Process evaluation of a cluster-randomised trial testing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a mixed-methods study

Nurse-delivered patient education on postoperative wound care: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

It is estimated that one in four postoperative wound complications occur within 14 days of hospital discharge. Some estimate that up to 50% of readmissions are preventable with effective postoperative education and closer follow-up. Providing patients with information enables them to detect when medical intervention may be required. The aim of this study was to describe the content of postoperative wound care education given to patients, and to identify demographic and clinical factors that predict receipt of surgical wound care education across two tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia.

METHOD

A prospective correlational design using structured observations, field notes and an electronic chart audit was used. A consecutive sample of surgical patients and a convenience sample of nurses were observed during episodes of postoperative wound care. Field notes were documented to gain a nuanced understanding of the wound care education delivered by nurses. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the samples. A multivariate logistic regression model was developed to describe associations between seven predictors: sex; age; case complexity; type of wound; dietetic consult; the number of postoperative days; and receipt of postoperative wound care education.

RESULTS

In total, 154 nurses delivering surgical wound care and 257 patients receiving wound care were observed. Across the combined number of patients across the two hospitals, 71/257 (27.6%) wound care episodes included postoperative wound education. The content of the wound care education mainly focused on keeping the wound dressing dry and intact, while the secondary focus was on showing patients how to remove and replace the dressing. In this study, three of the seven predictors were significant: sex (β=-0.776, p=0.013); hospital site (β=-0.702, p=0.025); and number of postoperative days (β=-0.043, p=0.039). Of these, sex was the strongest, with females twice as likely to receive some form of wound care education during the postoperative period. These predictors explained 7.6-10.3% of variance in the postoperative wound care education patients received.

CONCLUSION

Further research to develop strategies designed to improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of the postoperative wound care education delivered to patients is needed.

A Process Evaluation of the National Implementation of a Bundle for Central Venous Catheter Care for Hemodialysis

Key Points

Health professionals resisted practice change in environments of low infection where the perception of a need to change is small. Standardizing care of central venous catheters for hemodialysis requires breaking down silos of practice to benefit all patients. Knowledge of and adherence to guidelines, formal change management, and ongoing facilitation are required to implement standardized care.

Background

Implementation of a care bundle standardizing insertion, management, and removal practices to reduce infection related to central venous catheters (CVCs) used for hemodialysis was evaluated in a stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted at 37 Australian hospitals providing kidney services, with no reduction in catheter-related blood stream infection detected. This process evaluation explored the barriers, enablers, and unintended consequences of the implementation to explain the trial outcomes.

Methods

Qualitative process evaluation using pre-post semistructured interviews with 38 (19 nursing and 19 medical) and 44 (25 nursing and 19 medical) Australian health professionals involved in hemodialysis CVC management. Analysis was guided by the process implementation domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results

Key influences on bundle uptake were that clinicians were open to change that was evidence-based and driven by guidelines and had a desire to improve practice and patient outcomes. However, resistance to change in environments of low infection, working in silos of practice, and a need for individualized delivery of patient education created barriers to uptake. Unintended effects of increased costs and lack of interoperability of systems for data collection were reported. Because the trial was in progress at the time of qualitative data collection, perceptions of the bundle may have been influenced by the fact that practices of participants were being observed as a part of the trial.

Conclusion

This national process evaluation revealed that health professionals who reported experiencing a benefit viewed the bundle positively. Those who already provided most of the recommended care or perceived that their patient population was not included in the research evidence that underpinned the interventions, resisted the implementation of the bundle. Potentially, formal change management processes using facilitation may improve implementation of evidence-based practice.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000830493 .

The Significance of Implementing Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure under Cluster Nursing in Improving the Survival Possibility of Patients with Severe Pulmonary Infection Complicated by Respiratory Failure

Objective. To explore the significance of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) under cluster nursing in improving the survival probability of patients with severe pulmonary infection (SPI) complicated by respiratory failure (RF). Methods. This research included 153 SPI patients complicated by RF ( $\text{SPI}+\text{RF}$ ) admitted between January 2020 and March 2022, including 55 cases in group A who were treated with BIPAP under cluster care during hospitalization, 47 cases in group B receiving invasive continuous mechanical ventilation during hospitalization, and 51 cases in group C treated with BIPAP under routine care during hospitalization. The three cohorts were compared regarding pre- and posttreatment serum inflammatory factors (IFs), blood gas (BG) parameters, heart rate (HR), and respiratory rate (RR). Besides, the cumulative time of ventilator use, successful ventilator weaning rate, mortality, and incidence of adverse events were counted. Finally, patients were scored for their psychological state using the Hamilton Anxiety/Depression Scale (HAMA/HAMD). Results. The posttreatment TNF-α, IL-6, PCT, WBC, and PaCO2 reduced statistically in all the three groups, with the lowest levels found in group A and the highest in group B ( $P<0.05$ ); while PaO2 and SpO2 increased, with the highest values found in group A and the lowest in group B ( $P<0.05$ ). Among the three groups, group A had the shortest duration of ventilator use, the highest successful weaning rate, and the lowest incidence of adverse events ( $P<0.05$ ). Besides, HAMA and HAMD scores were the lowest in group A among the three groups, while those in group B were higher compared with group C ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusion. The implementation of BIPAP under cluster nursing can effectively reduce inflammatory responses of $\text{SPI}+\text{RF}$ patients, improve their vital signs, and enhance their psychological state, which has extremely high clinical application value.

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

Process evaluations undertaken alongside randomised controlled trials in the hospital setting: A scoping review

Background

There is increasing recognition of the importance of undertaking process evaluations alongside implementation of health interventions by examining mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. However, a comprehensive synthesis of process evaluations undertaken alongside clinical trials in hospital settings is lacking. We undertook a scoping review to address this gap.

Methods

This review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping studies. Studies were identified using four databases; Ovid Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Two authors independently screened all titles and available abstracts, with a third author available to adjudicate. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described a process evaluation undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial in the hospital setting. Data were abstracted by one author and checked by two others and analysed both descriptively and using inductive content analysis.

Results

Data were extracted from 30 articles reporting on 15 trials, most of which were cluster randomised trials (c-RTs) (n = 12). The most common data collection methods used in process evaluations were interviews, questionnaires or surveys, and records or logs. Data analysis revealed three themes relative to how authors: use process data to interpret, understand and explain trial outcomes; evaluate responses to the intervention; and consider the implementation context.

Conclusions

Findings from this review demonstrate the complex nature of intervention implementation in the hospital setting. Overall, there is need for standardised reporting of process evaluations and more explicit descriptions of how authors use frameworks to guide their evaluation.

The use of theory in process evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials of implementation interventions: A systematic review

Interventions to implement changes into health care practice (i.e., implementation interventions) are critical to improving care but their effects are poorly understood. Two strategies to better understand intervention effects are conducting process evaluations and using theoretical approaches (i.e., theories, models, frameworks). The extent to which theoretical approaches have been used in process evaluations conducted alongside trials of implementation interventions is unclear. In this study context, we reviewed (a) the proportion of process evaluations citing theoretical approaches, (b) which theoretical approaches were cited, and (c) whether and how theories were used. Systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42016042789). MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to July 31, 2017. For all studies, data extraction included names and types of theoretical approaches cited. For studies citing a theory, data extraction included study characteristics and extent of theory use (i.e., "informed by," "applied," "tested," "built/created" theory). We identified 123 process evaluations. Key findings: (a) 77 (63%) process evaluations cited a theoretical approach; (b) the most cited theory was normalization process theory; (c) 32 (26%) process evaluations used theory: 7 (22%) were informed by, 18 (56%) applied, 7 (22%) tested, and none built/created theory. Although nearly two thirds of process evaluations cited a theoretical approach, only a quarter were informed by, applied, or tested a theory-despite the potential complementarity of these strategies. When theory was used, it was primarily applied. Using theory more substantively in process evaluations may accelerate our understanding of how implementation interventions operate.

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve hospital discharge: process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients.

DESIGN

Extension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering.

SETTING

General internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Convenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Two-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine.

PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS

Data collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Intervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies.

RESULTS

Recruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18427377.

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve participation in older people with joint contractures living in nursing homes: a process evaluation of a cluster-randomised pilot trial

Background

Joint contractures in frail older people are associated with serious restrictions in participation. We developed the Participation Enabling CAre in Nursing (PECAN) intervention, a complex intervention to enable nurses to promote participation in nursing home residents with joint contractures. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of the implementation strategy and to identify enablers and barriers for a successful implementation.

Methods

The implementation of PECAN was investigated in a 6-month pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial (c-RCT). As a key component of the implementation strategy, nominated nurses were trained as facilitators in a one-day workshop and supported by peer-mentoring (visit, telephone counselling). A mixed-methods approach was conducted in conjunction with the pilot trial and guided by a framework for process evaluations of c-RCTs. Data were collected using standardised questionnaires (nursing staff), documentation forms, problem-centred qualitative interviews (facilitators, therapists, social workers, relatives, peer-mentors), and a group discussion (facilitators). A set of predefined criteria on the nursing home level was examined. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis.

Results

Seven nursing homes (n = 4 intervention groups, n = 3 control groups) in two regions of Germany took part in the study. Facilitators responded well to the qualification measures (workshop participation: 14/14; workshop rating: “good”; peer-mentor visit participation: 10/14). The usage of peer-mentoring via telephone varied (one to seven contacts per nursing home). Our implementation strategy was not successful in connection with supplying the intervention to all the nurses. The clear commitment of the entire nursing home and the respect for the expertise of different healthcare professionals were emphasised as enablers, whereas a lack of impact on organisational conditions and routines and a lack of time and staff competence were mentioned as barriers.

Conclusion

The PECAN intervention was delivered as planned to the facilitators but was unable to produce comprehensive changes in the nursing homes and subsequently for the residents. Strategies to systematically include the management and the nursing team from the beginning are needed to support the facilitators during implementation in the main trial.

Trial registration

German clinical trials register, DRKS00010037. Registered 12 February 2016.

Transition program for adolescents with congenital heart disease in transition to adulthood: protocol for a mixed-method process evaluation study (the STEPSTONES project)

INTRODUCTION

Today, the majority of young persons living with chronic conditions in high-income countries survive into adulthood and will need life-long medical follow-up. Therefore, transition programmes have been developed to facilitate transfer to adult care, and to support self-management and independence during adulthood. The Swedish Transition Effects Project Supporting Teenagers with chrONic mEdical conditionS (STEPSTONES) project aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a person-centred transition programme for empowering adolescents with congenital heart disease in transition to adulthood. To understand how the transition programme causes change and how outcomes are created, process evaluation is imperative to assess implementation, context and mechanisms of impact. This protocol aims to describe the process evaluation of the STEPSTONES transition programme.

METHODS AND DESIGN

Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions will be the guiding framework for this mixed-method study. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data will capture different aspects of programme delivery. The sample will consist of participants in the STEPSTONES randomised controlled trial (RCT), persons implementing the programme and healthcare professionals. Quantitative data will consist of protocols and routine monitoring documents from the RCT, data collected from patient registries and sociodemographic data to assess the implementation of the intervention. This data will be analysed with quantitative content analysis, along with descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data will consist of participatory observations, logbooks and interviews with persons implementing the programme, participants and healthcare professionals. Analyses will be performed using qualitative content analysis to investigate mechanism of impact, context and delivery. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated in the final stage by using a triangulation protocol according to mixed-method guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg, Sweden. Results will be presented in open access, peer-reviewed journals and at international scientific conferences.