A cluster randomized trial to assess the impact of clinical pathways for patients with stroke: rationale and design of the Clinical Pathways for Effective and Appropriate Care Study [NCT00673491]

Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low.

Adherence to standardized assessments through a complexity-based model for categorizing rehabilitation©: design and implementation in an acute hospital

Background

The use of measurement instruments has become a major issue in physical therapy, but their use in daily practice is rare. The aim of this paper is to describe adherence to standardized assessments by physical therapists using a complexity-based model for categorizing rehabilitation (CMCR) at the Clínica Alemana of Santiago, an acute hospital in Chile.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used 145,968 participant records that were stored in the inpatient database between July 2011 and December 2015. Adherence to the CMCR by 31 physical therapists working with intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU inpatients was assessed every quarter using the electronic patient records (EPR). This instrument (CMCR) linked clinical functional assessment to the degree of severity, thereby setting a score used to categorize patients as low, medium and high complexity. 96,400 instances of inpatient care where the physician recommended physical therapy were categorized. This was from a total of 145,968 instances of inpatient care recorded throughout the duration of the study (17 quarters). Trends in adherence were analyzed using a Prais-Winsten regression (a first-order autoregressive model). The trends were compared using a repeated measures ANOVA for mixed models with a significance level of 0.05. The use of the CMCR was included as one of the organization’s quality indicators associated with the hospital’s accreditation processes.

Results

Adherence increased by 1.48% every quarter (p = 0.005) for both ICU and non-ICU patients. On average, adherence with ICU patients was 16.98% greater than with non-ICU patients. Although adherence was always greater with ICU patients, the rate of increase with non-ICU patients was significantly greater: 1.62% (p = 0.007) vs. 1.28% (p = 0.003), respectively.

Conclusion

The CMCR facilitated adherence to standardized assessments by physical therapists working with ICU and non-ICU inpatients in an acute hospital, while linking this instrument to the organization’s quality management process proved to be an effective strategy for the duration of this study (17 quarters).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-018-0590-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of a care pathway for COPD on adherence to guidelines and hospital readmission: a cluster randomized trial

PURPOSE

Current in-hospital management of exacerbations of COPD is suboptimal, and patient outcomes are poor. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether implementation of a care pathway (CP) for COPD improves the 6 months readmission rate. Secondary outcomes were the 30 days readmission rate, mortality, length of stay and adherence to guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An international cluster randomized controlled trial was performed in Belgium, Italy and Portugal. General hospitals were randomly assigned to an intervention group where a CP was implemented or a control group where usual care was provided. The targeted population included patients with COPD exacerbation.

RESULTS

Twenty-two hospitals were included, whereof 11 hospitals (n=174 patients) were randomized to the intervention group and 11 hospitals (n=168 patients) to the control group. The CP had no impact on the 6 months readmission rate. However, the 30 days readmission rate was significantly lower in the intervention group (9.7%; 15/155) compared to the control group (15.3%; 22/144) (odds ratio =0.427; 95% confidence interval 0.222-0.822; P=0.040). Performance on process indicators was significantly higher in the intervention group for 2 of 24 main indicators (8.3%).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of this in-hospital CP for COPD exacerbation has no impact on the 6 months readmission rate, but it significantly reduces the 30 days readmission rate.

Effect of a 72 Hour Stroke Care Bundle on Early Outcomes after Acute Stroke: A Non Randomised Controlled Study

Background

Integrated care pathways (ICP) in stroke management are increasingly being implemented to improve outcomes of acute stroke patients. We evaluated the effect of implementing a 72 hour stroke care bundle on early outcomes among patients admitted within seven days post stroke to the national referral hospital in Uganda.

Methods

In a one year non-randomised controlled study, 127 stroke patients who had ‘usual care’ (control group) were compared to 127 stroke patients who received selected elements from an ICP (intervention group). Patients were consecutively enrolled (controls first, intervention group second) into each group over 5 month periods and followed to 30-days post stroke. Incidence outcomes (mortality and functional ability) were compared using chi square test and adjusted for potential confounders. Kaplan Meier survival estimates and log rank test for comparison were used for time to death analysis for all strokes and by stroke severity categories. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, median survival time and median length of hospital stay.

Results

Mortality within 7 days was higher in the intervention group compared to controls (RR 13.1, 95% CI 3.3–52.9). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.5–2.6). There was better 30-day survival in patients with severe stroke in the intervention group compared to controls (P = 0.018). The median survival time was 30 days (IQR 29–30 days) in the control group and 30 days (IQR 7–30 days) in the intervention group. In the intervention group, 41patients (32.3%) died in hospital compared to 23 (18.1%) in controls (P < 0.001). The median length of hospital stay was 8 days (IQR 5–12 days) in the controls and 4 days (IQR 2–7 days) in the intervention group. There was no difference in functional outcomes between the groups (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4–2.2).

Conclusions

While implementing elements of a stroke-focused ICP in a Ugandan national referral hospital appeared to have little overall benefit in mortality and functioning, patients with severe stroke may benefit on selected outcomes. More research is needed to better understand how and when stroke protocols should be implemented in sub-Saharan African settings.

Trial Registration

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201510001272347

Main barriers to effective implementation of stroke care pathways in France: a qualitative study

Background

Stroke Care Pathways (SCPs) aim to improve quality of care by providing better access to stroke units, rehabilitation centres, and home care for dependent patients. The objective of this study was to identify the main barriers to effective implementation of SCPs in France.

Methods

We selected 4 types of SCPs currently implemented in France that differed in terms of geographical location, population size, socio-economic conditions, and available health care facilities. We carried out 51 semi-structured interviews of 44 key health professionals involved in these SCPs and used the interview data to (i) create a typology of the organisational barriers to effective SCP implementation by axial coding, (ii) define barrier contents by vertical coding. The typology was validated by a panel of 15 stroke care professionals.

Results

Four main barriers to effective SCP implementation were identified: lack of resources (31/44 interviewees), coordination problems among staff (14/44) and among facilities (27/44), suboptimal professional and organisational practices (16/44), and inadequate public education about stroke (13/44). Transposition of the findings onto a generic SCP highlighted alternative care options and identified 10 to 17 barriers that could disrupt continuity of care.

Conclusion

Lack of resources was considered to be the chief obstacle to effective SCP implementation. However, the main weakness of existing SCPs was poor communication and cooperation among health professionals and among facilities. We intend to use this knowledge to construct a robust set of quality indicators for use in SCP quality improvement initiatives, in comparisons between SCPs, and in the assessment of the effective implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

A cluster randomized trial to assess the effect of clinical pathways for patients with stroke: results of the clinical pathways for effective and appropriate care study

BACKGROUND

Clinical pathways (CPs) are used to improve the outcomes of acute stroke, but their use in stroke care is questionable, because the evidence on their effectiveness is still inconclusive. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether CPs improve the outcomes and the quality of care provided to patients after acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

This was a multicentre cluster-randomized trial, in which 14 hospitals were randomized to the CP arm or to the non intervention/usual care (UC) arm. Healthcare workers in the CP arm received 3 days of training in quality improvement of CPs and in use of a standardized package including information on evidence-based key interventions and indicators. Healthcare workers in the usual-care arm followed their standard procedures. The teams in the CP arm developed their CPs over a 6-month period. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were: use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, implementation of organized care, length of stay, re-admission and institutionalization rates after discharge, dependency levels, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Compared with the patients in the UC arm, the patients in the CP arm had a significantly lower risk of mortality at 7 days (OR = 0.10; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.95) and significantly lower rates of adverse functional outcomes, expressed as the odds of not returning to pre-stroke functioning in their daily life (OR = 0.42; 95 CI 0.18 to 0.98). There was no significant effect on 30-day mortality. Compared with the UC arm, the hospital diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed more appropriately in the CP arm, and the evidence-based key interventions and organized care were more applied in the CP arm.

CONCLUSIONS

CPs can significantly improve the outcomes of patients with ischemic patients with stroke, indicating better application of evidence-based key interventions and of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. This study tested a new hypothesis and provided evidence on how CPs can work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: [NCT00673491].

The effect of care pathways for hip fractures: a systematic review

We performed a systematic review for primary studies on care pathways (CPs) for hip fracture (HF). The online databases MEDLINE-PubMed, Ovid-EMBASE, CINAHL-EBSCO host, and The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched. Two researchers reviewed the literature independently. Primary studies that met predefined inclusion criteria were assessed for their methodological quality. A total of 15 publications were included: 15 primary studies corresponding with 12 main investigations. Primary studies were evaluated for clinical outcomes, process outcomes, and economic outcomes. The studies assessed a wide range of outcome measures. While a number of divergent clinical outcomes were reported, most studies showed positive results of process management and health-services utilization. In terms of mortality, the results provided evidence for a positive impact of CPs on in-hospital mortality. Most studies also showed a significantly reduced risk of complications, including medical complications, wound infections, and pressure sores. Moreover, time-span process measures showed that an improvement in the organization of care was achieved through the use of CPs. Conflicting results were observed with regard to functional recovery and mobility between patients treated with CPs compared to usual care. Although our review suggests that CPs can have positive effects in patients with HF, the available evidence is insufficient for formal recommendations. There is a need for more research on CPs with selected process and outcome indicators, for in-hospital and postdischarge management of HF, with an emphasis on well-designed randomized trials.

The impact of care pathways for patients with proximal femur fracture: rationale and design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Proximal femur fracture (PFF) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The European Quality of Care Pathway (EQCP) study on PFF (NCT00962910) was designed to determine how care pathways (CP) for hospital treatment of PFF affect consistency of care, adherence to evidence-based key interventions, and clinical outcome.

METHODS/DESIGN

An international cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) will be performed in Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. Based on power analyses, a sample of 44 hospital teams and 437 patients per arm will be included in the study. In the control arm, usual care will be provided. Experimental teams will implement a care pathway which will include three active components: a formative evaluation of quality and organization of the care setting, a set of evidence-based key interventions, and support of the development and implementation of the CP. Main outcome will be the six-month mortality rate.

DISCUSSION

The EQCP study constitutes the first international cRCT on care pathways. The EQCP project was designed as both a research and a quality improvement project and will provide a real-world framework for process evaluation to improve our understanding of why and when CP can really work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00962910.

The European quality of care pathways (EQCP) study on the impact of care pathways on interprofessional teamwork in an acute hospital setting: study protocol: for a cluster randomised controlled trial and evaluation of implementation processes

Background

Although care pathways are often said to promote teamwork, high-level evidence that supports this statement is lacking. Furthermore, knowledge on conditions and facilitators for successful pathway implementation is scarce. The objective of the European Quality of Care Pathway (EQCP) study is therefore to study the impact of care pathways on interprofessional teamwork and to build up understanding on the implementation process.

Methods/design

An international post-test-only cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT), combined with process evaluations, will be performed in Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal. Teams caring for proximal femur fracture (PFF) patients and patients hospitalized with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will be randomised into an intervention and control group. The intervention group will implement a care pathway for PFF or COPD containing three active components: a formative evaluation of the actual teams’ performance, a set of evidence-based key interventions, and a training in care pathway-development. The control group will provide usual care. A set of team input, process and output indicators will be used as effect measures. The main outcome indicator will be relational coordination. Next to these, process measures during and after pathway development will be used to evaluate the implementation processes. In total, 132 teams have agreed to participate, of which 68 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 64 to the control group. Based on power analysis, a sample of 475 team members per arm is required. To analyze results, multilevel analysis will be performed.

Discussion

Results from our study will enhance understanding on the active components of care pathways. Through this, preferred implementation strategies can be defined.

Trail registration

NCT01435538

The impact of care pathways for exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: rationale and design of a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hospital treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) frequently does not follow published evidences. This lack of adherence can contribute to the high morbidity, mortality and readmissions rates. The European Quality of Care Pathway (EQCP) study on acute exacerbations of COPD (NTC00962468) is undertaken to determine how care pathways (CP) as complex intervention for hospital treatment of COPD affects care variability, adherence to evidence based key interventions and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

An international cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (cRCT) will be performed in Belgium, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. Based on the power analysis, a sample of 40 hospital teams and 398 patients will be included in the study. In the control arm of the study, usual care will be provided. The experimental teams will implement a CP as complex intervention which will include three active components: a formative evaluation of the quality and organization of care, a set of evidence based key interventions, and support on the development and implementation of the CP. The main outcome will be six-month readmission rate. As a secondary endpoint a set of clinical outcome and performance indicators (including care process evaluation and team functioning indicators) will be measured in both groups.

DISCUSSION

The EQCP study is the first international cRCT on care pathways. The design of the EQCP project is both a research study and a quality improvement project and will include a realistic evaluation framework including process analysis to further understand why and when CP can really work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00962468.

Measuring the Quality of Dysphagia Management Practices following Stroke: A Systematic Review

Adherence to recommended clinical practices improves stroke outcomes. As a result, stroke clinicians are increasingly expected to evaluate the quality of the care they provide so that areas for improvement can be targeted. Finding the best method to evaluate the quality of dysphagia management can be challenging.

Aim

To systematically review process indicators used to assess the quality of care provided to patients with dysphagia following acute stroke and examine the level of evidence underpinning these indicators.

Methods

Databases were systematically searched to identify publications (January 2006–April 2009) that describe process indicators relating to the clinical management of acute stroke-related dysphagia. Relevant process indicators were extracted from the reviewed publications for detailed post hoc analysis including supporting evidence and alignment to the current Australian and English stroke guidelines.

Results

Title and abstract review found 150 potential studies. Full-text review resulted in 25 publications that met the study's inclusion criteria. Thirteen process indicators were identified in the literature that related to the initial assessment, clinical management, rehabilitation and discharge planning for patients with acute stroke-related dysphagia. These processes were supported by levels of evidence ranging from high ‘level 1’ (8%) down to ‘expert opinion’ evidence (46%). Two process indicators did not align to recommendations in the clinical guidelines. This systematic review underpins informed selection of process indicators for evaluating the quality of dysphagia management following stroke. The selection of quality indicators is complicated by equivocal supporting evidence; however, indicators should reflect expected local practices, align with national stroke guidelines and be feasible for clinical auditing.

An overview on the history and concept of care pathways as complex interventions

Care pathways, also known as clinical pathways, critical pathways or integrated care pathways, are used all over the world. Although they are used internationally, there are still a large number of misunderstandings. The goal of this paper is to provide an overview on the history of pathways and how pathways are actually perceived and defined. Pathways are more than just a document in the patient record. They are a concept for making patient-focused care operational and supporting the modelling of patient groups with different levels of predictability. Pathways are a method within the field of continuous quality improvement and are used in daily practice as a product in the patient record. This paper explains these different issues and provides an extensive list of references that should support pathway facilitators, clinicians, managers and policy-makers in their search for excellence.

The European Quality of Care Pathway (EQCP) Study: history, project management and approach

The European Quality of Care Pathway (EQCP) study is the first, international, cluster randomized controlled trial launched to study the effect of the implementation of care pathways and to study why and under what circumstances pathways work. The study will be performed in Belgium, Italy, Ireland and Portugal and will include individual studies: a trial including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, a trial including proximal femur fracture patients and a trial focusing on multidisciplinary teamwork within both populations. The study is managed by the European Pathway Association in close collaboration with a multidisciplinary team of the Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), the University of Eastern Piedmont (Italy), the National School of Public Health Lisbon (Portugal) and the Health Services Executive in Dublin (Ireland). This paper will describe the history, project management and overall approach of this international study.

Randomized clinical trials in stroke research

A randomized clinical trial is widely regarded as the most rigorous study design to determine the efficacy of intervention because spurious causality and bias associated with other experimental designs can be avoided. The purpose of this article is to provide clinicians and clinical researchers the types of randomized clinical trials used in stroke studies and to discuss the advantages and the limitations for each type of randomized stroke clinical trials.