1
|
Carpenter CR, Southerland LT, Lucey BP, Prusaczyk B. Around the EQUATOR with clinician-scientists transdisciplinary aging research (Clin-STAR) principles: Implementation science challenges and opportunities. J Am Geriatr Soc 2022; 70:3620-3630. [PMID: 36005482 PMCID: PMC10538952 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17993] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2022] [Revised: 06/25/2022] [Accepted: 07/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
The Institute of Medicine and the National Institute on Aging increasingly understand that knowledge alone is necessary but insufficient to improve healthcare outcomes. Adapting the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and stakeholders to new standards of evidence-based clinical practice is often significantly delayed. In response, over the past twenty years, Implementation Science has developed as the study of methods and strategies that facilitate the uptake of evidence-based practice into regular use by practitioners and policymakers. One important advance in Implementation Science research was the development of Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI), which provided a 27-item checklist for researchers to consistently report essential elements of the implementation and intervention strategies. Using StaRI as a framework, this review discusses specific Implementation Science challenges for research with older adults, provides solutions for those obstacles, and opportunities to improve the value of this evolving approach to reduce the knowledge translation losses that exist between published research and clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher R Carpenter
- Department of Emergency Medicine and Emergency Care Research Core, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Lauren T Southerland
- Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Brendan P Lucey
- Department of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Beth Prusaczyk
- Department of Medicine Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
McArthur C, Bai Y, Hewston P, Giangregorio L, Straus S, Papaioannou A. Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Implement Sci 2021; 16:70. [PMID: 34243789 PMCID: PMC8267230 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01140-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The long-term care setting poses unique challenges and opportunities for effective knowledge translation. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care, as defined as a home where residents require 24-h nursing care, and 50% of the population is over the age of 65 years; and (2) map barriers and facilitators to the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to inform theory-guided knowledge translation strategies. METHODS Following the guidance of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the ENTREQ reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the reported experiences of long-term care staff on implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice. MEDLINE Pubmed, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest date available until May 2021. Two independent reviewers selected primary studies for inclusion if they were conducted in long-term care and reported the perspective or experiences of long-term care staff with implementing an evidence-based practice guideline about health conditions. Appraisal of the included studies was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist and confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual approach. FINDINGS After screening 2680 abstracts, we retrieved 115 full-text articles; 33 of these articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included time constraints and inadequate staffing, cost and lack of resources, and lack of teamwork and organizational support. Facilitators included leadership and champions, well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources, and adequate services, resources, and time. The most frequent Behaviour Change Wheel components were physical and social opportunity and psychological capability. We concluded moderate or high confidence in all but one of our review findings. CONCLUSIONS Future knowledge translation strategies to implement guidelines in long-term care should target physical and social opportunity and psychological capability, and include interventions such as environmental restructuring, training, and education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caitlin McArthur
- Dalhousie University, 5869 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada. .,GERAS Centre for Aging Research, 88 Maplewood Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario, L8M 1W9, Canada.
| | - Yuxin Bai
- GERAS Centre for Aging Research, 88 Maplewood Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario, L8M 1W9, Canada.,Master University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Patricia Hewston
- GERAS Centre for Aging Research, 88 Maplewood Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario, L8M 1W9, Canada.,Master University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Lora Giangregorio
- University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.,Schlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging, 150 Laurelwood Drive, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 0E2, Canada
| | - Sharon Straus
- University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A4, Canada
| | - Alexandra Papaioannou
- GERAS Centre for Aging Research, 88 Maplewood Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario, L8M 1W9, Canada.,Master University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van der Steen JT, Westzaan A, Hanemaayer K, Muhamad M, de Waal MWM, Achterberg WP. Probable Pain on the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC15) Instrument: Assessing Sensitivity and Specificity of Cut-Offs against Three Standards. Brain Sci 2021; 11:brainsci11070869. [PMID: 34210018 PMCID: PMC8301856 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11070869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2021] [Revised: 06/16/2021] [Accepted: 06/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Observational pain scales can help to identify pain in persons with dementia who may have difficulty expressing pain verbally. The Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition-15 (PAIC15) covers 15 items that indicate pain, but it is unclear how probable pain is, for each summed score (range 0–45). We aimed to determine sensitivity and specificity of cut-offs for probable pain on the PAIC15 against three standards: (1) self-report when able, (2) the established Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) cut-off of 2, and (3) observer’s overall estimate based on a series of systematic observations. We used data of 238 nursing home residents with dementia who were observed by their physician in training or nursing staff in the context of an evidence-based medicine (EBM) training study, with re-assessment after 2 months in 137 residents. The area under the ROC curve was excellent against the PAINAD cut-off (≥0.8) but acceptable or less than acceptable for the other two standards. Across standards and criteria for optimal sensitivity and specificity, PAIC15 scores of 3 and higher represent possible pain for screening in practice, with sensitivity and specificity against self-report in the 0.5 to 0.7 range. While sensitivity for screening in practice may be too low, a cut-off of 4 is reasonable to indicate probable pain in research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny T. van der Steen
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; (A.W.); (K.H.); (M.M.); (M.W.M.d.W.); (W.P.A.)
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Correspondence:
| | - Andrew Westzaan
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; (A.W.); (K.H.); (M.M.); (M.W.M.d.W.); (W.P.A.)
- Aafje Thuiszorg, Huizen en Zorghotels, Pietersdijk 60, 3079 TD Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kimberley Hanemaayer
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; (A.W.); (K.H.); (M.M.); (M.W.M.d.W.); (W.P.A.)
- Franciscus Vlietland Hospital, Vlietlandplein 2, 3118 JH Schiedam, The Netherlands
| | - Muhamad Muhamad
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; (A.W.); (K.H.); (M.M.); (M.W.M.d.W.); (W.P.A.)
- Stichting Voor Regionale Zorgverlening (Nursing Home), Prins Clauslaan 1, 4691 ZA Tholen, The Netherlands
| | - Margot W. M. de Waal
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; (A.W.); (K.H.); (M.M.); (M.W.M.d.W.); (W.P.A.)
| | - Wilco P. Achterberg
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; (A.W.); (K.H.); (M.M.); (M.W.M.d.W.); (W.P.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van der Steen JT, Heck S, Juffermans CC, Garvelink MM, Achterberg WP, Clayton J, Thompson G, Koopmans RT, van der Linden YM. Practitioners' perceptions of acceptability of a question prompt list about palliative care for advance care planning with people living with dementia and their family caregivers: a mixed-methods evaluation study. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e044591. [PMID: 33846153 PMCID: PMC8048016 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044591] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2020] [Revised: 03/17/2021] [Accepted: 03/18/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES In oncology and palliative care, patient question prompt lists (QPLs) with sample questions for patient and family increased patients' involvement in decision-making and improved outcomes if physicians actively endorsed asking questions. Therefore, we aim to evaluate practitioners' perceptions of acceptability and possible use of a QPL about palliative and end-of-life care in dementia. DESIGN Mixed-methods evaluation study of a QPL developed with family caregivers and experts comprising a survey and interviews with practitioners. SETTING Two academic medical training centres for primary and long-term care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS Practitioners (n=66; 73% woman; mean of 21 (SD 11) years of experience) who were mostly general practitioners and elderly care physicians. OUTCOMES The main survey outcome was acceptability measured with a 15-75 acceptability scale with ≥45 meaning 'acceptable'. RESULTS The survey response rate was 21% (66 of 320 participated). The QPL was regarded as acceptable (mean 51, SD 10) but 64% felt it was too long. Thirty-five per cent would want training to be able to answer the questions. Those who felt unable to answer (31%) found the QPL less acceptable (mean 46 vs 54 for others; p=0.015). We identified three themes from nine interviews: (1) enhancing conversations through discussing difficult topics, (2) proactively engaging in end-of-life conversations and (3) possible implementation. CONCLUSION Acceptability of the QPL was adequate, but physicians feeling confident to be able to address questions about end-of-life care is crucial when implementing it in practice, and may require training. To facilitate discussions of advance care planning and palliative care, families and persons with dementia should also be empowered to access the QPL themselves.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny T van der Steen
- Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Sten Heck
- Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Carla Cm Juffermans
- Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Wilco P Achterberg
- Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Josephine Clayton
- Centre for Learning & Research in Palliative Care, Hammond Care, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney Northern Clinical School, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Genevieve Thompson
- College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Raymond Tcm Koopmans
- Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
van der Maaden T, de Vet HCW, Achterberg WP, Boersma F, Schols JMGA, Mehr DR, Galindo-Garre F, Hertogh CMPM, Koopmans RTCM, van der Steen JT. Improving comfort in people with dementia and pneumonia: a cluster randomized trial. BMC Med 2016; 14:116. [PMID: 27515720 PMCID: PMC4981997 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0663-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2016] [Accepted: 07/27/2016] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pneumonia in people with dementia has been associated with severe discomfort. We sought to assess the effectiveness of a practice guideline for optimal symptom relief for nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. METHODS A single-blind, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in 32 Dutch nursing homes. Outcomes were assessed on the patient level. The main outcome measures were discomfort and symptoms: discomfort (DS-DAT: Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type), (lack of) comfort (EOLD-CAD: End Of Life in Dementia-Comfort Assessment in Dying), pain (PAINAD: Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), and respiratory distress (RDOS: Respiratory Distress Observation Scale). Outcomes were scheduled daily from diagnosis until 10 days later and a final time between 13-15 days from diagnosis by trained observers who were blinded to the intervention and the residents' condition and treatment. In a pre-intervention phase, usual care was provided to all homes. In the intervention phase, matched clusters of homes were randomized to either the control (n = 16) or intervention condition (n = 16). RESULTS Between 1 January 2012 and 1 May 2015, 464 episodes of pneumonia were included. Outcomes were obtained for 399 episodes in 367 residents. Longitudinal multilevel linear regression analyses were performed on log-transformed outcomes, so coefficients should be interpreted as a ratio, and a coefficient of 1 means no difference. The practice guideline in the intervention phase did not reduce the level of discomfort and symptoms: DS-DAT: 1.11 (95 % CI 0.93-1.31), EOLD-CAD: 1.01 (95 % CI 0.98-1.05), PAINAD: 1.04 (95 % CI 0.93-1.15), RDOS: 1.11 (95 % CI 0.90-1.24). However, in both the intervention and control groups, lack of comfort and respiratory distress gradually decreased during the entire 3.5 years of data collection, and were lower in the intervention phase compared to the pre-intervention phase: DS-DAT: 0.93 (95 % CI 0.85-1.01), EOLD-CAD: 0.98 (95 % CI 0.97-1.00), PAINAD: 0.96 (95 % CI 0.91-1.01), RDOS: 0.92 (95 % CI 0.87-0.98). CONCLUSIONS When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. However, discomfort and symptoms decreased gradually throughout the data collection in both the intervention homes and the control homes. An intervention that focuses on creating awareness may be more effective than a physician practice guideline. TRIAL REGISTRATION The Netherlands National Trial Register (ID number NTR5071 . Registered 10 March 2015).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa van der Maaden
- EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Henrica C W de Vet
- EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wilco P Achterberg
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Froukje Boersma
- Department of General Practice, Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Jos M G A Schols
- Department of Family Medicine and Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - David R Mehr
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Francisca Galindo-Garre
- EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cees M P M Hertogh
- EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Raymond T C M Koopmans
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Joachim en Anna, center for specialized geriatric care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jenny T van der Steen
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. .,Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. .,Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|