Formative evaluation of a multi-component, education-based intervention to improve processes of end-of-life care

Comparison of Two Methods for Implementing Comfort Care Order Sets in the Inpatient Setting: a Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing need for interventions to improve quality of end-of-life care for patients in inpatient settings.

OBJECTIVE

To compare two methods for implementing a Comfort Care Education Intervention for Palliative Care Consultation Teams (PCCT) in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs).

DESIGN

Cluster randomized implementation trial conducted March 2015-April 2019. PCCTs were assigned to a traditional implementation approach using a teleconference or to an in-person, train-the-champion workshop to prepare PCCTs to be clinical champions at their home sites.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred thirty-two providers from PCCTs at 47 VAMCs.

INTERVENTIONS

Both training modalities involved review of educational materials, instruction on using an electronic Comfort Care Order Set, and coaching to deliver the intervention to other providers.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Several processes of care were identified a priori as quality endpoints for end-of-life care (last 7 days) and abstracted from medical records of veterans who died within 9 months before or after implementation (n = 6,491). The primary endpoint was the presence of an active order for opioid medication at time of death. Secondary endpoints were orders/administration of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and scopolamine, do-not-resuscitate orders, advance directives, locations of death, palliative care consultations, nasogastric tubes, intravenous lines, physical restraints, pastoral care visits, and family presence at/near time of death. Generalized estimating equations were conducted adjusting for potential covariates.

KEY RESULTS

Eighty-eight providers from 23 VAMCs received teleconference training; 44 providers from 23 VAMCs received in-person workshop training. Analyses found no significant differences between intervention groups in any process-of-care endpoints (primary endpoint AOR (CI) = 1.18 (0.74, 1.89). Furthermore, pre-post changes were not significant for any endpoints (primary endpoint AOR (CI) = 1.16 (0.92, 1.46). Analyses may have been limited by high baseline values on key endpoints with little room for improvement.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest the clinical effectiveness of palliative care educational intervention was not dependent on which of the two implementation methods was used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02383173.

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.

METHODS

This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.

RESULTS

The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.

Predictors of Physical Restraint Use in Hospitalized Veterans at End of Life: An Analysis of Data from the BEACON Trial

BACKGROUND

The use of physical restraints in dying patients may be a source of suffering and loss of dignity. Little is known about the prevalence or predictors for restraint use at end of life in the hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine the prevalence and predictors of physical restraint use at the time of death in hospitalized adults.

METHODS

Secondary analysis was performed on data from the "Best Practices for End-of-Life Care for Our Nation's Veterans" (BEACON) trial conducted between 2005 and 2011. Medical record data were abstracted from six Veterans Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs). Data on processes of care in the last seven days of life were abstracted from the medical records of 5476 who died in the six VAMCs. We prospectively identified potential risk factors for restraint use at the time of death from among the variables measured in the parent trial, including location of death, medications administered, nasogastric tube, intravenous (IV) fluids, family presence, and receipt of a palliative care consultation.

RESULTS

Physical restraint use at time of death was documented in 890 decedents (16.3%). Restraint use varied by location of death, with patients in intensive settings being at higher risk. Restraint use was significantly more likely in patients with a nasogastric tube and those receiving IV fluids, benzodiazepines, or antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to document that one in six hospitalized veterans were restrained at the time of death and to identify predictors of restraint use. Further research is needed to identify intervention opportunities.