Using structured problem solving to promote fluid consumption in the prevention of urinary stones with hydration (PUSH) trial.

BACKGROUND: Structured Problem Solving (SPS) is a patient-centered approach to promoting behavior change that relies on productive collaboration between coaches and participants and reinforces participant autonomy. We aimed to describe the design, implementation, and assessment of SPS in the multicenter Prevention of Urinary Stones with Hydration (PUSH) randomized trial. METHODS: In the PUSH trial, individuals with a history of urinary stone disease and low urine output were randomized to control versus a multicomponent intervention including SPS that was designed to promote fluid consumption and thereby prevent recurrent stones. We provide details specifically about training and fidelity assessment of the SPS coaches. We report on implementation experiences related to SPS during the initial conduct of the trial. RESULTS: With training and fidelity assessment, coaches in the PUSH trial applied SPS to help participants overcome barriers to fluid consumption. In some cases, coaches faced implementation barriers such as variable participant engagement that required tailoring their work with specific participants. The coaches also faced challenges including balancing rapport with problem solving, and role clarity for the coaches. CONCLUSIONS: We adapted SPS to the setting of kidney stone prevention and overcame challenges in implementation, such as variable patient engagement. Tools from the PUSH trial may be useful to apply to other health behavior change settings in nephrology and other areas of clinical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03244189.

Interfacility Patient Transfers During COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed-Methods Study.

Introduction: The United States lacks a national interfacility patient transfer coordination system. During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many hospitals were overwhelmed and faced difficulties transferring sick patients, leading some states and cities to form transfer centers intended to assist sending facilities. In this study we aimed to explore clinician experiences with newly implemented transfer coordination centers. Methods: This mixed-methods study used a brief national survey along with in-depth interviews. The American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency Medicine Practice Research Network (EMPRN) administered the national survey in March 2021. From September-December 2021, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with administrators and rural emergency clinicians in Arizona and New Mexico, two states that started transfer centers during COVID-19. Results: Among 141 respondents (of 765, 18.4% response rate) to the national EMPRN survey, only 30% reported implementation or expansion of a transfer coordination center during COVID-19. Those with new transfer centers reported no change in difficulty of patient transfers during COVID-19 while those without had increased difficulty. The 17 qualitative interviews expanded upon this, revealing four major themes: 1) limited resources for facilitating transfers even before COVID-19; 2) increased number of and distance to transfer partners during the COVID-19 pandemic; 3) generally positive impacts of transfer centers on workflow, and 4) the potential for continued use of centers to facilitate transfers. Conclusion: Transfer centers may have offset pandemic-related transfer challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians who frequently need to transfer patients may particularly benefit from ongoing access to such transfer coordination services.