Search

Objectives Centres of clinical excellence (CoCE) are healthcare facilities that provide excellent healthcare. However, despite their increasing prevalence, it is unclear how CoCE are identified and monitored. This paper explores how CoCE has been described in the literature, including its defining characteristics and selection and monitoring processes.Design We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, enhanced by Levac et al. Additionally, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.Data sources A comprehensive search using MEDLINE Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus was conducted to identify relevant literature from January 2010 to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included published studies and grey literature that described how a CoCE was defined, established, monitored or evaluated.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers completed the title and abstract screening, reviewed the full texts and extracted data.Results 50 records describing 45 initiatives were included. More than half were published in the USA (n=25, 56%). All but one initiative focused on one clinical condition/population, most commonly cardiovascular disease (n=8, 17%), spinal surgeries (n=4, 9%) and pituitary tumours (n=4, 9%). Most initiatives (n=30, 67%) described a structured process to establish CoCE. The definitions of CoCE were not uniform. Common defining features included the volume of patients treated, medical expertise, a highly skilled multidisciplinary team, high-quality care and excellent patient outcomes. Identification as a CoCE varied from self-identification with no explicit criteria to application and assessment by an approval panel.Conclusion Despite a growing prevalence of CoCE, there are inconsistencies in how CoCE are established, identified, monitored and evaluated. Common (but not uniform) features of CoCE are highly skilled staff, high-quality care delivery and optimal patient outcomes.

Abstract Background Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals’ and teams’ ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice. Methods We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives’ content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives. Results Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills. Conclusions This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice.

Abstract 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.

IntroductionAlthough studies have evaluated the hospital cost of care associated with treating patients with COVID-19, there are no studies that compare the hospital cost of care among racial and ethnic groups based on detailed cost accounting data. The aims of this study were to provide a detailed description of the hospital costs of COVID-19 based on individual resources during the hospital stay and standardized costs that do not rely on inflation adjustment and evaluate the extent to which hospital total cost of care for patients with COVID-19 differs by race and ethnicity.MethodsThis study used electronic medical record data from an urban academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois USA. Hospital cost of care was calculated using accounting data representing the cost of the resources used to the hospital (i.e., cost to the hospital, not payments). A multivariable generalized linear model with a log link function and inverse gaussian distribution family was used to calculate the average marginal effect (AME) for Black, White, and Hispanic patients. A second regression model further compared Hispanic patients by preferred language (English versus Spanish).ResultsIn our sample of 1,853 patients, the average adjusted cost of care was significantly lower for Black compared to White patients (AME = -$5,606; 95% confidence interval (CI), -$10,711 to -$501), and Hispanic patients had higher cost of care compared to White patients (AME = $8,539, 95% CI, $3,963 to $13,115). In addition, Hispanic patients who preferred Spanish had significantly higher cost than Hispanic patients who preferred English (AME = $11,866; 95% CI $5,302 to $18,431).ConclusionTotal cost of care takes into account both the intensity of the treatment as well as the duration of the hospital stay. Thus, policy makers and health systems can use cost of care as a proxy for severity, especially when looking at the disparities among different race and ethnicity groups.

Rationale & Objective: Noncitizen, undocumented patients with kidney failure have few treatment options in many states, although Illinois allows for patients to receive a transplant regardless of citizenship status. Little information exists about the experiences of noncitizen patients pursuing kidney transplantation. We sought to understand how access to kidney transplantation affects patients, their family, health care providers, and the health care system. Study Design: A qualitative study with virtually conducted semistructured interviews. Setting & Participants: Participants were transplant and immigration stakeholders (physicians, transplant center and community outreach professionals), and patients who have received assistance through the Illinois Transplant Fund (listed for or received transplant; patients could complete the interview with a family member). Analytical Approach: Interview transcripts were coded using open coding and were analyzed using thematic analysis methods with an inductive approach. Results: We interviewed 36 participants: 13 stakeholders (5 physicians, 4 community outreach stakeholders, and 4 transplant center professionals), 16 patients, and 7 partners. The following seven themes were identified: (1) devastation from kidney failure diagnosis, (2) resource needs for care, (3) communication barriers to care, (4) importance of culturally competent health care providers, (5) negative impacts of policy gaps, (6) new chance at life after transplant, and (7) recommendations for improving care. Limitations: The patients we interviewed were not representative of noncitizen patients with kidney failure overall or in other states. The stakeholders were also not representative of health care providers because they were generally well informed on kidney failure and immigration issues. Conclusions: Although patients in Illinois can access kidney transplants regardless of citizenship status, access barriers, and health care policy gaps continue to negatively affect patients, families, health care professionals, and the health care system. Necessary changes for promoting equitable care include comprehensive policies to increase access, diversifying the health care workforce, and improving communication with patients. These solutions would benefit patients with kidney failure regardless of citizenship.

Abstract Background Implementation of evidence-based care remains a key challenge in clinical practice. Determining “what” to implement can guide implementation efforts. This paper describes a process developed to identify priority recommendations from clinical guidelines for implementation, incorporating the perspectives of both consumers and health professionals. A case study is presented where the process was used to prioritize recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines. Methods The process was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers following consultation with experts in the field of implementation and stroke care in Australia. Use of the process incorporated surveys and facilitated workshops. Survey data were analysed descriptively; responses to ranking exercises were analysed via a graph theory-based voting system. Results The four-step process to identify high-priority recommendations for implementation comprised the following: (1) identifying key implementation criteria, which included (a) reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendation, (b) capacity to measure change in practice, (c) a recommendation–practice gap, (d) clinical importance and (e) feasibility of making the recommended changes; (2) shortlisting recommendations; (3) ranking shortlisted recommendations and (4) reaching consensus on top priorities. The process was applied to the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines between February 2019 and February 2020. Seventy-five health professionals and 16 consumers participated. Use of the process was feasible. Three recommendations were identified as priorities for implementation from over 400 recommendations. Conclusion It is possible to implement a robust process which involves consumers, clinicians and researchers to systematically prioritize guideline recommendations for implementation. The process is generalizable and could be applied in clinical areas other than stroke and in different geographical regions to identify implementation priorities. The identification of three clear priority recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines will directly inform the development and delivery of national implementation strategies.

Abstract Background Unequal access to inpatient rehabilitation after stroke has been reported. We sought to identify and compare patient and service factors associated with referral and admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) after acute hospital care for stroke in two countries with publicly-funded healthcare. Methods We compared two cohorts of stroke patients admitted consecutively to eight acute public hospitals in Australia in 2013–2014 (n = 553), and to one large university hospital in Norway in 2012–2013 (n = 723). Outcomes were: referral to an IRF; admission to an IRF if referred. Logistic regression models were used to identify and compare factors associated with each outcome. Results Participants were similar in both cohorts: mean age 73 years, 40–44% female, 12–13% intracerebral haemorrhage, ~ 77% mild stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale

Abstract Background Careful development of interventions using principles of co-production is now recognized as an important step for clinical trial development, but practical guidance on how to do this in practice is lacking. This paper aims (1) provide practical guidance for researchers to co-produce interventions ready for clinical trial by describing the 4-stage process we followed, the challenges experienced and practical tips for researchers wanting to co-produce an intervention for a clinical trial; (2) describe, as an exemplar, the development of our intervention package. Method We used an Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) approach to co-produce a telehealth-delivered exercise program for people with stroke. The 4-stage process comprised of (1) a start-up planning phase with the co-production team. (2) Content development with knowledge user informants. (3) Design of an intervention protocol. (4) Protocol refinement. Results and reflections The four stages of intervention development involved an 11-member co-production team and 32 knowledge user informants. Challenges faced included balancing conflicting demands of different knowledge user informant groups, achieving shared power and collaborative decision making, and optimising knowledge user input. Components incorporated into the telehealth-delivered exercise program through working with knowledge user informants included: increased training for intervention therapists; increased options to tailor the intervention to participant’s needs and preferences; and re-naming of the program. Key practical tips include ways to minimise the power differential between researchers and consumers, and ensure adequate preparation of the co-production team. Conclusion Careful planning and a structured process can facilitate co-production of complex interventions ready for clinical trial. Graphical Abstract

Abstract Background The Needs in Recovery Assessment (NiRA) is a newly developed needs assessment tool, designed to identify the needs of people recovering from mental illness. This tool has been evaluated outside of the clinical context for validity and reliability. The aim of this study is to introduce the NiRA into clinical practice and to evaluate the value of the NiRA as an adjunct to service delivery from the perspectives of stakeholders and to evaluate the barriers and facilitators of embedding the NiRA in a mental health service. Methods The establishment of the NiRA in a tertiary mental health unit over a 6-month period will be evaluated using a multi-methods approach. Quantitative data will be collected using the NiRA itself and the Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA). Face-to-face interviews with service users and clinicians will be conducted following the initial completion of the NiRA, with a follow-up interview for service users on discharge from the service. Regular informal follow-up with clinicians throughout the study will support the introduction of the NiRA. Descriptive statistics will be used to analyse quantitative data, and descriptive qualitative methods will be used to analyse data from interviews. Discussion Aligning mental health services with recovery-oriented frameworks of care is imperative. The NiRA is a tool that has been designed in accordance with recovery principles and may assist services to be more recovery-oriented. If the NiRA is able to achieve the aims and objectives of this project, a larger implementation study will be conducted. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12621000316808

Abstract Background Repeated admission to hospital can be stressful for older people and their families and puts additional pressure on the health care system. While there is some evidence about strategies to better integrate care, improve older patients’ experiences at transitions of care, and reduce preventable hospital readmissions, implementing these strategies at scale is challenging. This program of research comprises multiple, complementary research activities with an overall goal of improving the care for older people after discharge from hospital. The program leverages existing large datasets and an established collaborative network of clinicians, consumers, academics, and aged care providers. Methods The program of research will take place in South Australia focusing on people aged 65 and over. Three inter-linked research activities will be the following: (1) analyse existing registry data to profile individuals at high risk of emergency department encounters and hospital admissions; (2) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of existing ‘out-of-hospital’ programs provided within the state; and (3) implement a state-wide quality improvement collaborative to tackle key interventions likely to improve older people’s care at points of transitions. The research is underpinned by an integrated approach to knowledge translation, actively engaging a broad range of stakeholders to optimise the relevance and sustainability of the changes that are introduced. Discussion This project highlights the uniqueness and potential value of bringing together key stakeholders and using a multi-faceted approach (risk profiling; evaluation framework; implementation and evaluation) for improving health services. The program aims to develop a practical and scalable solution to a challenging health service problem for frail older people and service providers.

IMPORTANCE:. Studying interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in the spring 2020 surge may help inform future pandemic management. OBJECTIVES:. To compare outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 transferred to a tertiary referral center with increased surge capacity with patients admitted from the emergency department. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS:. Observational cohort study of single center urban academic medical center ICUs. All patients admitted and discharged with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation between March 17, 2020, and October 14, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES:. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained from the electronic medical record. Patients were classified as emergency department admits or interhospital transfers. Regression models tested the association between transfer status and survival, adjusting for demographics and presentation severity. RESULTS:. In total, 298 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were admitted to the ICU and received mechanical ventilation. Of these, 117 were transferred from another facility and 181 were admitted through the emergency department. Patients were primarily male (64%) and Black (38%) or Hispanic (45%). Transfer patients differed from emergency department admits in having English as a preferred language (71% vs 56%; p = 0.008) and younger age (median 57 vs 61 yr; p < 0.001). There were no differences in race/ethnicity or primary payor. Transfers were more likely to receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12% vs 3%; p = 0.004). Overall, 50 (43%) transferred patients and 78 (43%) emergency department admits died prior to discharge. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or days from intubation to discharge between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:. In a single-center retrospective cohort, no significant differences in hospital mortality or length of stay between interhospital transfers and emergency department admits were found. While more study is needed, this suggests that interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 can be done safely and effectively.

A 26-year-old male presented to the emergency department feeling unwell in February of 2021 with symptoms including diaphoresis, loose stools, and loss of taste sensation. Workup not only confirmed a diagnosis of COVID-19 but also revealed discordant HIV test results, with a reactive fourth-generation antigen/antibody test but a negative HIV-1/2 differentiation immunoassay. Subsequent HIV viral load testing obtained two days later ultimately established a diagnosis of acute HIV (AHI). Screening for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is critical that providers (1) continue recommended screening for HIV as an essential service; (2) consider acute HIV in the differential when evaluating patients with acute viral syndromes; (3) recognize that AHI can occur concurrently with other infections, including COVID-19; and (4) understand the differential diagnosis for discordant HIV test results and know when HIV viral load testing is needed to resolve such discordant results.

Abstract Background A multitude of theories, models and frameworks relating to implementing evidence-based practice in health care exist, which can be overwhelming for clinicians and clinical researchers new to the field of implementation science. Clinicians often bear responsibility for implementation, but may be unfamiliar with theoretical approaches designed to inform or understand implementation. Main text In this article, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians and health service researchers present a pragmatic guide to help clinicians and clinical researchers understand what implementation theories, models and frameworks are; how a theoretical approach to implementation might be used; and some prompts to consider when selecting a theoretical approach for an implementation project. Ten commonly used and highly cited theoretical approaches are presented, none of which have been utilised to their full potential in the literature to date. Specifically, theoretical approaches tend to be applied retrospectively to evaluate or interpret findings from a completed implementation project, rather than being used to plan and design theory-informed implementation strategies which would intuitively have a greater likelihood of success. We emphasise that there is no right or wrong way of selecting a theoretical approach, but encourage clinicians to carefully consider the project’s purpose, scope and available data and resources to allow them to select an approach that is most likely to “value-add” to the implementation project. Conclusion By assisting clinicians and clinical researchers to become confident in selecting and applying theoretical approaches to implementation, we anticipate an increase in theory-informed implementation projects. This then will contribute to more nuanced advice on how to address evidence-practice gaps and ultimately to contribute to better health outcomes.