Search

We examine the efficacy of MARHABA, a social marketing-informed, lay health worker (LHW) intervention with patient navigation (PN), to increase breast and cervical cancer screening among Muslim women in New York City. Muslim women were eligible if they were overdue for a mammogram and/or a Pap test. All participants attended a 1-h educational seminar with distribution of small media health education materials, after which randomization occurred. Women in the Education + Media + PN arm received planned follow-ups from a LHW. Women in the Education + Media arm received no further contact. A total of 428 women were randomized into the intervention (214 into each arm). Between baseline and 4-month follow-up, mammogram screening increased from 16.0 to 49.0% in the Education + Media + PN arm (p

BACKGROUND: Handoff miscommunications are a leading source of medical errors. Harmful medical errors decreased in pediatric academic hospitals following implementation of the I-PASS handoff improvement program. However, implementation across specialties has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To determine if I-PASS implementation across diverse settings would be associated with improvements in patient safety and communication. DESIGN: Prospective Type 2 Hybrid effectiveness implementation study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents from diverse specialties across 32 hospitals (12 community, 20 academic). INTERVENTION: External teams provided longitudinal coaching over 18 months to facilitate implementation of an enhanced I-PASS program and monthly metric reviews. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Systematic surveillance surveys assessed rates of resident-reported adverse events. Validated direct observation tools measured verbal and written handoff quality. RESULTS: 2735 resident physicians and 760 faculty champions from multiple specialties (16 internal medicine, 13 pediatric, 3 other) participated. 1942 error surveillance reports were collected. Major and minor handoff-related reported adverse events decreased 47% following implementation, from 1.7 to 0.9 major events/person-year (p

BackgroundEffective communication in transitions between healthcare team members is associated with improved patient safety and experience through a clinically meaningful reduction in serious safety events. Family-centered rounds (FCR) can serve a critical role in interprofessional and patient-family communication. Despite widespread support, FCRs are not utilized consistently in many institutions. Structured FCR approaches may prove beneficial in increasing FCR use but should address organizational challenges. The purpose of this study was to identify intervention, individual, and contextual determinants of high adherence to common elements of structured FCR in pediatric inpatient units during the implementation phase of a large multi-site study implementing a structured FCR approach.MethodsWe performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study from September 2019 to October 2020 to evaluate the variation in structured FCR adherence across 21 pediatric inpatient units. We analyzed 24 key informant interviews of supervising physician faculty, physician learners, nurses, site administrators, and project leaders at 3 sites using a qualitative content analysis paradigm to investigate site variation in FCR use. We classified implementation determinants based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsProvisional measurements of adherence demonstrated considerable variation in structured FCR use across sites at a median time of 5 months into the implementation. Consistent findings across all three sites included generally positive clinician beliefs regarding the use of FCR and structured rounding approaches, benefits to learner self-efficacy, and potential efficiency gains derived through greater rounds standardization, as well as persistent challenges with nurse engagement and interaction on rounds and coordination and use of resources for families with limited English proficiency.ConclusionsStudies during implementation to identify determinants to high adherence can provide generalizable knowledge regarding implementation determinants that may be difficult to predict prior to implementation, guide adaptation during the implementation, and inform sustainment strategies.

BackgroundVariation exists in family-centered rounds (FCR).ObjectiveWe sought to understand patient/family and clinician FCR beliefs/attitudes and practices to support implementation efforts.Designs, settings and participantsPatients/families and clinicians at 21 geographically diverse US community/academic pediatric teaching hospitals participated in a prospective cohort dissemination and implementation study.InterventionWe inquired about rounding beliefs/attitudes, practices, and demographics using a 26-question survey coproduced with family/nurse/attending-physician collaborators, informed by prior research and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Main outcome and measuresOut of 2578 individuals, 1647 (64%) responded to the survey; of these, 1313 respondents participated in FCR and were included in analyses (616 patients/families, 243 nurses, 285 resident physicians, and 169 attending physicians). Beliefs/attitudes regarding the importance of FCR elements varied by role, with resident physicians rating the importance of several FCR elements lower than others. For example, on adjusted multivariable analysis, attending physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-7.8) and nurses (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.4) were much more likely than resident physicians to report family participation on rounds as very/extremely important. Clinician support for key FCR elements was higher than self-reported practice (e.g., 88% believed family participation was important on rounds; 68% reported it often/always occurred). In practice, key elements of FCR were reported to often/always occur only 23%-70% of the time.ResultSupport for nurse and family participation in FCR is high among clinicians but varies by role. Physicians, particularly resident physicians, endorse several FCR elements as less important than nurses and patients/families. The gap between attitudes and practice and between clinician types suggests that attitudinal, structural, and cultural barriers impede FCR.

IntroductionThe I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. Frontline providers are the key individuals participating in handoffs of patient care. It is important they receive robust handoff training.MethodsThe I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum frontline provider training materials were created as part of the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach with an emphasis on adult learning theory principles. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, TeamSTEPPS team communication strategies, verbal handoff simulation scenarios, and a printed handoff document exercise.ResultsAs part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 2,735 frontline providers were trained at 32 study sites (16 adult and 16 pediatric) across North America. At the end of their training, 1,762 frontline providers completed the workshop evaluation form (64% response rate). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they were able to distinguish a good- from a poor-quality handoff, articulate the elements of the I-PASS mnemonic, construct a high-quality patient summary, advocate for an appropriate environment for handoffs, and participate in handoff simulations. Universally, the training provided them with knowledge and skills relevant to their patient care activities.DiscussionThe I-PASS frontline training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

IntroductionThe I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. I-PASS champions are a critical part of the implementation and sustainment of this curriculum, and therefore, a rigorous program to support their training is necessary.MethodsThe I-PASS Handoff champion training materials were created for the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach and adult learning theory. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, an opportunity to practice evaluating handoffs with the I-PASS observation tools using a handoff video vignette, and other key implementation principles.ResultsAs part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 366 champions were trained at 32 sites across North America and participated in a total of 3,491 handoff observations. A total of 346 champions completed the I-PASS Champion Workshop evaluation form at the end of their training (response rate: 94.5%). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that it provided them with knowledge or skills critical to their patient care activities and that they were able to distinguish the difference between high- and poor-quality handoffs, competently use the I-PASS handoff assessment tools, and articulate the importance of handoff observations.ConclusionThe I-PASS champion training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

Background Headaches are a leading cause of years lived with disability. For some people, headaches become chronic and disabling, with treatment options being primarily pharmaceutical. Non-pharmacological alternative treatment approaches are worthy of exploration. Aim To develop and test an educational and supportive self-management intervention for people with chronic headaches. Objectives To develop and evaluate a brief diagnostic interview to support diagnosis for people with chronic headaches, and then to develop and pilot an education and self-management support intervention for the management of common chronic headache disorders (the CHESS intervention). To select the most appropriate outcome measures for a randomised controlled trial of the CHESS intervention, and then to conduct a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the CHESS intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Design Developmental and feasibility studies followed by a randomised controlled trial. Setting General practice and community settings in the Midlands and London, UK. Participants For our feasibility work, 14 general practices recruited 131 people with chronic headaches (headaches on ≥15 days per month for >3 months). People with chronic headaches and expert clinicians developed a telephone classification interview for chronic headache that we validated with 107 feasibility study participants. We piloted the CHESS intervention with 13 participants and refined the content and structure based on their feedback. People with chronic headaches contributed to the decisions about our primary outcome and a core outcome set for chronic and episodic migraine. For the randomised controlled trial, we recruited adults with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache, from general practices and via self-referral. Our main analyses were on people with migraine. Interventions The CHESS intervention consisted of two 1-day group sessions focused on education and self-management to promote behaviour change and support learning strategies to manage chronic headaches. This was followed by a one-to-one nurse consultation and telephone support. The control intervention consisted of feedback from classification interviews, headache management leaflet and a relaxation compact disc. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was headache-related quality of life measured using the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months. The secondary outcomes included the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire; headache days, duration and severity; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form Questionnaire-12 items; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire scores. We followed up participants at 4, 8 and 12 months. Results Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomised 736 participants from 164 general practices. Nine participants (1%) had chronic tension-type headache only. Our main analyses were on the remaining 727 participants with migraine (376 in the intervention arm and 351 in the usual-care arm). Baseline characteristics were well matched. For the primary outcome we had analysable data from 579 participants (80%) at 12 months. There was no between-group difference in the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months, (adjusted mean difference –0.3, 95% confidence interval –1.23 to 0.67; p = 0.56). The limits of the 95% confidence interval effectively exclude the possibility of the intervention having a worthwhile benefit. At 4 months there was a difference favouring the CHESS self-management programme on the Headache Impact Test-6 (adjusted mean difference –1.0, 95% confidence interval –1.91 to –0.006; p = 0.049). However, the self-management group also reported 1.5 (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 2.56) more headache days in the previous 28 days. Apart from improved pain self-efficacy at 4 and 12 months, there were few other statistically significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes. The CHESS intervention generated 0.031 (95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.063) additional quality-adjusted life-years and increased NHS and Personal Social Services costs by £268 (95% confidence interval £176 to £377), on average, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8617 with an 83% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The CHESS intervention was well received and fidelity was good. No process-related issues were identified that would explain why the intervention was ineffective. Limitations Only 288 out of 376 (77%) of those randomised to the CHESS intervention attended one or more of the intervention sessions. Conclusions This short, non-pharmacological, educational self-management intervention is unlikely to be effective for the treatment of people with chronic headaches and migraine. Future work There is a need to develop and test more sustained non-pharmacological interventions for people with chronic headache disorders. Patient and public involvement Substantial patient and public involvement went into the design, conduct and interpretation of the CHESS programme. This helped direct the research and ensured that the patient voice was embedded in our work. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN79708100. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information. Plain language summary What did we want to find out? We wanted to find out if an education and self-management support programme for people with frequent headaches made these people feel better. What did we do? We first made sure that we could find people with frequent headaches, from general practice, who would want to take part in our study. We then trained nurses to do telephone interviews to find out what sort of headaches people had. We looked at previous research and then, together with people with frequent headaches, designed a group education and self-management programme. It was run by a nurse and another health professional over 2 days, followed by a one-to-one session and telephone support with a nurse. We worked with people with frequent headaches and health professionals specialising in headaches to agree how best to measure how headaches affect people’s quality of life. We then tested our self-management programme. We recruited 736 people with frequent headaches, of whom 727 had migraine. Using a computer, we allocated them at random either to attend the self-management programme or to receive a relaxation compact disc. Everyone was told their headache type. We asked participants to tell us about their headaches and headache quality of life after 4 months, 8 months and 12 months. What did we find? Our main results are for the 727 people with migraine. Our support programme did not help people in our study with frequent migraines to live better. There were also no important differences in the number of headaches people had each month or the amount of prescribed or over-the-counter medication they took for their headaches. What does this mean? Our short 2-day programme did not appear to improve headache-related quality of life or reduce the number of headache days. Other ways of helping people manage their chronic headaches are needed. Scientific summary Background Headaches are second to low back pain as a global cause of years lived with disability. Headaches are the most common neurological disorder treated in primary care. They account for around 3% of general practitioner consultations. Seventy per cent of people with headaches seen by their general practitioner do not get a formal diagnosis. For some people headaches become a chronic disabling disorder. There is a need for more non-pharmacological treatments to help those living with headache disorders. Our overarching aim was to develop and test a supportive education and self-management group intervention, implementable in primary care, for people with chronic headaches. Objectives The objectives of the programme were to: •develop and test strategies for recruiting people with chronic headaches from primary care [work package (WP) 1] •develop and evaluate a brief classification interview to support diagnosis for people with chronic headaches (WP2) •develop and pilot an education and self-management support intervention for the management of common chronic headache disorders [the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) intervention] (WP3) •select the most appropriate outcome measures for a randomised controlled trial of the CHESS intervention package (WP4) •run a multicentre randomised controlled trial, including an economic evaluation, of the CHESS intervention package (WP5). Methods and results We used an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches: headaches on ≥15 days per month for >3 months. Phase 1 of our work, WPs 1–4, consisted of interlinked systematic reviews and a feasibility study. Feasibility study (work package 1) Fourteen general practices in the West Midlands recruited 131 people with chronic headaches by writing to people with recorded consultations for headaches and prescriptions for migraine-specific drugs (triptans and pizotifen). Eligibility was confirmed by a telephone call by the study team. This group was our sampling frame for WPs 2–4. Classification interview (work package 2) We wanted to identify the population of interest for the main trial but also to feel confident that those who had other headache types not suitable for our trial were appropriately identified and referred for relevant support. We first reviewed the literature on diagnostic tools and found 38 papers validating 30 tools. We did not find any tools that were suitable for our proposed trial. We therefore organised a consensus meeting to inform our thinking on the content of a new classification tool. This was attended by neurologists with a specialist interest in headaches, general neurologists, headache specialist nurses, general practitioners with a specialist interest in headaches and people with chronic headaches. We established what we needed to know from a person to: •exclude secondary headaches •exclude primary headaches other than chronic migraine and tension-type headache •distinguish between chronic tension-type headache and chronic migraine •identify medication overuse headache. We used this information to develop a classification logic model for use in a nurse-delivered classification interview. A research nurse and a doctor, with expertise in headaches, from the National Migraine Centre then independently interviewed 107 participants. We found a high level of agreement between the nurse and specialist. Over 90% of study participants were classified as having chronic migraine. Intervention development (work package 3) Three systematic reviews informed our intervention development. Using a meta-ethnographic approach our systematic review of the lived experience of chronic headaches (n = 4 studies) we found three overarching themes: •headache as a driver of behaviour •the spectre of headache •strained relationships. In our systematic review of prognostic factors in chronic headache (n = 27 studies), we found moderate evidence for depression and anxiety, poor sleep, stress, medication overuse and poor self-efficacy predicting a poor outcome. We found inconclusive evidence for treatment expectations, age and age at onset, body mass index, employment and headache features predicting a poor outcome. In our systematic review of the effectiveness, style and content of self-management interventions for chronic headache (n = 16 studies) we found beneficial effects of the interventions compared with usual care in pain intensity, headache-related disability and quality of life. Interventions including either education or mindfulness components, and delivered in a group format, showed greater reductions in pain intensity than interventions without these features. A greater beneficial effect on mood was observed in interventions that included a cognitive–behavioural approach component than in those without this. We interviewed seven people living with chronic headaches recruited through our charity partners. We found that participants had tried a range of therapies and interventions, some of which were helpful and others less so. Access to education and peer support was deemed positive, as was learning new skills such as relaxation, mindfulness and stress management. We then presented our findings to 18 people from clinical, academic and lay backgrounds at an intervention development day to agree the structure and content of our new intervention. We agreed on a modular group intervention for 8–10 people delivered by a nurse and a layperson with chronic headaches. It should include educational material, self-management material and medication advice, and include a digital versatile disc (DVD) suitable to share with friends and family. We included a single face-to-face session and up to 8 weeks of telephone support with a specially trained nurse. After piloting with 13 participants, we identified that it was difficult for lay facilitators to commit to the sessions because of the unpredictable nature of their headaches. We therefore changed to using allied health professionals as the second facilitator. The final format was two group days followed by a one-to-one session with a nurse to discuss medication, lifestyle factors and goal-setting, followed by up to 8 weeks of telephone support (individually negotiated). Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness measures (work package 4) In our systematic review of patient-reported outcomes (46 studies evaluating 23 patient measures) we found that for a ‘headache’ population only the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) had acceptable evidence for its validity and reliability for use in our trial. The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ v2.1) had relevance to our population. We modified this measure, changing the focus of each item from ‘migraine’ to ‘headache’ to produce the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ) and did a mixed-methods comparative evaluation of the CHQLQ and HIT-6. Both the CHQLQ and the HIT-6 were well completed, had good psychometric properties and were relevant to the experience of headache. The CHQLQ captured the wide-ranging impact of chronic headache, in particular the emotional impact, to a greater extent than the HIT-6. As this work was not complete before starting the main trial, we set HIT-6 as the primary outcome for the trial and the CHQLQ as a secondary outcome. We developed three questions to capture headache frequency, duration and severity for use in a smartphone application (app) or in a paper diary. Eight feasibility participants tested the app over 11 weeks. Feedback was positive but completion rates varied. We included the app as part of the main trial. From our work on outcome measures we identified the need for a core outcome set for migraine. This work took place after the design of the randomised controlled trial had been finalised. We identified >50 domains from our systematic reviews and our qualitative work. We did a modified, three-round electronic Delphi study with patients and professionals to identify which domains were most important. At a consensus day, when the aim was to ratify the core domains, a two-domain core outcome set was agreed for chronic and episodic migraine: 1.migraine-specific pain – to be assessed with an 11-point numerical pain rating scale, and frequency as the number of headache/migraine days over a specified period 2.migraine-specific quality of life to be assessed with the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ). Professor Underwood, the chief investigator for this study, is a director and shareholder of Clinvivo Ltd, who provided the Delphi platform. He recused himself from any discussions related to the choice of Delphi platform for this study. Phase 2: randomised controlled trial, work package 5 Phase 2 of the programme was a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the CHESS intervention package. We identified people with chronic headaches from general practice records. Self-referral to the trial was also possible. We included adults with migraine or tension-type headache with or without medication overuse headache. People who appeared eligible after an initial telephone call were asked to provide consent and baseline measures. This was followed by a classification interview with a research nurse to confirm eligibility and identify people with suspected non-eligible headaches. After the feasibility study we specified that if at least 85% of our participants had migraine our primary analysis would just be on the population with migraine, with sample size inflated, if necessary, to ensure adequate statistical power for this analysis. The randomisation allocation ratio was 1 : 1.07 in favour of the intervention group to account for clustering in one arm. Randomisation was done using minimisation, stratifying by geographical locality (Midlands and Greater London) and headache type [definite chronic migraine, probable chronic migraine (i.e. episodic migraine plus chronic tension-type headache) and chronic tension-type headache only, with or without medication overuse headache]. Our primary outcome was the HIT-6 score at 1 year. We used the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire as the secondary headache disability outcome. We did follow-ups at 4, 8 and 12 months. The sample size was based on testing the clinical effectiveness in the migraine population excluding participants with just tension-type headache (n = 689 participants: relaxation arm, n = 689; self-management arm, n = 356) provided 90% power to detect a between-group difference of 2 points (standard deviation 6.87 points, from the feasibility study) in HIT-6 score at 12 months for those with migraine using a two-sided test and a 5% significance level with a 20% loss to follow-up. Some over-run on sample size was expected to allow all groups to be adequately populated. We did a within-trial health economic analysis. Between April 2017 and March 2019, staff at 164 general practices in the Midlands and London wrote to 31,026 people and we randomised 736 people, 727 (99%) with migraine: 54% (396/727) had chronic migraine and 56% (407/727) medication overuse headache. Despite reporting chronic headache when eligibility for the study was determined, after receiving informed consent at baseline, 38% (274/727) reported < 15 headache days in the preceding 4 weeks. Unless otherwise stated, analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Baseline characteristics were well matched. The first session was attended by 286 out of 376 (76%) intervention participants; 259 (69%) reached the minimum adherence (day 1, and the one-to-one session) and 216 (58%) achieved full adherence to the programme. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 scores at 12 months [adjusted mean difference –0.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.23 to 0.67 points; p = 0.56]. The limits of this 95% CI excluded our target (worthwhile) effect size of 2.0 points and the smaller minimally clinically important difference of 1.5 points suggested by others for studies of episodic migraine. At 4 months there was a difference favouring the CHESS self-management programme (adjusted mean difference –1.0 points; 95% CI –1.91 to –0.006 points; p = 0.049). There were few differences in secondary outcomes. The self-management group had 1.5 (95% CI 0.48 to 2.56; p = 0.004) more headache days over the preceding 28 days at 4 months. They also had improved pain self-efficacy scores at 4 and 12 months. Use of acute drugs, including both prescribed and over-the-counter drugs, and prophylactic drugs was unchanged over time with no between-group differences. Using electronic/paper diary data the difference over 12 months in number of headache days was 0.2 days (95% CI –0.11 to 0.46 days; p = 0.234), difference in duration of each headache was 0.4 hours (95% CI –0.47 to 1.28 hours; p = 0.361) and difference in average headache severity on a 0–10 scale was 0.2 (95% CI –0.08 to 0.46; p = 0.163). We found no subgroup effects. Our complier-average causal effect and sensitivity analyses were not materially different. There were seven adverse events: two in the standard-care arm and five in the self-management arm. The CHESS intervention generated 0.031 (95% CI –0.005 to 0.063) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and increased NHS and Personal Social Services costs by £268 (95% CI £176 to £377), generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8617 with an 83% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY gained. Our process evaluation, including all 736 participants, showed that we recruited a nationally representative population including people from practices based in all 10 deciles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation; 18% of participants were from minority ethnic groups. Intervention fidelity was good, with adherence being slightly better than competence [adherence 83% (interquartile range 67–100%); competence 70% (interquartile range 50–90%)]. We carried out semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of 26 study participants. Most participants described gaining some new knowledge or insight about their headaches from the intervention they received, and a few changed medication. Some felt more confident to manage their headaches, but many did not. CHESS was well received by participants, facilitators and general practitioners. Participants enjoyed interacting with others and valued the opportunity to talk, share and discuss their chronic headache experiences with others in a similar situation in a safe knowledgeable space. Patient and public involvement There has been substantial patient and public involvement in the design, conduct and interpretation of the CHESS programme. Throughout the programme we worked closely with three UK migraine charities and a lay advisory group to help direct the research and ensure that the patient voice was embedded in our work. Conclusions Over the duration of the CHESS programme, we have advanced our understanding of the challenges of living with chronic headaches and made some progress in developing the methodology for running randomised controlled trials of complex interventions for people living with chronic headaches. Our data effectively excluded the possibility that this short intervention is effective for the treatment of chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache and episodic migraine. Although there was no effect on our chosen headache-specific outcomes, we have not excluded the possibility that it produces a worthwhile QALY gain, as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. The health burden of chronic headache disorders, principally chronic migraine, is debilitating. Those living with the condition warrant support to optimise their care planning according to their needs and the latest knowledge about treatment and management. Further advances in this field must be driven by new theoretically and/or biologically informed intervention models. Research recommendations •New work to better understand the health impact of chronic headache disorders and to identify modifiable risk factors for a poor outcome. •Development and testing of new non-pharmacological interventions for a tightly phenotyped group with chronic migraine. •Research is needed to support improved classification of headache disorders in primary care to allow better targeting of the available drug treatments of proven effectiveness, and reduce medication overuse. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN79708100. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant morbidity/mortality. AF-ablation is an increasingly used treatment. Currently, first-time AF-ablation success is 40–80% at 1-year, depending on individual factors. There is growing evidence for improved outcomes through management of AF risk-factors/comorbidities via patient education/exercise-rehabilitation. There are no studies assessing combined prehabilitation/rehabilitation in this cohort. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to assess efficacy of comprehensive prehabilitation/rehabilitation and combining supervised exercise-training with AF risk-factor modification/education compared with standard care in people undergoing first-time AF ablation. Methods: This single-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial will recruit 106 adults with paroxysmal/persistent AF listed for first-time AF-ablation. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to cardiac prehabilitation/rehabilitation/education (CREED AF) intervention or standard care. Both groups will undergo AF-ablation at 8-weeks post-randomisation as per usual care. The CREED AF intervention will involve 6-weeks of prehabilitation (before AF-ablation) followed by 6-weeks rehabilitation (after AF-ablation) consisting of risk factor education/modification and supervised exercise training. Standard care will include a single 30-minute session of risk-factor education. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 10-weeks and 12-months post AF-ablation, by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is cardiorespiratory-fitness (peak oxygen uptake, VO2peak) assessed using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) at 10-weeks post-ablation. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, AF recurrence/burden assessed by 7-day Holter-monitor, requirement for repeat AF-ablation, study defined major adverse cardiovascular events, and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). Conclusions: This study will assess clinical-efficacy/cost-effectiveness of comprehensive prehabilitation/rehabilitation/patient-education for people undergoing first time AF-ablation. Results will inform clinical care and design of future multi-centre clinical trials. Trial registration: URL:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT06042231.Date registered: September 18, 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionCommunication failures during shift-to-shift handoffs of patient care have been identified as a leading cause of adverse events in health care institutions. The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff program that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events. As part of the spread and adaptation of this program, a comprehensive implementation guide was created to assist individuals in the implementation process.MethodsThe I-PASS Mentored Implementation Guide grew out of materials created for the original I-PASS Study, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) mentored implementation programs, and the experience of members of the I-PASS Study Group. The guide provides a comprehensive framework of all elements required to implement the large-scale I-PASS Handoff Program and contains detailed information on generating institutional support, training activities, a campaign, measuring impact, and sustaining the program.ResultsThirty-two sites across North America utilized the guide as part of the SHM program. The guide served as a main reference for 477 hours of mentoring phone calls between site leads and their mentors. Postprogram surveys from wave 2 sites revealed that 85% (N = 34) of respondents felt the quality of the guide was very good/excellent. Site leads noted that they referenced the guide most often during the early part of the program and that they referenced the sections on the curriculum and handoff observations most often.DiscussionThe I-PASS Mentored Implementation Guide is an essential resource for those looking to implement the large-scale I-PASS Handoff Program at their institution.

ImportanceMedical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection.ObjectiveTo compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient.Main outcomes and measuresError and AE rates.ResultsOverall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates.Conclusions and relevanceFamilies provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.

Background: Between 2015 and 2019 the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) developed and tested a supportive self-management approach that aimed to improve outcomes for people with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache with/without episodic migraine. However, a paucity of qualitative research which explored the lived experiences of people with chronic headache was evidenced. In response, we undertook to explore the experiences of living with chronic headaches of people who participated in the CHESS study. Methods: We adopted qualitative methodologies, inviting participants in the CHESS study to participate in semi-structured interviews. In phase 1 (feasibility study), a thematic analysis was conducted. In phase 2 (main CHESS trial), interviews were informed by topic guides developed from our learning from the phase 1 interviews. Pen portrait methodology and thematic analysis was employed allowing us to explore the data longitudinally. Results: Phase 1, 15 interviews (10 female) age range 29 to 69 years (median 47 years) revealed the complexities of living with chronic headache. Six overarching themes were identified including the emotional impact and the nature of their headaches. Phase 2, included 66 interviews (26 participants; median age group 50s (range 20s-60s); 20 females. 14 were interviewed at three points in time (baseline, 4 and 12 months) Through an iterative process four overlapping categories of headache impact emerged from the data and were agreed: i) 'I will not let headaches rule my life'; ii) 'Headaches rule my life'; iii) 'Headaches out of control—something needs to change'; and iv) 'Headaches controlled—not ruling my life'. One of these categories was assigned to each pen portrait at each timepoint. The remaining 12 participants were interviewed at two time points during a year; pen portraits were again produced. Analysis revealed that the headache impact categories developed above held true in this sample also providing some validation of the categories. Conclusions: These data give an insight into the complexities of living with chronic headache. Chronic headache is unpredictable, permeating all aspects of an individual's life; even when an individual feels that their headache is controlled and not interfering, this situation can rapidly change. It shows us that more work needs to be done both medically and societally to help people living with this often-hidden condition. Trial registration: ISRCTN79708100 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]