Search

Purpose: To explore staff perceptions of barriers and enablers towards implementing the EQ-5D-5L in community rehabilitation, and develop a theory-informed implementation approach for routine administration of generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using implementation science frameworks. Materials and methods: A qualitative study was conducted at three sites. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation staff completed individual semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and coded against the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We identified and selected potentially effective behaviour change techniques using the Behavior Change Wheel. Hypothetical strategies were operationalised. Results: Twenty-one interviews were conducted, and four themes emerged: (1) The Impact of PROMs on patient centered-care; (2) Considerations for validity of PROMs; (3) Service-level impact of embedding PROMs; (4) Practical issues of embedding PROMs within the service. Barriers and enablers were mapped to seven of the TDF domains; relating most to clinicians' "belief about consequences", "reinforcement", and "environmental context and resources". Five hypothetical strategies were developed to overcome identified barriers and strengthen enablers. Key behaviour change techniques underpinning the strategies include: restructuring the physical environment, incentivisation, persuasion and education, enablement, and, social support. Conclusions: Our implementation approach highlights the importance of automating processes, engaging site champions, routinely reporting, and using PROM data to inform service provision. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Implementation of patient reported outcome measures within multidiscipline rehabilitation settings are likely optimised by establishing infrastructure support e.g., information technology systems to automate the process and minimise manual aspects of data collection. Engaging site champions may be an important enabler for the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures Providing feedback to clinicians on aggregated results of patient reported outcome measures are likely to motivate and encourage routine collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Inpatient delirium is common and associated with poor outcomes. Although most organisations have evidence-based guidelines to improve delirium prevention and management, delirium rates and outcomes have remained relatively unchanged over time. A lack of understanding of healthcare providers' experience of caring for people with delirium and its integration into existing guidance may explain some of the slow progress in improving delirium care. Objective To review and synthesise existing qualitative evidence on healthcare providers' experience of caring for inpatients with delirium within and across disciplines. Methods We systematically searched OVID Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, PsychINFO, AMED and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1990 and November 2022. Article inclusion and study quality were assessed by two independent reviewers. Both thematic synthesis and content analysis were then conducted to synthesise findings from included studies. Results Within the 25 included studies, the experience of nurses was the most commonly studied perspective, followed by medical and allied health. Nursing, medical and allied health staff all reported that their experience of caring for people with delirium was challenging, highlighting difficulties in delirium recognition and that they felt unsupported at organisational and local levels. Attitudes towards older people and the importance of delirium influenced identification and prioritisation. Conclusions Healthcare providers often find caring for hospitalised patients with delirium challenging and complex. Although good communication within multidisciplinary teams was deemed helpful, more work is required to understand how to achieve this, recognising the unique perspectives of individual disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical supervision supports patient care and health worker wellbeing. However, access to effective clinical supervision is not equitable. We aimed to explore the access and effectiveness of clinical supervision in allied health workers. A cross-sectional survey design using the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26), including open-ended survey responses, to collect data on effectiveness. Multivariable regression was conducted to determine how MCSS-26 scores differed across discipline, work location and setting. Open-ended responses were analysed using content analysis. 1113 workers completed the survey, with 319 (28%) reporting they did not receive supervision; this group were more likely to hold management positions, work in a medical imaging discipline and practice in a regional or rural location. For those who received supervision, MCSS-26 scores significantly differed between disciplines and work settings; psychologists and those practising in private practice settings (i.e. fee-for-service) reported the highest levels of effectiveness. Suggested strategies to enhance effectiveness included the use of alternate supervision models, dedicated time for supervision, and training. Targeted subgroups for improving access include senior staff, medical imaging professionals, and those working across regional and rural settings. Where supervision was least effective, strategies to address behaviours with organisational support may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeMaterials and MethodsResultsConclusion\nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTo explore whether psychological factors are associated with ability to meet recommended physical activity thresholds after hip fracture.Cross-sectional observational study of 216 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years after hip fracture (mean age 79 SD 7 years, 70% female). Multiple ordinal regression analysis determined factors associated with meeting physical activity thresholds related to positive health outcomes: 4,400 and 7,100 daily steps. Explanatory variables were: walking self-confidence; falls self-efficacy; depression; anxiety; co-morbidities; previous gait aid use; nutritional status; age; and gender.Forty-three participants (20%) met the lower threshold of ≥4,400 to <7,100 steps and thirty participants (14%) met the upper threshold of ≥7,100 steps. Walking self-confidence was positively associated with meeting higher physical activity thresholds (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.32: 95% CI 1.11 to 1.57, p = 0.002). Age (AOR 0.93: 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98, p = 0.003), DASS-21 anxiety score (AOR 0.81: 95% CI 0.69 to 0.94, p = 0.008) and comorbidity index score (AOR 0.52: 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, p < 0.001) were negatively associated with meeting higher physical activity thresholds.Walking self-confidence and anxiety are potentially modifiable factors associated with meeting physical activity thresholds related to positive health outcomes after hip fracture.Older people are often physically inactive after hip fracture, which can lead to negative health outcomes and increased risk of mortality.The potentially modifiable psychological factors of walking self-confidence and anxiety are associated with meeting recommended physical activity levels after hip fracture.Therapists should include assessment of psychological factors to help guide rehabilitation of patients after hip fracture.Older people are often physically inactive after hip fracture, which can lead to negative health outcomes and increased risk of mortality.The potentially modifiable psychological factors of walking self-confidence and anxiety are associated with meeting recommended physical activity levels after hip fracture.Therapists should include assessment of psychological factors to help guide rehabilitation of patients after hip fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care navigation is commonly used to reduce preventable hospitalisation. The use of Electronic Health Record‐derived algorithms may enable better targeting of this intervention for greater impact. Aims: To evaluate if community‐based Targeted Care Navigation, supported by an Electronic Health Record‐derived readmission risk algorithm, is associated with reduced rehospitalisation. Methods: A propensity score matching cohort (5 comparison to 1 intervention cohort ratio) study was conducted in an 850‐bed Victorian public metropolitan health service, Australia, from May to November 2017. Admitted acute care patients with a non‐surgical condition, identified as at‐risk of hospital readmission using an Electronic Health Record‐derived readmission risk algorithm provide by the state health department, were eligible. Targeted Care Navigation involved telephone follow‐up support provided for 30 days post‐discharge by a registered nurse. The hazard ratio for hospital readmission was calculated at 30, 60 and 90 days post‐discharge using multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Results: Sixty‐five recipients received care navigation and were matched to 262 people who did not receive care navigation. Excellent matching was achieved with standardised differences between groups being <0.1 for all 11 variables included in the propensity score, including the readmission risk score. The Targeted Care Navigation group had a significantly reduced hazard of readmission at 30 days (hazard ratio 0.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.94) compared with the comparison group. The effect size was reduced at 60 and 90 days post‐discharge. Conclusion: We provide preliminary evidence that Targeted Care Navigation supported by an Electronic Health Record‐derived readmission risk algorithm may reduce 30‐day hospital readmissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health Service implementation projects are often guided by theoretical implementation frameworks. Little is known about the effectiveness of these frameworks to facilitate change in processes of care and patient outcomes within the inpatient setting. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of theoretical implementation frameworks in inpatient healthcare settings to change processes of care and associated patient outcomes. Method: We conducted a search in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EMCARE and Cochrane Library databases from 1st January 1995 to 15th June 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to potentially eligible studies. Eligible studies: implemented evidence-based care into an in-patient setting using a theoretical implementation framework applied prospectively; used a prospective study design; presented process of care or patient outcomes; and were published in English. We extracted theoretical implementation frameworks and study design against the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Checklist and implementation strategies mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. We summarised all interventions using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. We appraised study quality using the Item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for cluster randomised trials. We extracted process of care and patient outcomes and described descriptively. We conducted meta-analysis for process of care and patient outcomes with reference to framework category. Results: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one used a pre-post (no comparison), two a pre-post with a comparison, and two a cluster randomised trial design. Eleven theoretical implementation frameworks were prospectively applied: six process models; five determinant frameworks; and one classic theory. Four studies used two theoretical implementation frameworks. No authors reported their justification for selecting a particular framework and implementation strategies were generally poorly described. No consensus was reached for a preferred framework or subset of frameworks based on meta-analysis results. Conclusions: Rather than the ongoing development of new implementation frameworks, a more consistent approach to framework selection and strengthening of existing approaches is recommended to further develop the implementation evidence base. Trial registration: CRD42019119429. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]