Implementation of research findings to reduce postoperative pain at night

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Local opinion leaders (OLs) are individuals perceived as credible and trustworthy, who disseminate and implement best evidence, for instance through informal one-to-one teaching or community outreach education visits. The use of OLs is a promising strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of local opinion leaders to improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers on 3 July 2018, together with searching reference lists of included studies and contacting experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised studies comparing the effects of local opinion leaders, either alone or with a single or more intervention(s) to disseminate evidence-based practice, with no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s). Eligible studies were those reporting objective measures of professional performance, for example, the percentage of patients being prescribed a specific drug or health outcomes, or both. We included all studies independently of the method used to identify OLs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane procedures in this review. The main comparison was (i) between any intervention involving OLs (OLs alone, OLs with a single or more intervention(s)) versus any comparison intervention (no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s)). We also made four secondary comparisons: ii) OLs alone versus no intervention, iii) OLs alone versus a single intervention, iv) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s), and v) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies, involving more than 337 hospitals, 350 primary care practices, 3005 healthcare professionals, and 29,167 patients (not all studies reported this information). A majority of studies were from North America, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Eighteen of these studies (21 comparisons, 71 compliance outcomes) contributed to the median adjusted risk difference (RD) for the main comparison. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 30 months). The results suggested that the OL interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice (10.8% absolute improvement in compliance, interquartile range (IQR): 3.5% to 14.6%; moderate-certainty evidence).Results for the secondary comparisons also suggested that OLs probably improve compliance with evidence-based practice (moderate-certainty evidence): i) OLs alone versus no intervention: RD (IQR): 9.15% (-0.3% to 15%); ii) OLs alone versus a single intervention: RD (range): 13.8% (12% to 15.5%); iii) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s): RD (IQR): 7.1% (-1.4% to 19%); iv) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention: RD (IQR):10.25% (0.6% to 15.75%).It is uncertain if OLs alone, or in combination with other intervention(s), may lead to improved patient outcomes (3 studies; 5 dichotomous outcomes) since the certainty of evidence was very low. For two of the secondary comparisons, the IQR included the possibility of a small negative effect of the OL intervention. Possible explanations for the occasional negative effects are, for example, the possibility that the OLs may have prioritised some outcomes, at the expense of others, or that an unaccounted outcome difference at baseline, may have given a faulty impression of a negative effect of the intervention at follow-up. No study reported on costs or cost-effectiveness.We were unable to determine the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to identifying OLs, as most studies used the sociometric method. Nor could we determine which methods used by OLs to educate their peers were most effective, as the methods were poorly described in most studies. In addition, we could not determine whether OL teams were more effective than single OLs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence-based practice, but the effectiveness varies both within and between studies.The effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The costs and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention(s) is unknown. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in types of intervention, setting, and outcomes. In most studies, the role and actions of the OL were not clearly described, and we cannot, therefore, comment on strategies to enhance their effectiveness. It is also not clear whether the methods used to identify OLs are important for their effectiveness, or whether the effect differs if education is delivered by single OLs or by multidisciplinary OL teams. Further research may help us to understand how these factors affect the effectiveness of OLs.

Postoperative Pain Communication Skills for Older Adults

This study tested the effect of a preoperative pain communication intervention on older adults’ ability to obtain pain relief after a total knee arthroplasty. A posttest-only experimental design was used to compare older adults randomly assigned to (a) view a pain management and pain communication film, (b) view the pain management film only, or (c) receive standard care only. Initial method adjustments decreased potential error in the study. Adjustments included testing only total knee arthroplasty patients receiving standard physical therapy and omitting unreliable measures from the analyses. Recruitment of the standard care group was halted when differences emerged between the remaining groups. Older adults in the communication group reported significantly less sensory pain on postoperative Day 1 than older adults in the pain management only group. Teaching older adults both pain communication skills and pain management information before surgery might result in greater pain relief during the early postoperative period.

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Opinion leaders disseminating and implementing 'best evidence' is one method that holds promise as a strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of the use of local opinion leaders in improving professional practice and patient outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane EPOC Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, ISI Conference Proceedings and World Cat Dissertations up to 5 May 2009. In addition, we searched reference lists of included articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies eligible for inclusion were randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of using opinion leaders to disseminate evidence-based practice and reporting objective measures of professional performance and/or health outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from each study and assessed its risk of bias. For each trial, we calculated the median risk difference (RD) for compliance with desired practice, adjusting for baseline where data were available. We reported the median adjusted RD for each of the main comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies involving more than 296 hospitals and 318 PCPs. Fifteen studies (18 comparisons) contributed to the calculations of the median adjusted RD for the main comparisons. The effects of interventions varied across the 63 outcomes from 15% decrease in compliance to 72% increase in compliance with desired practice. The median adjusted RD for the main comparisons were: i) Opinion leaders compared to no intervention, +0.09; ii) Opinion leaders alone compared to a single intervention, +0.14; iii) Opinion leaders with one or more additional intervention(s) compared to the one or more additional intervention(s), +0.10; iv) Opinion leaders as part of multiple interventions compared to no intervention, +0.10. Overall, across all 18 studies the median adjusted RD was +0.12 representing a 12% absolute increase in compliance in the intervention group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Opinion leaders alone or in combination with other interventions may successfully promote evidence-based practice, but effectiveness varies both within and between studies. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in terms of type of intervention, setting, and outcomes measured. In most of the studies the role of the opinion leader was not clearly described, and it is therefore not possible to say what the best way is to optimise the effectiveness of opinion leaders.

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Opinion leaders disseminating and implementing 'best evidence' is one innovative method that holds promise as a strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of the use of local opinion leaders in improving the behaviour of health care professionals and patient outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, Health Star, SIGLE and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register. We did not apply date restrictions to our search strategy. Searches were last updated in February 2005. In addition, we searched reference lists of all potential studies that were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled trials that used objective measures of performance/provider behaviour and/or patient health outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data from each study and assessed its methodological quality. We calculated the absolute difference in the risk of 'non-compliance' with desired practice, adjusting for baseline levels of non-compliance where these data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria. The adjusted absolute risk difference of non-compliance with desired practice varied from -6% (favouring control) to +25% (favouring opinion leader intervention). Overall, the median adjusted risk difference (ARD) was 0.10 representing a 10% absolute decrease in non-compliance in the intervention group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of local opinion leaders can successfully promote evidence-based practice. However the feasibility of its widespread use remains uncertain.

The Pain Experience of Post Surgical Patients Following the Implementation of an Evidence-Based Approach

Effective pain management has been shown to promote earlier mobilization, adequate rest, reduced hospital stays, postoperative complications, and costs. A multidisciplinary quality improvement team worked together to develop and implement a comprehensive evidence-based program for postoperative pain management. The purpose of this study was to assess surgical patients' pain status, satisfaction, and beliefs with regard to pain management prior to (Phase 1) and following the implementation of the program (Phase II). On postoperative day two, patients rated their pain, its impact on their activity, and answered questions about pain management and their satisfaction with pain treatment. Significant differences were found between Phase I and Phase II patients. More patients in Phase II (83%) received evidence-based orders compared with patients in Phase I (35%). Patients in Phase II had lower pain scores and experienced fewer disturbances in sleep, walking, and general activities. Patients in Phase II were less likely to believe that good patients avoid talking about pain. The results suggest that addressing pain management through a variety of strategies targeted at the level of the institution, the clinician, and the patient may lead to desired changes in practice and better outcomes for patients.

Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: a literature review

AIM

The aim of this paper is to examine the concepts of opinion leaders, facilitators, champions, linking agents and change agents as described in health, education and management literature in order to determine the conceptual underpinnings of each.

BACKGROUND

The knowledge utilization and diffusion of innovation literature encompasses many different disciplines, from management to education to nursing. Due to the involvement of multiple specialties, concepts are often borrowed or used interchangeably and may lack standard definition. This contributes to confusion and ambiguity in the exactness of concepts.

METHODS

A critical analysis of the literature was undertaken of the concepts opinion leaders, facilitators, champions, linking agents and change agents. A literature search using the concepts as keywords was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Proquest and ERIC from 1990 to March 2003. All papers that gave sufficient detail describing the various concepts were included in the review. Several 'older' papers were included as they were identified as seminal work or were frequently cited by other authors. In addition, reference lists were reviewed to identify books seen by authors as essential to the field.

FINDINGS

Two similarities cut across each of the five roles: the underlying assumption that increasing the availability of knowledge will lead to behaviour change, and that in essence each role is a form of change agent. There are, however, many differences that suggest that these concepts are conceptually unique.

CONCLUSIONS

There is inconsistency in the use of the various terms, and this has implications for comparisons of intervention studies within the knowledge diffusion literature. From these comparisons, we concluded that considerable confusion and overlap continues to exist and these concepts may indeed be similar phenomena with different labels. All concepts appear to be based on the premise that interpersonal contact improves the likelihood of behavioural change when introducing new innovations into the health sector.

Beyond the BARRIERS Scale: commonly reported barriers to research use

The evidence-based practice movement has highlighted the importance of translating research evidence into practice. However, the gap between research and practice points to the existence of significant barriers to research use. To identify the most commonly cited barriers to the use of research in practice, the findings arising from studies that used the Barriers to Research Utilization Scale are examined. Based on these findings, the authors discuss and make recommendations to assist nurse administrators in overcoming universally reported barriers to research use.

Organization, Function, and Implementation of Acute Pain Service

Undertreatment of postoperative pain continues to be a major problem internationally. The solution does not seem to be the development of new analgesic drugs or technologies but the development of an appropriate organization that utilizes existing expertise. Evidence suggests that the introduction of an Acute Pain Service (APS) reduces patients' pain intensity, but other outcome benefits are modest. Although the number of hospitals with an APS is increasing, the literature is unclear about the optimal structure, staffing, and function. There is a need for the development of well-defined APS criteria with which to assess performance and compare with national standards.

Rhetoric and reality on acute pain services in the UK: a national postal questionnaire survey

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to explore the extent to which NHS acute pain services (APSs) have been established in accordance with national guidance, and to assess the degree to which clinicians in acute pain management believe that these services are fulfilling their role.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire survey addressed to the head of the acute pain service was sent to 403 National Health Service hospitals each carrying out more than 1000 operative procedures a year.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were received from 81% (325) of the hospitals, of which 83% (270) had an established acute pain service. Most of these (86%) described their service as Monday-Friday with a reduced service at other times; only 5% described their service as covering 24 hours, 7 days a week. In the majority of hospitals (68%), the on-call anaesthetist was the sole provider of out of hours services. Services were categorized by respondents as thriving (30%), struggling to manage (52%) or non-existent (17%). There was widespread agreement (> or =85%) on the principles that should underpin acute pain services, and similar agreement on the need for better organizational approaches (95%) rather than new treatments and delivery techniques (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

More than a decade since the 1990 report Pain after Surgery, national coverage of comprehensive acute pain services is still far from being achieved. Despite wide consensus about the problems, concrete solutions are proving hard to implement. There is strong support for a two-fold response: securing greater political commitment to pain services and using organizational approaches to address current deficits.

Changing acute pain management outcomes in surgical patients

Patient outcome studies indicate that patients accept pain as part of hospitalization. The majority of hospitalized patients who report experiencing pain are recovering from surgical intervention. To achieve successful outcomes, a comprehensive multidisciplinary effort must begin preoperatively and continue through discharge. The perioperative period is an essential link in effective pain management, and perioperative nurses are key in helping direct the care of surgical patients before, during, and after surgical procedures. Pain relief and the patients satisfaction with care frequently are used to measure pain management outcomes. This article examines the results of a secondary analysis of a subset of surgical patients drawn from a larger data set that was collected during two studies in urban and rural hospitals. It focuses on two outcomes, namely characteristics of pain and patient satisfaction with pain management after surgery. These outcomes were measured using the American Pain Society patient outcome questionnaire and the pain management index. Correlational, descriptive, and regression analyses indicate that postoperative management of patients' pain in these studies was less than optimal. From this new understanding, strategies for effective pain management of surgical patients are recommended.

Patients' verbal descriptions of pain and discomfort following orthopaedic surgery

The concepts of pain and discomfort are poorly differentiated in the literature. This study of 417 post-operative orthopaedic patients examined their use of language to describe pain and also discomfort. Their pain descriptions were assessed for congruence with the widely used McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ). The findings confirmed that there was an overlap in the descriptions of pain and discomfort, but that pain tended to be described as an internal phenomenon, while discomfort was frequently related to environmental stimuli. The use of analogy was commonly used to describe pain. There was considerable use of words not included in the MPQ. This suggests that regional and international variations in vocabulary may render the MPQ unsuitable for indiscriminate use in Anglophone countries. Implications for improving pre-operative information provision and post-operative assessment of pain and discomfort are briefly presented.