Incentivizing "structures" over "outcomes" to bridge the knowing-doing gap

RE/UN/DIScover Heuristic: Working with Clinical Practice Impingements in Dehumanizing Times

Although clinical social work seeks to center the transformative potential of human relationships, practitioners are experiencing heightened systemic and organizational impingements from the dehumanizing pressures of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism and racism diminish the vitality and transformative potential of human relationships, disproportionately affecting Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. Practitioners are also experiencing increased stress and burnout related to increased caseloads and decreased professional autonomy and organizational practitioner support. Holistic, culturally responsive, and anti-oppressive processes seek to counter these oppressive forces but need further development to synthesize antioppressive structural understandings with embodied relational interactions. Practitioners can potentially contribute to efforts that apply critical theories and antioppressive understandings within their practice and workplace. Through an iterative flow of three sets of practices, the RE/UN/DIScover heuristic supports practitioners' efforts to respond in those challenging everyday moments where oppressive forms of power are imposed and embedded within systemic processes. With themselves and other colleagues, practitioners engage in compassionate REcover practices; use curious, critical reflection to UNcover full understandings of power dynamics, impacts, and meanings; and draw on creative courage to DIScover and enact socially just and humanizing responses. This paper describes how practitioners can use the RE/UN/DIScover heuristic in two common challenging moments of clinical practice: systemic practice impingements and implementing a new training or practice model. The heuristic seeks to support practitioners' efforts to preserve and expand socially just, relational spaces for themselves and those with whom they work within the context of systemic dehumanizing neoliberal forces.

A multisociety organizational consensus process to define guiding principles for acute perioperative pain management

The US Health and Human Services Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force initiated a public-private partnership which led to the publication of its report in 2019. The report emphasized the need for individualized, multimodal, and multidisciplinary approaches to pain management that decrease the over-reliance on opioids, increase access to care, and promote widespread education on pain and substance use disorders. The Task Force specifically called on specialty organizations to work together to develop evidence-based guidelines. In response to this report's recommendations, a consortium of 14 professional healthcare societies committed to a 2-year project to advance pain management for the surgical patient and improve opioid safety. The modified Delphi process included two rounds of electronic voting and culminated in a live virtual event in February 2021, during which seven common guiding principles were established for acute perioperative pain management. These principles should help to inform local action and future development of clinical practice recommendations.

Approach to Human-Centered, Evidence-Driven Adaptive Design (AHEAD) for Health Care Interventions: a Proposed Framework

Human-centered design (HCD), an empathy-driven approach to innovation that focuses on user needs, offers promise for the rapid design of health care interventions that are acceptable to patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Reviews of HCD in healthcare, however, note a need for greater rigor, suggesting an opportunity for integration of elements from traditional research and HCD. A strategy that combines HCD principles with evidence-grounded health services research (HSR) methods has the potential to strengthen the innovation process and outcomes. In this paper, we review the strengths and limitations of HCD and HSR methods for intervention design, and propose a novel Approach to Human-centered, Evidence-driven Adaptive Design (AHEAD) framework. AHEAD offers a practical guide for the design of creative, evidence-based, pragmatic solutions to modern healthcare challenges.

Evaluating the use of multiteam systems to manage the complexity of inpatient falls in rural hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the implementation and outcomes of evidence-based fall-risk-reduction processes when those processes are implemented using a multiteam system (MTS) structure.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Fall-risk-reduction process and outcome measures from 16 small rural hospitals participating in a research demonstration and dissemination study from August 2012 to July 2014. Previously, these hospitals lacked a fall-event reporting system to drive improvement.

STUDY DESIGN

A one-group pretest-posttest embedded in a participatory research framework. We required hospitals to implement MTSs, which we supported by conducting education, developing an online toolkit, and establishing a fall-event reporting system.

DATA COLLECTION

Hospitals used gap analyses to assess the presence of fall-risk-reduction processes at study beginning and their frequency and effectiveness at study end; they reported fall-event data throughout the study.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The extent to which hospitals implemented 21 processes to coordinate the fall-risk-reduction program and trained staff specifically about the program predicted unassisted and injurious fall rates during the end-of-study period (January 2014-July 2014). Bedside fall-risk-reduction processes were not significant predictors of these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiteam systems that effectively coordinate fall-risk-reduction processes may improve the capacity of hospitals to manage the complex patient, environmental, and system factors that result in falls.

Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value: AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center Program-Applying the Knowledge to Practice to Data Cycle to Strengthen the Value of Patient Care

For more than 20 years, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program has been identifying and synthesizing evidence to inform evidence-based healthcare. Recognizing that many healthcare settings continue to face challenges in disseminating and implementing evidence into practice, AHRQ's EPC program has also embarked on initiatives to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice and to measure and monitor how practice changes impact health outcomes. The program has structured its efforts around the three phases of the Learning Healthcare System cycle: knowledge, practice, and data. Here, we use a topic relevant to the field of hospital medicine-Clostridium difficile colitis prevention and treatment-as an exemplar of how the EPC program has used this framework to move evidence into practice and develop systems to facilitate continuous learning in healthcare systems.

Using a 10-step framework to support the implementation of an evidence-based clinical pathways programme

BACKGROUND

Integration of evidence into practice is suboptimal. Clinical pathways, defined as multidisciplinary care plans, are a method for translating evidence into local settings and have been shown to improve the value of patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of a clinical pathways programme across a large academic healthcare system.

METHODS

We use a 10-step framework (grounded in the Knowledge-to-Action framework and ADAPTE Collaboration methodology for guideline adaptation) to support pathway development and dissemination, including facilitating clinical owner and stakeholder engagement, developing pathway prototypes based on rapid reviews of the existing literature, developing tools for dissemination and impact assessment. We use a cloud-based technology platform (Dorsata, Washington, DC) to assist with development and dissemination across our geographically distributed care settings and providers. Content is viewable through desktop and mobile applications. We measured programme adoption and penetration by examining number of pathways developed as well as mobile application use and pathway views.

RESULTS

From 1 February 2016 to 30 April 2018, a total of 202 pathways were disseminated. The three most common clinical domains represented were oncology (46.5%, n=94), pulmonary/critical care (8.9%, n=18) and cardiovascular medicine (7.4%, n=15). Users opting to register for a personal account totalled 1279; the three largest groups were physicians (45.1%, n=504), advanced practice providers (19.5%, n=245) and nurses (19.1%, n=240). Pathway views reached an average of 2150 monthly views during the last 3 months of the period. The majority of pathways reference at least one evidence-based source (93.6%, n=180).

CONCLUSIONS

A healthcare system can successfully use a framework and technology platform to support the development and dissemination of pathways across a multisite institution.

Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making

BACKGROUND

Hospital evidence-based practice centers (EPCs) synthesize and disseminate evidence locally, but their impact on institutional decision making is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of a hospital EPC serving a large academic healthcare system.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Descriptive analysis of the EPC's database of rapid systematic reviews since EPC inception (July 2006-June 2014), and survey of report requestors from the EPC's last 4 fiscal years.

MEASUREMENTS

Descriptive analyses examined requestor and report characteristics; questionnaire examined report usability, impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on 5-point Likert scales reflected greater agreement).

RESULTS

The EPC completed 249 evidence reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), and care processes (12%, n = 31). Mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last 4 fiscal years for 65 requestors. Of the 64 eligible participants, 46 responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered promptly (mean = 4.4), answered the questions posed (mean = 4.3), and informed their final decision (mean = 4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first examination of evidence synthesis activities by a hospital EPC in the United States. Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence local decision making.

6-PACK programme to decrease fall injuries in acute hospitals: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of the 6-PACK programme on falls and fall injuries in acute wards.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Six Australian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients admitted to 24 acute wards during the trial period.

INTERVENTIONS

Participating wards were randomly assigned to receive either the nurse led 6-PACK programme or usual care over 12 months. The 6-PACK programme included a fall risk tool and individualised use of one or more of six interventions: "falls alert" sign, supervision of patients in the bathroom, ensuring patients' walking aids are within reach, a toileting regimen, use of a low-low bed, and use of a bed/chair alarm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The co-primary outcomes were falls and fall injuries per 1000 occupied bed days.

RESULTS

During the trial, 46 245 admissions to 16 medical and eight surgical wards occurred. As many people were admitted more than once, this represented 31 411 individual patients. Patients' characteristics and length of stay were similar for intervention and control wards. Use of 6-PACK programme components was higher on intervention wards than on control wards (incidence rate ratio 3.05, 95% confidence interval 2.14 to 4.34; P<0.001). In all, 1831 falls and 613 fall injuries occurred, and the rates of falls (incidence rate ratio 1.04, 0.78 to 1.37; P=0.796) and fall injuries (0.96, 0.72 to 1.27; P=0.766) were similar in intervention and control wards.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive changes in falls prevention practice occurred following the introduction of the 6-PACK programme. However, no difference was seen in falls or fall injuries between groups. High quality evidence showing the effectiveness of falls prevention interventions in acute wards remains absent. Novel solutions to the problem of in-hospital falls are urgently needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000332921.