Barriers and enablers that influence guideline-based care of geriatric fall patients presenting to the emergency department

A physiotherapy-led review of guideline-based care for community-dwelling older people presenting to a metropolitan hospital with accidental falls

OBJECTIVE(S)

Several guidelines exist to inform best-practice management of community-dwelling fallers. This study aimed to outline a pragmatic approach to developing an audit tool for guideline-based care of falls and provide an overview of current practice.

METHODS

An audit tool to determine compliance with guideline-based care was developed with an allied health and physiotherapy focus, utilising the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health-Care Guidelines for Preventing Falls and Harm from Falls in Older People (2009) and Queensland State Government 'Stay on your Feet' guidelines. A retrospective audit of medical records was completed in July 2020 of community-dwelling people aged 65 years and over with a fall-related emergency department (ED) presentation in a medium-sized metropolitan hospital in Australia. Data were compared between patients admitted to hospital and those discharged home from the ED.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were included: 68 were discharged home from ED and 25 were admitted to hospital. There was a significant difference in receiving an allied health review (p < .001) between admitted patients (96%) and those who discharged home from ED (68%). The Clinical Frailty Scale was only completed for 23% of patients. Physiotherapy quality-of-care (n = 46 patients) was variable, with poor completion of physical outcome measures (7%) and fall education (4%). However, assessment of mobility was routinely completed (94%), and most patients were referred to an appropriate community service (66%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guideline-based care of community-dwelling fallers is inconsistent. Improvements are required in the consistency of risk stratification, comprehensive physical assessment and patient education.

Evaluating a new emergency department avoidance service for older people: patient and relative experiences

BACKGROUND

High emergency department (ED) usage by older individuals for non-emergencies is a global concern. ED avoidance initiatives have proven effective in addressing this issue. To specifically cater to individuals aged 65 and above, the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network introduced an innovative ED avoidance service. This study assessed the acceptability of the service among its users.

METHOD

The Complex And RestorativE (CARE) Centre is a six-bed unit staffed by a multidisciplinary geriatric team. Patients are transported directly to CARE after calling for an ambulance and being triaged by a paramedic. The evaluation took place between September 2021 and September 2022. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and relatives who had accessed the service. Data analysis was performed using a six-step thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients and 15 relatives were interviewed, who described the experience of 32 attendances to the urgent CARE centre between them. Patients accessed the service for several reasons but over half were associated with falls. There was a hesitation to call emergency services for several reasons, the primary being long wait times in ED and/or the prospect of an overnight stay in hospital. Some individuals attempted to contact their General Practitioner (GP) for the presenting problem but were unable to get a timely appointment. Most participants had previously attended a local ED and had a negative experience. All individuals reported favouring the CARE centre over the traditional ED for numerous reasons including a quieter and safer environment and specially trained geriatric staff who were less rushed than ED staff. Several participants would have appreciated a standardised follow-up process after discharge.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that ED admission avoidance programmes may be an acceptable alternative treatment for older people requiring urgent care, potentially benefiting both public health systems and user experience.

Barriers and facilitators to guideline-recommended care of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo in the ED: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework

BACKGROUND

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is a common presentation to the ED. Evidence suggests low adherence to guideline-recommended care, but the reasons underlying this are poorly understood. This study used the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to explore the barriers and facilitators to medical and physiotherapy clinical practices in the management of BPPV in an Australian metropolitan ED.

METHODS

From May to December 2021, semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 medical staff and 13 physiotherapists who worked at an ED in Melbourne, Australia. Interviews used the TDF to explore the perceived barriers and facilitators to the delivery of guideline-recommended assessment and treatment techniques for BPPV. Data were analysed thematically to identify relevant domains and generate themes and belief statements.

RESULTS

Fifteen belief statements representing eight domains of the TDF were identified as key factors in the management of BPPV in the ED. The most prominent domains were knowledge and skills due to their conflicting belief statements between professions concerning education, skill development and self-confidence; memory, attention and decision processes for the perceived complexity of the presentation including difficulty recalling diagnostic and treatment techniques; and environmental context and resources for their shared belief statements concerning time and workload pressures. The availability of vestibular physiotherapy was considered both a barrier and facilitator to the delivery of recommended care by medical staff, but a barrier to independent practice as it unintentionally limited the opportunities for skill development in medical staff.

CONCLUSION

Several modifiable barriers and facilitators to the management of BPPV in the ED have been identified. Differences were observed between the professional groups, and these findings will guide a future intervention to improve the use of guideline-recommended assessment and treatment techniques for BPPV in ED.

Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS incorporate all available evidence into four key recommendations. In order to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, a clinical decision aid was created. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians prior to implementation of the guideline recommendations in a multicentre step wedge cluster randomized control trial.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine emergency room physicians working at five sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators to guideline recommendation uptake and use. Responses were analysed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, and overarching themes describing these barriers and facilitators were identified.

RESULTS

Two themes and six subthemes encompassing 13 theoretical domains were identified. These included clinical decision-making support, awareness of the evidence, social factors, expected consequences, ability of physicians to acquire the necessary data and ease of use. A majority of interviewees anticipated that the guideline recommendations would support clinical decision making and more effectively risk-stratify patients. Other facilitators included endorsement of the guidelines by professional organizations and peers. Barriers to implementation include the fact that laboratory testing and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. The complexity of the clinical decision aid and concerns about test specificity were also identified as potential barriers to use.

CONCLUSION

Physicians were amenable to using the AAS guideline recommendations to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use. A structured intervention should be developed to address the identified barriers and leverage the facilitators in order to ensure successful implementation. Our findings may have implications for the implementation of other guidelines used in emergency departments.