Implementation of an audit and feedback module targeting low-value clinical practices in a provincial trauma quality assurance program: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. RESULTS: Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. CONCLUSION: A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.

Social determinants of health and disparities in pediatric trauma care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDH), including "the conditions in which individuals are born, grow, work, live and age" affect child health and well-being. Several studies have synthesized evidence about the influence of SDH on childhood injury risks and outcomes. However, there is no systematic evidence about the impact of SDH on accessing care and quality of care once a child has suffered an injury. We aim to evaluate the extent to which access to care and quality of care after injury are affected by children and adolescents' SDH. METHODS: Using Cochrane methodology, we will conduct a systematic review including observational and experimental studies evaluating the association between social/material elements contributing to health disparities, using the PROGRESS-Plus framework: place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and care received by children and adolescents (≤ 19 years of age) after injury. We will consult published literature using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier and grey literature using Google Scholar from their inception to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission for publication. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for included studies. The risk of bias will be assessed using the ROBINS-E and ROB-2 tools respectively for observational and experimental study designs. We will analyze data to perform narrative syntheses, and if enough studies are identified, we will conduct a meta-analysis using random effects models. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a synthesis of evidence on the association between SDH and pediatric trauma care (access to care and quality of care) that clinicians and policymakers can use to better tailor care systems and promote equitable access and quality of care for all children. We will share our findings through clinical rounds, conferences, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023408467.

Adaptation and Validation of the Standardized Swallowing Assessment Tool for Patients With Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury and Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.

Oropharyngeal dysphagia is common in moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) patients and can have serious consequences. Delaying feeding in these patients can also be detrimental. Nonetheless, the psychometric properties of screening tools that can promptly identify dysphagia have never been tested in these neurotrauma populations. This study aimed to: (1) adapt, translate, and validate the content of the French-Canadian version of the the Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) tool to meet the needs of moderate-severe TBI and cervical SCI patients, (2) examine its inter-rater reliability and criterion-concurrent validation, and (3) evaluate its clinical utility from the perspectives of critical care nurses. The SSA tool was adapted and translated using an integrated method for the cultural adaptation and translation of tools. Eleven experts participated in the adaptation of the SSA tool, which led to the clarification of one item, as well as a new step and instructions for the screening procedure. Content validation (i.e., item and scale relevance) was evaluated by multidisciplinary team members (n = 17). The mean content validity index (CVI) score was 0.97 for the entire scale, while the mean CVI scores for individual items ranged from 0.82 to 1.0. A total of 60 neurotrauma patients were enrolled for inter-rater reliability and criterion-concurrent validation. Interrater reliability was determined by comparing two scores: one score from nurses responsible for the care of enrolled patients and one score from the research nurse. The weighted kappa coefficients for inter-rater reliability were 0.86 for moderate-severe TBI patients (n = 30) and 0.73 for cervical SCI patients (n = 30). A speech language therapist (SLT) also assessed dysphagia and results were used as the standard clinical reference criterion to determine concurrent validity (sensibility and specificity) of the adapted SSA tool. The sensitivity and specificity were 92% and 50% for moderate-severe TBI, and 77% and 75% for cervical SCI, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) were 65% and 87% in TBI patients, and 75% and 76% in SCI patients. Test accuracy was 71% and 77% for these same groups. The clinical utility of the tool was evaluated according to the following domains: appropriateness, accessibility of the required material, applicability, perceived effectiveness, and acceptability. Acceptability was the only domain with a level of agreement <80% (74%) among trauma critical care nurses (n = 49). Findings support the content validation and inter-rater reliability of the adapted French-Canadian version of the SSA tool in moderate-severe TBI and cervical SCI patients. Sensitivity was acceptable in both groups, but the specificity was lower, especially in moderate-severe TBI patients. Further validation of the adapted French-Canadian version of the SSA tool is needed in neurotrauma patients to confirm these results and to ensure safe dysphagia screening while avoiding oral feeding deferrals.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DISCUSSION: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).

Determinants of pain assessment documentation in intensive care units.

PURPOSE: The underassessment of pain is a major barrier to effective pain management, and the lack of pain assessment documentation has been associated with negative patient outcomes. This study aimed to 1) describe the contextual factors related to pain assessment and management in five Québec intensive care units (ICUs); 2) describe their pain assessment documentation practices; and 3) identify sociodemographic and clinical determinants related to pain assessment documentation. METHODS: A descriptive-correlational retrospective design was used. Sociodemographic data (i.e., age, sex), clinical data (i.e., diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, level of consciousness, severity of illness, opioids, sedatives), and pain assessments were extracted from 345 medical charts of ICU admissions from five teaching hospitals between 2017 and 2019. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were performed. RESULTS: All sites reported using the 0-10 numeric rating scale, but the implementation of a behavioural pain scale was variable across sites. A median of three documented pain assessments were performed per 24 hr, which is below the minimal recommendation of eight to 12 pain assessments per 24 hr. Overall, pain assessment was present in 70% of charts, but only 20% of opioid doses were followed by documented pain reassessment within one hour post-administration. Higher level of consciousness (ß = 0.37), using only breakthrough doses (ß = 0.24), and lower opioid doses (ß = -0.21) were significant determinants of pain assessment documentation (adjusted R2 = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Pain assessment documentation is suboptimal in ICUs, especially for patients unable to self-report or those receiving higher opioid doses. Study findings highlight the need to implement tools to optimize pain assessment and documentation.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La sous-évaluation de la douleur constitue un obstacle majeur à une gestion efficace de la douleur, et le manque de documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur a été associé à des conséquences défavorables pour les patients. Cette étude visait à : 1) décrire les facteurs contextuels liés à l'évaluation et à la gestion de la douleur dans cinq unités de soins intensifs (USI) du Québec; 2) décrire leurs pratiques de documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur; et 3) identifier les déterminants sociodémographiques et cliniques liés à la documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur. MéTHODE: Un devis de recherche rétrospectif descriptif-corrélationnel a été utilisé. Les données sociodémographiques (c.-à-d. l'âge, le sexe), les données cliniques (c.-à-d. le diagnostic, la ventilation mécanique, le niveau de conscience, la gravité de la maladie, les opioïdes, les sédatifs) et les évaluations de la douleur ont été extraites de 345 dossiers médicaux avec admissions à l'USI de cinq hôpitaux universitaires entre 2017 et 2019. Des statistiques descriptives et une régression linéaire multiple ont été effectuées. RéSULTATS: Tous les sites ont déclaré utiliser l'échelle d'évaluation numérique de 0 à 10, mais l'implantation d'une échelle de douleur comportementale variait d'un site à un autre. Une médiane de trois évaluations de douleur étaient documentées par 24 heures, ce qui est inférieur à la recommandation minimale de huit à 12 évaluations de douleur par 24 heures. Dans l'ensemble, l'évaluation de la douleur était présente dans 70 % des dossiers, mais seulement 20 % des doses d'opioïdes étaient suivies d'une réévaluation documentée de la douleur dans l'heure suivant leur'administration. Un niveau de conscience plus élevé (ß = 0,37), l'utilisation exclusive d'entredoses d'opioïdes pour les percées de douleur (ß = 0,24) et des doses d'opioïdes plus faibles (ß = -0,21) ont constitué les déterminants significatifs dans la documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur (R2 ajusté = 0,25). CONCLUSION: La documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur est sous-optimale dans les USI, en particulier pour les patients incapables de s'exprimer ou ceux qui reçoivent des doses plus élevées d'opioïdes. Les résultats de cette étude soulignent l'importance d'implanter des outils pour optimiser l'évaluation et la documentation de la douleur.

A Psychometric Analysis Update of Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools for Noncommunicative, Critically Ill Adults.

This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.

Development and Acceptability Assessment of a Self-Management Intervention to Prevent Acute to Chronic Pain Transition after Major Lower Extremity Trauma.

PURPOSE: Transition from acute to chronic pain often occurs after major lower extremity trauma. Chronic pain has been found to negatively affect daily functioning, including the capacity to work and quality of life. Empirical data and an acceptability assessment were used to develop a self-management intervention aimed at preventing acute to chronic pain transition after major lower extremity trauma (i.e., iPACT-E-Trauma). METHODS: Evidence from previous studies on preventive self-management interventions, combined with a biopsychosocial conceptual framework and clinical knowledge, helped define the key features of the preliminary version. Then a mixed-methods design was used to assess the acceptability of iPACT-E-Trauma by clinicians and patients. RESULTS: The key features of the preliminary version of iPACT-E-Trauma were assessed as acceptable to very acceptable by clinicians and patients. After clinician assessment, intervention activities were simplified and session duration was reduced. Patient acceptability assessment of iPACT-E-Trauma led to the tailoring of key intervention features, based on determinants such as pain intensity and the implementation of self-management behaviors between intervention sessions. Web-based sessions were also developed to facilitate iPACT-E-Trauma delivery. CONCLUSION: This study outlines the process involved in the development of an intervention to prevent chronic pain in patients with lower extremity trauma. Relevant information is provided to nurses and interdisciplinary teams on a self-management intervention to prevent the transition from acute to chronic pain in the trauma population.

Delirium Assessment Tools for Use in Critically Ill Adults: A Psychometric Analysis and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is highly prevalent in critically ill patients. Its detection with valid tools is crucial. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the development and psychometric properties of delirium assessment tools for critically ill adults. METHODS: Databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were English language, publication before January 2015, 30 or more patients, and patient population of critically ill adults (>18 years old). Search terms were delirium, scales, critically ill patients, adult, validity, and reliability. Thirty-six manuscripts were identified, encompassing 5 delirium assessment tools (Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), Cognitive Test for Delirium, Delirium Detection Score, Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), and Nursing Delirium Screening Scale). Two independent reviewers analyzed the psychometric properties of these tools by using a standardized scoring system (range, 0-20) to assess the tool development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and implementation of each tool. RESULTS: Psychometric properties were very good for the CAM-ICU (19.6) and the ICDSC (19.2), moderate for the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (13.6), low for the Delirium Detection Score (11.2), and very low for the Cognitive Test for Delirium (8.2). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC are the most valid and reliable delirium assessment tools for critically ill adults. Additional studies are needed to further validate these tools in critically ill patients with neurological disorders and those at various levels of sedation or consciousness.

Content validation of behaviours and autonomic responses for the assessment of pain in critically ill adults with a brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The evidence shows that brain-injured patients express behaviours that are related to their level of consciousness (LOC), and different from other patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, existing behavioural scales should be revised to enhance their content and validity for use in these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the content relevance of behaviours and autonomic responses for pain assessment of brain-injured ICU patients from the perspective of critical care clinicians. METHODS: A total of 77 clinicians from four adult neuroscience ICUs (three from Canada and one from the United States) participated in this descriptive study. A physician/nurse ratio of 21% (13/61) was reached in this quota sample, and three physiotherapists also participated. They completed a content validation questionnaire of 19 items rated on clarity and relevance based on the patient's LOC. Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), and modified kappa (κ*) were calculated. Values higher than 0.78 and 0.75 respectively were considered excellent. RESULTS: Regardless of the patient's LOC, brow lowering, grimacing, and trying to reach the pain site were rated as the most relevant behaviours by clinicians, with excellent values of I-CVI>0.78 and κ*>0.75. Eyes tightly closed, moaning and verbal complaints of pain also obtained excellent values in altered LOC and conscious patients. Eye weeping obtained excellent values only in conscious patients. Other items showed fair (0.40-0.59) to good (0.60-0.74) values, while blinking and coughing showed poor values (<0.40) at various LOC. CONCLUSIONS: Facial expressions, movements towards the pain site, and vocalisation of pain were the most relevant pain-related behaviours rated by critical care clinicians. The relevance of some behaviours (e.g., moaning and verbal complaints of pain) varied across LOCs, thereby calling forth adaptations of behavioural pain scales to allow for interpretation in the context of a patient's LOC and ability to express specific behaviours.