The lived experience of patients with obesity at a metropolitan public health setting.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred care models for acutely hospitalised people living with obesity are poorly understood and the quality of evidence low. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore and better understand the lived experience of people living with obesity, in the inpatient hospital context. DESIGN: A qualitative methodology using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was used. Data were collected via a single semi-structured interview with each participant. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was completed at a metropolitan public health service. Ten previously hospitalised patients who live with obesity were included. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: meeting physical care needs of people with obesity on hospital wards, interpersonal interactions between patients and healthcare professionals, and the psychosocial impact of being obese in the hospital setting. Priorities included timely provision of appropriate equipment and infrastructure design to meet care needs and facilitate better wellbeing. To improve patient experience, an emphasis on basic principles of quality care provision to enhance interpersonal interactions, along with improved awareness of the impact of weight bias and obesity stigma in healthcare are supported. Participants found hospitalisation stressful, but valued support from healthcare professionals regarding weight loss. DISCUSSION: These data provide new insights in to the lived experience of people living with obesity in the hospital setting. Items which are low cost, such as appropriately sized chairs and gowns, as well facilitators to independent mobility such as electric wheelchairs are suggested to improve both experience and care outcomes. Interpersonal interactions demonstrated obesity stigma in the hospital setting, with participants expressing the desire for more appropriate communication. People living with obesity self-reflected in the inpatient setting, suggesting that staff should be trained to utilise the opportunity to provide weight loss advice. CONCLUSIONS: The themes identified in this study provide insight into the lived experience of people with obesity in hospital. This understanding provides direction for the development of improved models of care for people living with obesity in this setting and beyond.

Effectiveness of a Bundled Intervention Including Adjunctive Corticosteroids on Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Community-acquired pneumonia remains a leading cause of hospitalization, mortality, and health care costs worldwide. Randomized clinical trials support the use of adjunctive corticosteroids, early progressive mobilization, antibiotic switching rules, and dietary interventions in improving outcomes. However, it is uncertain whether implementing these interventions will translate into effectiveness under routine health care conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a bundle of evidence-supported treatments under conditions of routine care in a representative population hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blind, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized clinical trial with 90-day follow-up was conducted between August 1, 2016, and October 29, 2017, in the general internal medicine service at 2 tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, among a consecutive sample of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The primary analysis and preparation of results took place between May 14 and November 25, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Treating clinical teams were advised to prescribe prednisolone acetate, 50 mg/d, for 7 days (in the absence of any contraindication) and de-escalate from parenteral to oral antibiotics according to standardized criteria. Algorithm-guided early mobilization and malnutrition screening and treatment were also implemented. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital length of stay, mortality, readmission, and intervention-associated adverse events (eg, gastrointestinal bleeding and hyperglycemia). RESULTS: A total of 917 patients were screened, and 816 (351 women and 465 men; mean [SD] age, 76 [13] years) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 401 patients receiving the intervention and 415 patients in the control group. An unadjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-1.16) was observed for the difference in length of stay (days) between the intervention and control groups. Similarly, no significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes of mortality and readmission, and the results remained unchanged after further adjustment for sex and age. The study reported higher proportions of gastrointestinal bleeding in the intervention group (9 [2.2%]) compared with the controls (3 [0.7%]), with an unadjusted estimated difference in mean proportions of 0.008 (95% CI, 0.005-0.010). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This bundled intervention including adjunctive corticosteroids demonstrated no evidence of effectiveness and resulted in a higher incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding. Efficacy of individual interventions demonstrated in clinical trials may not necessarily translate into effectiveness when implemented in combination and may even result in net harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02835040.

Development of a Peer Support Model Using Experience-Based Co-Design to Improve Critical Care Recovery.

To use experience-based co-design to identify the key design requirements of a peer support model for critical care survivors; understand the use of the experience-based co-design method from clinician, patients, and family perspectives. DESIGN: Using experience-based co-design, qualitative data about participants' preferences for a peer support model were generated via workshops. Participants' perspectives of experience-based co-design were evaluated with focus groups. SETTING: University-affiliated hospital in Melbourne, Australia. SUBJECTS: Snowball sampling was used to recruit clinicians from across the care spectrum (ICU-community); critical care survivors and nominated family members were recruited using convenience sampling. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Consensus on a peer support model was reached through the experience-based co-design process, with the following key themes: 1) socialization and group cohesion; 2) management of potential risks; and 3) individualized needs of patients and families. Evaluation of participants' perspectives of the experience-based co-design method identified five key themes: 1) participation as a positive experience; 2) emotional engagement in the process; 3) learning from patients and family members; 4) feeling heard; and 5) practical challenges of experience-based co-design and readiness to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Experience-based co-design was a feasible approach to developing a peer support model for use with critical care survivors and was well received by participants. Future testing of the co-designed peer support model in a pilot randomized controlled trial will enhance understanding of peer support in critical care and the use of experience-based co-design as a design methodology.

The IMPROVE-GAP Trial aiming to improve evidence-based management of community-acquired pneumonia: study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia is a leading worldwide cause of hospital admissions and healthcare resource consumption. The largest proportion of hospitalisations now occurs in older patients, with high rates of multimorbidity and complex care needs. In Australia, this population is usually managed by hospital inpatient general internal medicine units. Adherence to consensus best-practice guidelines is poor. Ensuring evidence-based care and reducing length of stay may improve patient outcomes and reduce organisational costs. This study aims to evaluate an alternative model of care designed to improve adherence to four Level 1 or 2 evidence-supported interventions (routine corticosteroids, early switch to oral antibiotics, early mobilisation and routine malnutrition screening). METHODS/DESIGN: The IMPROVing Evidence-based treatment Gaps and outcomes in community-Acquired Pneumonia (IMPROVE-GAP) trial is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, stepped-wedge randomised trial. Patients hospitalised under a general internal medicine unit who meet a standard case definition for community-acquired pneumonia will be included. Eight general internal medicine units at two Australian hospitals in a single health service will be randomised using concealed allocation to: (i) usual medical, nursing and allied health care delivered according to existing organisational practice or (ii) care supported by a dedicated "community-acquired pneumonia service": a multidisciplinary team deploying algorithm-based implementation of a bundle of the four evidence-based interventions. The primary outcome measure will be length of hospital stay. Secondary outcome measures include inpatient mortality, 30 and 90 day readmission rates and mortality and health-service utilisation costs. Protocol adherence will be measured and reported, and serious adverse events (rates of hyperglycaemia requiring new insulin; falls during mobilisation) will be collected and reported. DISCUSSION: IMPROVE-GAP represents an important and unique precedent for testing a new service-delivery model for improving compliance with a number of evidence-based interventions. Its stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial design provides a means to address some significant ethical, organisational and other methodological challenges to evaluating the effectiveness of health-service interventions in complex hospital populations. The new service-delivery model will effectively be fully implemented by trial completion, facilitating rapid, seamless translation into practice should care outcomes be superior. This trial is currently recruiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02835040. Prospectively registered on 22 May 2016.

Impact of disinvestment from weekend allied health services across acute medical and surgical wards: 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.