De-implementation strategy to Reduce the Inappropriate use of urinary and intravenous CATheters: study protocol for the RICAT-study

A Smartphone App for Engaging Patients With Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections: Protocol for an Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are the main cause of health care-associated infections, and they increase the disease burden, antibiotic usage, and hospital stay. Inappropriate placement and unnecessarily prolonged usage of a catheter lead to an elevated and preventable risk of infection. The smartphone app Participatient has been developed to involve hospitalized patients in communication and decision-making related to catheter use and to control unnecessary (long-term) catheter use to prevent CAUTIs. Sustained behavioral changes for infection prevention can be promoted by empowering patients through Participatient.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of our multicenter prospective interrupted time-series analysis is to reduce inappropriate catheter usage by 15%. We will evaluate the efficacy of Participatient in this quality improvement study in clinical wards. Our secondary endpoints are to reduce CAUTIs and to increase patient satisfaction, involvement, and trust with health care services.

METHODS

We will conduct a multicenter interrupted time-series analysis-a strong study design when randomization is not feasible-consisting of a pre- and postintervention point-prevalence survey distributed among participating wards to investigate the efficacy of Participatient in reducing the inappropriate usage of catheters. After customizing Participatient to the wards' requirements, it will be implemented with a catheter indication checklist among clinical wards in 4 large hospitals in the Netherlands. We will collect clinical data every 2 weeks for 6 months in the pre- and postintervention periods. Simultaneously, we will assess the impact of Participatient on patient satisfaction with health care services and providers and the patients' perceived involvement in health care through questionnaires, and the barriers and facilitators of eHealth implementation through interviews with health care workers.

RESULTS

To reduce the inappropriate use of approximately 40% of catheters (currently in use) by 15%, we aim to collect 9-12 data points from 70-100 patients per survey date per hospital. Thereafter, we will conduct an interrupted time-series analysis and present the difference between the unadjusted and adjusted rate ratios with a corresponding 95% CI. Differences will be considered significant when P<.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Our protocol may help reduce the inappropriate use of catheters and subsequent CAUTIs. By sharing reliable information and daily checklists with hospitalized patients via an app, we aim to provide them a tool to be involved in health care-related decision-making and to increase the quality of care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NL7178; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7178.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/28314.

De-implementation strategy to reduce inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary catheters (RICAT): a multicentre, prospective, interrupted time-series and before and after study

BACKGROUND

Catheter-associated bloodstream infections and urinary tract infections are frequently encountered health care-associated infections. We aimed to reduce inappropriate use of catheters to reduce health care-associated infections.

METHODS

In this multicentre, interrupted time-series and before and after study, we introduced a de-implementation strategy with multifaceted interventions in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Adult patients admitted to internal medicine, gastroenterology, geriatic, oncology, or pulmonology wards, and non-surgical acute admission units, and who had a (central or peripheral) venous or urinary catheter were eligible for inclusion. One of the interventions was that nurses in the participating wards attended educational meetings on appropriate catheter use. Data on catheter use were collected every 2 weeks by the primary research physician during the baseline period (7 months) and intervention period (7 months), which were separated by a 5 month transition period. The primary outcomes were percentages of short peripheral intravenous catheters and urinary catheters used inappropriately on the days of data collection. Indications for catheter use were based on international guidelines. This study is registered with Netherlands Trial Register, NL5438.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 1, 2016, and April 1, 2018, we screened 6157 patients for inclusion, of whom 5696 were enrolled: 2650 patients in the baseline group, and 3046 in the intervention group. Inappropriate use of peripheral intravenous catheters occurred in 366 (22·0%, 95% CI 20·0 to 24·0) of 1665 patients in the baseline group and in 275 (14·4%, 12·8 to 16·0) of 1912 patients in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·65, 95% CI 0·56 to 0·77, p<0·0001). Time-series analyses showed an absolute reduction in inappropriate use of peripheral intravenous catheters from baseline to intervention periods of 6·65% (95% CI 2·47 to 10·82, p=0·011). Inappropriate use of urinary catheters occurred in 105 (32·4%, 95% CI 27·3 to 37·8) of 324 patients in the baseline group compared with 96 (24·1%, 20·0 to 28·6) of 398 patients in the intervention group (IRR 0·74, 95% CI 0·56 to 0·98, p=0·013). Time-series analyses showed an absolute reduction in inappropriate use of urinary catheters of 6·34% (95% CI -12·46 to 25·13, p=0·524).

INTERPRETATION

Our de-implementation strategy reduced inappropriate use of short peripheral intravenous catheters in patients who were not in the intensive care unit. The reduction of inappropriate use of urinary catheters was substantial, yet not statistically significant in time-series analysis due to a small sample size. The strategy appears well suited for broad-scale implementation to reduce health care-associated infections.

FUNDING

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Naturopathy as a Model of Prevention-Oriented, Patient-Centered Primary Care: A Disruptive Innovation in Health Care

Background and Objective: The concept of a "disruptive innovation," recently extended to health care, refers to an emerging technology that represents a new market force combined with a new value system, that eventually displaces some, or all, of the current leading "stakeholders, products and strategic alliances." Naturopathy is a distinct system of traditional and complementary medicine recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO), emerging as a model of primary care. The objective here is to describe Naturopathy in the context of the criteria for a disruptive innovation. Methods: An evidence synthesis was conducted to evaluate Naturopathy as a potentially disruptive technology according to the defining criteria established by leading economists and health technology experts: (1) The innovation must cure disease; (2) must transform the way medicine is practiced; or (3) have an impact that could be disruptive or sustaining, depending on how it is integrated into the current healthcare marketplace. Results: The fact that Naturopathy de-emphasizes prescription drug and surgical interventions in favor of nonpharmacological health promotion and self-care could disrupt the present economic model that fuels health care costs. The patient-centered orientation of Naturopathy, combined with an emphasis on preventive behaviors and popular complementary and integrative health services like natural products, mind and body therapies, and other therapies not widely represented in current primary care models increase the likelihood for disruption. Conclusions: Because of its patient-centered approach and emphasis on prevention, naturopathy may disrupt or remain a durable presence in healthcare delivery depending on policymaker decisions.

Patients knowledge and experience with urinary and peripheral intravenous catheters

Purpose

Inappropriate use of urinary and intravenous catheters is still frequent. The use of catheters is associated with some serious complications, such as health care associated infections (HAIs). An efficient way to reduce HAIs is to avoid inappropriate use of catheters, but the role for patients in quality improvement initiatives is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate patients knowledge and experience with catheters, to design patient interventions to reduce inappropriate catheter use.

Methods

We assessed patient’s knowledge and experience with catheters using a self report questionnaire, and included patients with a urinary and/or peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) during the baseline measurements of a quality improvement project to reduce inappropriate catheters use.

Results

A total number of 82 patients completed the questionnaire, of which 49 had a urinary catheter and 72 a PIVC. Patients were unaware about the indication for their urinary catheter in 20.9% and PIVC in 19.5%. Nevertheless, 65.3% reported symptoms due to urinary catheters and 37.5% for PIVCs. Interestingly, only 25.5% and 22.4% reported that they would ask their doctor if the catheter could be removed.

Conclusions

There is a lack of knowledge about the indication for having a urinary and peripheral intravenous catheter in a substantial part of patients. Although catheters cause symptoms, patients in general do not ask if the catheter could be removed. Doctors should give more information and ask more questions about catheters to their patients. Quality improvement initiatives stimulating patients to actively participate in their treatment are needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-018-02623-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

De-implementation of tradition-based practices in critical care: A qualitative study

AIM

To explore the process of tradition-based practice (TBP) de-implementation by critical care nurses.

BACKGROUND

Ritualistic and routine practices have been described as sacred cows or TBPs. Many clinical practices have insufficient or no evidence and may lead to poor patient outcomes. De-implementation (termination) of potentially harmful, ineffective, or non cost-effective TBP is necessary to facilitate evidence-based practice (EBP) in the clinical setting.

DESIGN

Descriptive qualitative inquiry guided this study.

METHODS

Twenty-two critical care nurses from an acute care hospital in central Florida participated. Individual and focus group interviews were performed March to July 2016 and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (a) uncertainty, (b) desire to know, and (c) preparing for practice change. Nurses were uncertain about the scientific underpinnings of everyday clinical practices and had difficulty differentiating TBP from EBP. De-implementation processes and strategies appeared to replicate implementation processes.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to evaluate de-implementation processes and strategies used for de-implementation. An emphasis should be placed on ensuring that nurses are knowledgeable about fundamental EBP skills to encourage assessment of clinical practices for supporting research evidence. Awareness and understanding of TBPs will facilitate a more comprehensive approach towards achieving the gold standard of EBP.

De-implementation: A concept analysis

AIM

The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore the meaning of de-implementation and provide a definition that can be used by researchers and clinicians to facilitate evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND

De-implementation is a relatively unknown process overshadowed by the novelty of introducing new ideas and techniques into practice. Few studies have addressed the challenge of de-implementation and the cognitive processes involved when terminating harmful or unnecessary practices. Also, confusion exists regarding the myriad of terms used to describe de-implementation processes.

DESIGN

Walker and Avant's method (2011) for describing concepts was used to clarify de-implementation.

DATA SOURCE

A database search limited to academic journals yielded 281 publications representing basic research, study protocols, and editorials/commentaries from implementation science experts. After applying exclusion criterion of English language only and eliminating overlap between databases, 41 articles were selected for review.

REVIEW METHODS

Literature review and synthesis provided a concept analysis and a distinct definition of de-implementation.

RESULTS

De-implementation was defined as the process of identifying and removing harmful, non-cost-effective, or ineffective practices based on tradition and without adequate scientific support.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis provided further refinement of de-implementation as a significant concept for ongoing theory development in implementation science and clinical practice.