BACKGROUND: Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department (EQUIPPED) is an effective quality improvement program initially designed in the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system to reduce potentially inappropriate medication prescribing for adults aged 65 years and older. This study examined factors that influence implementation of EQUIPPED in EDs from four distinct, non-VA academic health systems using a convergent mixed methods design that operationalized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity of delivery served as the primary implementation outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four EDs implemented EQUIPPED sequentially from 2017 to 2021. Using program records, we scored each ED on a 12-point fidelity index calculated by adding the scores (1-3) for each of four components of the EQUIPPED program: provider receipt of didactic education, one-on-one academic detailing, monthly provider feedback reports, and use of order sets. We comparatively analyzed qualitative data from focus groups with each of the four implementation teams (n = 22) and data from CFIR-based surveys of ED providers (108/234, response rate of 46.2%) to identify CFIR constructs that distinguished EDs with higher vs. lower levels of implementation. RESULTS: Overall, three sites demonstrated higher levels of implementation (scoring 8-9 of 12) and one ED exhibited a lower level (scoring 5 of 12). Two constructs distinguished between levels of implementation as measured through both quantitative and qualitative approaches: patient needs and resources, and organizational culture. Implementation climate distinguished level of implementation in the qualitative analysis only. Networks and communication, and leadership engagement distinguished level of implementation in the quantitative analysis only. DISCUSSION: Using CFIR, we demonstrate how a range of factors influence a critical implementation outcome and build an evidence-based approach on how to prime an organizational setting, such as an academic health system ED, for successful implementation. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into implementation of evidence-informed programs targeting medication safety in ED settings and serves as a potential model for how to integrate theory-based qualitative and quantitative methods in implementation studies.
Background: We piloted a web-based, provider-driven mobile app (DialysisConnect) to fill the communication and care coordination gap between hospitals and dialysis facilities. Objective: This study aimed to describe the development and pilot implementation of DialysisConnect. Methods: DialysisConnect was developed iteratively with focus group and user testing feedback and was made available to 120 potential users at 1 hospital (hospitalists, advanced practice providers [APPs], and care coordinators) and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (nephrologists, APPs, nurses and nurse managers, social workers, and administrative personnel) before the start of the pilot (November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021). Midpilot and end-of-pilot web-based surveys of potential users were also conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to describe system use patterns, ratings of multiple satisfaction items (1=not at all; 3=to a great extent), and provider-selected motivators of and barriers to using DialysisConnect. Results: The pilot version of DialysisConnect included clinical information that was automatically uploaded from dialysis facilities, forms for entering critical admission and discharge information, and a direct communication channel. Although physicians comprised most of the potential users of DialysisConnect, APPs and dialysis nurses were the most active users. Activities were unevenly distributed; for example, 1 hospital-based APP recorded most of the admissions (280/309, 90.6%) among patients treated at the pilot dialysis facilities. End-of-pilot ratings of DialysisConnect were generally higher for users versus nonusers (eg, “I can see the potential value of DialysisConnect for my work with dialysis patients”: mean 2.8, SD 0.4, vs mean 2.3, SD 0.6; P=.02). Providers most commonly selected reduced time and energy spent gathering information as a motivator (11/26, 42%) and a lack of time to use the system as a barrier (8/26, 31%) at the end of the pilot. Conclusions: This pilot study found that APPs and nurses were most likely to engage with the system. Survey participants generally viewed the system favorably while identifying substantial barriers to its use. These results inform how best to motivate providers to use this system and similar systems and inform future pragmatic research in care coordination among this and other populations.
Given an observed tension between perceived privacy restrictions and meaningful social connection in assisted living (AL) and using a relational perspective, we conducted a secondary thematic analysis of health information sharing practices among residents and their care partners in one large urban AL community in metropolitan Atlanta. Data included in-depth interviews with residents (n = 26), family members (n = 20), AL staff (n = 11), and external care workers (n = 4) as well as ethnographic data from observations and informal conversations conducted with these participants and others. Findings showed that health information sharing among residents was helpful in building social relationships; barriers to this communication contributed to isolation. Inappropriate public exchange of residents’ healthcare information hindered building these relationships. Negotiating privacy boundaries for health information sharing was an ongoing confusing process across the community. Based on the findings, we propose new guidelines for health information sharing and additional privacy training for residents and care partners.
Rationale & Objective
Suboptimal care coordination between dialysis facilities and hospitals is an important driver of 30-day hospital readmissions among patients receiving dialysis. We examined whether the introduction of web-based communications platform (“DialysisConnect”) was associated with reduced hospital readmissions.
Study Design
Pilot pre-post study.
Setting & Participants
A total of 4,994 index admissions at a single hospital (representing 2,419 patients receiving dialysis) during the study period (January 1, 2019-May 31, 2021).
Intervention
DialysisConnect was available to providers at the hospital and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (=intervention facilities) during the pilot period (November 1, 2020-May 31, 2021).
Outcomes
The primary outcome was 30-day readmission; secondary outcomes included 30-day emergency department visits and observation stays. Interrupted time series and linear models with generalized estimating equations were used to assess pilot versus prepilot differences in outcomes; difference-in-difference analyses were performed to compare these differences between intervention versus control facilities. Sensitivity analyses included a third, prepilot/COVID-19 period (March 1, 2020-October 31, 2020).
Results
There was no statistically significant difference in the monthly trends in the 30-day readmissions pilot versus prepilot periods (−0.60 vs -0.13, P = 0.85) for intervention facility admissions; the difference-in-difference estimate was also not statistically significant (0.54 percentage points, P = 0.83). Similar analyses including the prepilot/COVID-19 period showed that, despite a substantial drop in admissions at the start of the pandemic, there were no statistically significant differences across the 3 periods. The age-, sex-, race-, and comorbid condition-adjusted, absolute pilot versus prepilot difference in readmissions rate was 1.8% (−3.7% to 7.3%); similar results were found for other outcomes.
Limitations
Potential loss to follow-up and pandemic effects.
Conclusions
In this pilot, the introduction of DialysisConnect was not associated with reduced hospital readmissions. Tailored care coordination solutions should be further explored in future, multisite studies to improve the communications gap between dialysis facilities and hospitals.
In the United States, 34% of hospital discharges among patients receiving dialysis are followed by a 30-day readmission,1 and both dialysis clinics2 and hospitals3 are held accountable for readmissions (through potential payment reductions). Although improved care coordination between hospitals and dialysis clinics may play an important role in reducing hospital readmissions and improving other patient outcomes, the fragmented US health care system does not facilitate this coordination. Particularly the lack of interoperability of electronic health records remains a key barrier for most dialysis clinic–hospital dyads.4 In an ongoing pilot study, we are testing the feasibility and effectiveness of a web-based communications platform for hospital and dialysis clinic providers (DialysisConnect5) to circumvent these issues and improve care coordination between patients hospitalized at Emory University Hospital Midtown and treated at 4 independently managed Emory Dialysis clinics. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of recently hospitalized patients regarding their perceptions of usual (pre-intervention) care coordination between hospital and dialysis clinic providers during and after hospitalization.
Objective To determine whether and how cognitive assessment data should be included in a report for patients with SLE and their providers. Methods Leveraging experiences from prior studies, we created a cognitive report that included a hypothetical patient's results on tests of multiple domains based on the NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery. In focus groups that comprised patients with SLE (two groups) and their providers (two groups), feedback was sought on the presentation of results as well as the potential value of the report in the clinical setting. Results Feedback regarding the presentation of the report was generally positive. Both patients with SLE and their providers liked its simple graphics and use of a colour-gradated scale to indicate performance. However, both groups stressed the importance of using non-stigmatising language in describing results. Several potential purposes of the report, including distinguishing cognitive versus other issues, explaining cognitive challenges, improving patient-provider interactions, guiding decision-making, improving functioning or preventing impairment and tracking cognitive function over time, were noted by the participants. Potential barriers, such as inadequate clinical staffing or time and lack of potential treatments for identified issues, were also discussed. Conclusion In this exploratory study, we found that both patients with SLE and their providers were receptive to the idea of a patient-friendly report of cognitive test results. This study provides important information to guide future pragmatic research to optimise the delivery of cognitive information to patients with SLE.
Enhancing quality of prescribing practices for older adults discharged from the Emergency Department (EQUIPPED) aims to reduce the monthly proportion of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescribed to older adults discharged from the ED to 5% or less. We describe prescribing outcomes at three academic health systems adapting and sequentially implementing the EQUIPPED medication safety programme. EQUIPPED was adapted from a model developed in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and sequentially implemented in one academic health system per year over a 3-year period. The monthly proportion of PIMs, as defined by the 2015 American Geriatrics Beers Criteria, of all medications prescribed to adults aged 65 years and older at discharge was assessed for 6 months preimplementation until 12 months postimplementation using a generalised linear time series model with a Poisson distribution. The EQUIPPED programme was translated from the VA health system and its electronic medical record into three health systems each using a version of the Epic electronic medical record. Adaptation occurred through local modification of order sets and in the generation and delivery of provider prescribing reports by local champions. Baseline monthly PIM proportions 6 months prior to implementation at the three sites were 5.6% (95% CI 5.0% to 6.3%), 5.8% (95% CI 5.0% to 6.6%) and 7.3% (95% CI 6.4% to 9.2%), respectively. Evaluation of monthly prescribing including the twelve months post-EQUIPPED implementation demonstrated significant reduction in PIMs at one of the three sites. In exploratory analyses, the proportion of benzodiazepine prescriptions decreased across all sites from approximately 17% of PIMs at baseline to 9.5%–12% postimplementation, although not all reached statistical significance. EQUIPPED is feasible to implement outside the VA system. While the impact of the EQUIPPED model may vary across different health systems, results from this initial translation suggest significant reduction in specific high-risk drug classes may be an appropriate target for improvement at sites with relatively low baseline PIM prescribing rates.
Falls remain a major geriatric problem, and the search for new solutions continues. We investigated how existing fall prevention technology was experienced within nursing home nurses' environment and workflow. Our NIH-funded study in an American nursing home was followed by a cultural learning exchange with a Dutch nursing home. We constructed two case reports from interview and observational data and compared the magnitude of falls, safety cultures, and technology characteristics and effectiveness. Falls were a high-magnitude problem at the US site, with a collectively vigilant safety culture attending to non-directional audible alarms; falls were a low-magnitude problem at the NL site which employed customizable, infrared sensors that directed text alerts to assigned staff members' mobile devices in patient-centered care culture. Across cases, 1) a coordinated communication system was essential in facilitating effective fall prevention alert response, and 2) nursing home safety culture is tightly associated with the chosen technological system.
Informed by theory from environmental gerontology, this study investigates how assisted living residents who are approaching end of life navigate and experience space. Since its development, environmental gerontology has moved beyond the concept of person-environment fit to encompass aspects of place attachment and place integration, processes by which inhabited impersonal space becomes a place of individual personal meaning and this person-place relationship evolves with changing needs. Our study is a secondary data analysis of in-depth interviews completed with the first 15 residents (mean age 88, range 65–103; 8 white and 7 black) recruited from four diverse assisted living communities in metropolitan Atlanta. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, we identify five overarching themes within and across assisted living communities and their subthemes. Findings show that participants experience a neutral theme of shrinking space, negative themes of confinement and vulnerability, and positive themes of safety and intimacy. Results dovetail with other phenomenologically based environmental gerontology research from community-dwelling populations that indicate behavioral changes to accommodate aging and health decline. Findings have implications for interventions to improve place integration in AL and enhance residents’ quality of life at end of life, including developing strategies to promote small meaningful journeys within context of shrinking life space.
Background: Provider recognition of level of functioning may be suboptimal in the dialysis setting, and this lack of recognition may lead to less patient-centered care. We aimed to assess whether delivery of an app-based, individualized functioning report would improve patients' perceptions of patient-centeredness of care.
Methods: In this pre-post pilot study at three outpatient dialysis facilities in metropolitan Atlanta, an individualized functioning report - including information on physical performance, perceived physical functioning, and community mobility - was delivered to patients receiving hemodialysis (n = 43) and their providers. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to gather patient and provider feedback to develop and assess the report and app. Paired t test was used to test for differences in patient perception of patient-centeredness of care (PPPC) scores (range, 1 = most patient-centered to 4 = least patient-centered) 1 month after report delivery.
Results: Delivery of the reports to both patients and providers was not associated with a subsequent change in patients' perceptions of patient-centeredness of their care (follow-up vs. baseline PPPC scores of 2.35 vs. 2.36; P > 0.9). However, patients and providers generally saw the potential of the report to improve the patient-centeredness of care and reacted positively to the individualized reports delivered in the pilot. Patients also reported willingness to undergo future assessments. However, while two-thirds of surveyed providers reported always or sometimes discussing the reports they received, most (98%) participating patients reported that no one on the dialysis care team had discussed the report with them within 1 month.
Conclusions: Potential lack of fidelity to the intervention precludes definitive conclusions about effects of the report on patient-centeredness of care. The disconnect between patients' and providers' perceptions of discussions of the report warrants future study. However, this study introduces a novel, individualized, multi-domain functional report that is easily implemented in the setting of hemodialysis. Our pilot study provides guidance for improving its use both clinically and in future pragmatic research studies, both within and beyond the dialysis population.