Strategies to engage stakeholders in research to improve acute care delivery

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The role of patient involvement in health research has evolved over the past decade. Despite efforts to engage patients as partners, the role is not well understood. We undertook this review to understand the engagement practices of patients who assume roles as partners in health research.

METHODS

Using a recognized methodological approach, two academic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) and grey literature sources were searched. Findings were organized into one of the three higher levels of engagement, described by the Patient and Researcher Engagement framework developed by Manafo. We examined and quantified the supportive strategies used during involvement, used thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke and themed the purpose of engagement, and categorized the reported outcomes according to the CIHR Engagement Framework.

RESULTS

Out of 6621 records, 119 sources were included in the review. Thematic analysis of the purpose of engagement revealed five themes: documenting and advancing PPI, relevance of research, co-building, capacity building and impact on research. Improved research design was the most common reported outcome and the most common role for patient partners was as members of the research team, and the most commonly used strategy to support involvement was by meetings.

CONCLUSION

The evidence collected during this review advanced our understanding of the engagement of patients as research partners. As patient involvement becomes more mainstream, this knowledge will aid researchers and policy-makers in the development of approaches and tools to support engagement.

PATIENT/USER INVOLVEMENT

Patients led and conducted the grey literature search, including the synthesis and interpretation of the findings.

Short-term Focused Feedback: A Model to Enhance Patient Engagement in Research and Intervention Delivery

BACKGROUND

Our grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) focused on the use of nurse home visits postdischarge for primarily pediatric hospital medicine patients. While our team recognized the importance of engaging parents and other stakeholders in our study, our project was one of the first funded to address transitions of care issues in patients without chronic illness; little evidence existed about how to engage acute stakeholders longitudinally.

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript describes how we used both a short-term focused feedback model and longitudinal engagement methods to solicit input from parents, home care nurses, and other stakeholders throughout our 3-year study.

RESULTS

Short-term focused feedback allowed the study team to collect feedback from hundreds of stakeholders. Initially, we conducted focus groups with parents with children recently discharged from the hospital. We used this feedback to modify our nurse home visit intervention, then used quality improvement methods with continued short-term focus feedback from families and nurses delivering the visits to adjust the visit processes and content. We also used their feedback to modify the outcome collection. Finally, during the randomized controlled trial, we added a parent to the study team to provide longitudinal input, as well as continued to solicit short-term focused feedback to increase recruitment and retention rates.

CONCLUSION

Research studies can benefit from soliciting short-term focused feedback from many stakeholders; having this variety of perspectives allows for many voices to be heard, without placing an undue burden on a few stakeholders.

A review and synthesis of frameworks for engagement in health research to identify concepts of knowledge user engagement

BACKGROUND

Engaging those who influence, administer and/or who are active users ("knowledge users") of health care systems, as co-producers of health research, can help to ensure that research products will better address real world needs. Our aim was to identify and review frameworks of knowledge user engagement in health research in a systematic manner, and to describe the concepts comprising these frameworks.

METHODS

An international team sharing a common interest in knowledge user engagement in health research used a consensus-building process to: 1) agree upon criteria to identify articles, 2) screen articles to identify existing frameworks, 3) extract, analyze data, and 4) synthesize and report the concepts of knowledge user engagement described in health research frameworks. We utilized the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer (PCORI Explorer) as a source of articles related to engagement in health research. The search includes articles from May 1995 to December 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 54 articles about frameworks for knowledge user engagement in health research and report on 15 concepts. The average number of concepts reported in the 54 articles is n = 7, and ranges from n = 1 to n = 13 concepts. The most commonly reported concepts are: knowledge user - prepare, support (n = 44), relational process (n = 39), research agenda (n = 38). The least commonly reported concepts are: methodology (n = 8), methods (n = 10) and analysis (n = 18). In a comparison of articles that report how research was done (n = 26) versus how research should be done (n = 28), articles about how research was done report concepts more often and have a higher average number of concepts (n = 8 of 15) in comparison to articles about how research should be done (n = 6 of 15). The exception is the concept "evaluate" and that is more often reported in articles that describe how research should be done.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that research teams 1) consider engagement with the 15 concepts as fluid, and 2) consider a form of partnered negotiation that takes place through all phases of research to identify and use concepts appropriate to their team needs. There is a need for further work to understand concepts for knowledge user engagement.

Using Stakeholder Engagement to Develop a Hospital-Initiated, Patient-Centered Intervention to Improve Hospital-to-Home Transitions for Children With Asthma

Stakeholder engagement is emerging as a tool for clinician investigators to learn from patients, families, and health professionals to better design and implement interventions that are responsive to patient and family needs and preferences. In this article, we demonstrate that multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement can meaningfully influence intervention design. We present a model of efficient yet substantive engagement of parents and health professionals in developing a hospital-to-home transition intervention for children hospitalized with asthma. We engaged parents during the acute hospitalization with one-on-one interviews, and we used one-on-one interviews and focus groups to engage key health professionals to facilitate meaningful engagement. We worked with a group of selected parent advisory council members (composed of parents of children with asthma) to refine the information gained from the parents and health professionals. We found that multidimensional stakeholder engagement can meaningfully shape intervention development, and we hope that these tools can be used or adapted to other hospital-based quality improvement, education, or research efforts.

Effects of a 1-Time Nurse-Led Telephone Call After Pediatric Discharge: The H2O II Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Families often struggle after discharge of a child from the hospital. Postdischarge challenges can lead to increased use of urgent health care services.

Objective

To determine whether a single nurse-led telephone call after pediatric discharge decreased the 30-day reutilization rate for urgent care services and enhanced overall transition success.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This Hospital-to-Home Outcomes (H2O) randomized clinical trial included 966 children and adolescents younger than 18 years (hereinafter referred to as children) admitted to general medicine services at a free-standing tertiary care children's hospital from May 11 through October 31, 2016. Data were analyzed as intention to treat and per protocol.

Interventions

A postdischarge telephone call within 4 days of discharge compared with standard discharge.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the 30-day reutilization rate for urgent health care services (ie, unplanned readmission, emergency department visit, or urgent care visit). Secondary outcomes included additional utilization measures, as well as parent coping, return to normalcy, and understanding of clinical warning signs measured at 14 days.

Results

A total of 966 children were enrolled and randomized (52.3% boys; median age [interquartile range], 2.4 years [0.5-7.8 years]). Of 483 children randomized to the intervention, the nurse telephone call was completed for 442 (91.5%). Children in the intervention and control arms had similar reutilization rates for 30-day urgent health care services (intervention group, 77 [15.9%]; control group, 63 [13.1%]; P = .21). Parents of children in the intervention group recalled more clinical warning signs at 14 days (mean, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0] in the intervention group; 1.5 [95% CI, 1.4-1.6] in the control group; ratio of intervention to control, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.3]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Although postdischarge nurse contact did not decrease the reutilization rate of postdischarge urgent health care services, this method shows promise to bolster postdischarge education.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081846.

Lost Earnings and Nonmedical Expenses of Pediatric Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Hospitalization-related nonmedical costs, including lost earnings and expenses such as transportation, meals, and child care, can lead to challenges in prioritizing postdischarge decisions. In this study, we quantify such costs and evaluate their relationship with sociodemographic factors, including family-reported financial and social hardships.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional analysis of data collected during the Hospital-to-Home Outcomes Study, a randomized trial designed to determine the effects of a nurse home visit after standard pediatric discharge. Parents completed an in-person survey during the child's hospitalization. The survey included sociodemographic characteristics of the parent and child, measures of financial and social hardship, household income and also evaluated the family's total nonmedical cost burden, which was defined as all lost earnings plus expenses. A daily cost burden (DCB) standardized it for a 24-hour period. The daily cost burden as a percentage of daily household income (DCBi) was also calculated.

RESULTS

Median total cost burden for the 1372 households was $113, the median DCB was $51, and the median DCBi was 45%. DCB and DCBi varied across many sociodemographic characteristics. In particular, single-parent households (those with less work flexibility and more financial hardships experienced significantly higher DCB and DCBi. Those who reported ≥3 financial hardships lost or spent 6-times more of their daily income on nonmedical costs than those without hardships. Those with ≥1 social hardships lost or spent double their daily income compared with those without social hardships.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonmedical costs place burdens on families of children who are hospitalized, disproportionately affecting those with competing socioeconomic challenges.

Postdischarge Nurse Home Visits and Reuse: The Hospital to Home Outcomes (H2O) Trial

BACKGROUND

Hospital discharge is stressful for children and families. Poor transitional care is linked to unplanned health care reuse. We evaluated the effects of a pediatric transition intervention, specifically a single nurse home visit, on postdischarge outcomes in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1500 children hospitalized on hospital medicine, neurology services, or neurosurgery services to receive either a single postdischarge nurse-led home visit or no visit. We excluded children discharged with skilled home nursing services. Primary outcomes included 30-day unplanned, urgent health care reuse (composite measure of unplanned readmission, emergency department, or urgent care visit). Secondary outcomes, measured at 14 days, included postdischarge parental coping, number of days until parent-reported return to normal routine, and number of "red flags" or clinical warning signs a parent or caregiver could recall.

RESULTS

The 30-day reuse rate was 17.8% in the intervention group and 14.0% in the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, children randomly assigned to the intervention group had higher odds of 30-day health care use (odds ratio: 1.33; 95% confidence interval: 1.003-1.76). In the per protocol analysis, there were no differences in 30-day health care use (odds ratio: 1.14; confidence interval: 0.84-1.55). Postdischarge coping scores and number of days until returning to a normal routine were similar between groups. Parents in the intervention group recalled more red flags at 14 days (mean: 1.9 vs 1.6; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Children randomly assigned to the intervention had higher rates of 30-day postdischarge unplanned health care reuse. Parents in the intervention group recalled more clinical warning signs 2 weeks after discharge.

Improving Recruitment and Retention Rates in a Randomized Controlled Trial

High recruitment and retention rates in randomized controlled trials are essential to ensure validity and broad generalizability. We used quality improvement methods, including run charts and intervention cycles, to achieve and sustain high recruitment and retention rates during the Hospital-To-Home Outcomes randomized controlled trial. This study is examining the effects of a single nurse-led home health care visit after discharge for an acute pediatric hospitalization. A total of 1500 participants were enrolled in the 15-month study period. For study recruitment, we assessed the percentage of patients who enrolled in the study among those randomly selected to approach (goal ≥50%) and the percentage of patients who refused to enroll from those randomly selected to approach (goal ≤30%). For intervention completion, we examined the percentage of patients who completed the home visit intervention among those randomized to receive the intervention (goal ≥95%) were examined. Follow-up rates were tracked as the percentage of patients who completed the 14-day follow-up telephone survey (goal ≥95%). The study goals for 2 of the 4 metrics were met and sustained, with statistically significant improvements over time in 3 metrics. The median enrollment rate increased from 50% to 59%, and the median refusal rate decreased from 37% to 32%. The median intervention completion rate remained unchanged at 88%. The 14-day follow-up completion median rate increased from 94% to 96%. These results indicate that quality improvement methods can be used within the scope of a large research study to achieve and sustain high recruitment and retention rates.

Optimizing a Nurse-led Transitional Home Visit Program in Preparation for a Randomized Control Trial

Introduction:

The Hospital to Home Outcomes study began with the end goal of evaluating the effectiveness of a single, nurse-led transitional home visit (home visit) program, for acutely ill, pediatric patients, which had been piloted at our institution. As part of the overall study design, building on prior randomized control trials that utilized a run-in period prior to the trial, our study team designed an optimization period to test the home visit and study procedures under real-world conditions.

Methods:

For this optimization project, there were 3 process improvement goals: to improve the referral process to the home visit, to optimize the home visit content, and to define and operationalize measures of patient- and family-centered outcomes to be used in the subsequent randomized control trial. During the optimization period, a multidisciplinary study team met weekly to review family and stakeholder feedback about the iterative modifications made to the home visit process, content, and outcome measures.

Results:

Optimization home visits were completed with 301 families across a variety of discharge diagnoses. The outcomes planned for the clinical trial were tested and refined. Feedback from families and stakeholders indicated that the content changes made to the home visits resulted in increased family knowledge of warning signs to monitor postdischarge. Thirty-one percent of families reported that they altered the care of their child after the home visit.

Conclusion:

Through iterative testing, informed by multistakeholder feedback, we leveraged patient and family engagement to maximize the effectiveness and generalizability of the home visit intervention.