to identify the final set of items that can be included in a patient-reported outcome measure to assess recovery of patients following percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS: A consecutive sample of 200 patients registered in the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry participated in a telephone survey 30 days following their percutaneous cardiac procedure. Rasch analysis was used to select the best set of items to form a concise and psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome measure. Key measurement properties assessed included overall fit to the Rasch measurement model, unidimensionality, response formats (thresholds), targeting, internal consistency and measurement invariance. RESULTS: Five items were identified as being reliable and valid measures of patient-reported outcomes: pain or discomfort, shortness of breath, confidence in performing usual activities, feeling unhappy and having trouble sleeping. Data showed overall fit to a Rasch model of expected item functioning (χ2 16.99; p = 0.07) and all items demonstrated unidimensionality (t-test less than 0.05 threshold value). Internal consistency was acceptable (equivalent Cronbach's α 0.65) given there are only five items, but there was a ceiling effect (mean logit score -1.24) with compromised score precision for patients with better recovery. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a succinct set of items that can be used in a patient-reported outcome measure following percutaneous coronary interventions. This patient-report outcome measure has good structural validity and acceptable internal consistency. While further psychometric evaluations are recommended, the items identified capture the patient's perspective of their recovery following a percutaneous coronary intervention.

Acceptability of the 6-PACK falls prevention program: A pre-implementation study in hospitals participating in a cluster randomized controlled trial.

There is limited evidence to support the effectiveness of falls prevention interventions in the acute hospital setting. The 6-PACK falls prevention program includes a fall-risk tool; 'falls alert' signs; supervision of patients in the bathroom; ensuring patients' walking aids are within reach; toileting regimes; low-low beds; and bed/chair alarms. This study explored the acceptability of the 6-PACK program from the perspective of nurses and senior staff prior to its implementation in a randomised controlled trial. A mixed-methods approach was applied involving 24 acute wards from six Australian hospitals. Participants were nurses working on participating wards and senior hospital staff including: Nurse Unit Managers; senior physicians; Directors of Nursing; and senior personnel involved in quality and safety or falls prevention. Information on program acceptability (suitability, practicality and benefits) was obtained by surveys, focus groups and interviews. Survey data were analysed descriptively, and focus group and interview data thematically. The survey response rate was 60%. Twelve focus groups (n = 96 nurses) and 24 interviews with senior staff were conducted. Falls were identified as a priority patient safety issue and nurses as key players in falls prevention. The 6-PACK program was perceived to offer practical benefits compared to current practice. Nurses agreed fall-risk tools, low-low beds and alert signs were useful for preventing falls (>70%). Views were mixed regarding positioning patients' walking aid within reach. Practical issues raised included access to equipment; and risk of staff injury with low-low bed use. Bathroom supervision was seen to be beneficial, however not always practical. Views on the program appropriateness and benefits were consistent across nurses and senior staff. Staff perceived the 6-PACK program as suitable, practical and beneficial, and were open to adopting the program. Some practical concerns were raised highlighting issues to be addressed by the implementation plan.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of the 6-PACK falls prevention program: A pre-implementation study in hospitals participating in a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Evidence for effective falls prevention interventions in acute wards is limited. One reason for this may be suboptimal program implementation. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and enablers of the implementation of the 6-PACK falls prevention program to inform the implementation in a randomised controlled trial. Strategies to optimise successful implementation of 6-PACK were also sought. A mixed-methods approach was applied in 24 acute wards from 6 Australian hospitals. Participants were nurses working on participating wards and senior hospital staff including Nurse Unit Managers; senior physicians; Directors of Nursing; and senior personnel involved in quality and safety or falls prevention. Information on barriers and enablers of 6-PACK implementation was obtained through surveys, focus groups and interviews. Questions reflected the COM-B framework that includes three behaviour change constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation. Focus group and interview data were analysed thematically, and survey data descriptively. The survey response rate was 60% (420/702), and 12 focus groups (n = 96 nurses) and 24 interviews with senior staff were conducted. Capability barriers included beliefs that falls could not be prevented; and limited knowledge on falls prevention in patients with complex care needs (e.g. cognitive impairment). Capability enablers included education and training, particularly face to face case study based approaches. Lack of resources was identified as an opportunity barrier. Leadership, champions and using data to drive practice change were recognised as opportunity enablers. Motivation barriers included complacency and lack of ownership in falls prevention efforts. Motivation enablers included senior staff articulating clear goals and a commitment to falls prevention; and use of reminders, audits and feedback. The information gained from this study suggests that regular practical face-to-face education and training for nurses; provision of equipment; audit, reminders and feedback; leadership and champions; and the provision of falls data is key to successful falls prevention program implementation in acute hospitals.