Improving care at scale: process evaluation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention to reduce mortality after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH trial)

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance

The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

Reading Difficulties in Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Systematic Review of Reported Interventions

Reading difficulties are amongst the most commonly reported problems in individuals with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). To be able to provide guidance for healthcare professionals considering offering reading training, researchers in this field and interested individuals with HVFDs, this systematic review aims to (1) provide an overview of the contextual and intervention characteristics of all published HVFD interventions and (2) generate insights into the different reading outcome measures that these studies adopted. A search on PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science was conducted up to February 2, 2023. All intervention studies for HVFD in which reading was measured were included. Data was collected about the intervention type, session duration, number of sessions, the intensity, duration, circumstance of the interventions, country in which the intervention was studied and reading measures. Sixty records are included, describing 70 interventions in total of which 21 are specifically reading interventions. Overall, adjusted saccadic behaviour interventions occur most in the literature. A wide range within all intervention characteristics was observed. Forty-nine records reported task-performance reading measures, and 33 records reported self-reported reading measures. The majority of task-performance measures are based on self-developed paragraph reading tasks with a time-based outcome measure (e.g. words per minute). Future research could benefit from making use of validated reading tests, approaching the measurement of reading mixed-methods and providing participants the possibility to supply outcomes relevant to them.

Protocolized care pathways in emergency general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. The delivery of standardized pathways in this setting may have the potential to transform clinical care and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

The OVID SP versions of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched between January 1950 and October 2022. All randomized and non-randomized cohort studies comparing protocolized care streams with standard care protocols in adult patients (>18 years old) undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery with 30-day follow-up data were included. Studies were excluded if they reported on standardized care protocols in the trauma or elective setting. Outcomes assessed included length of stay, 30-day postoperative morbidity, 30-day postoperative mortality and 30-day readmission and reoperations rates. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies and RoB-2 for randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modelling.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 20 927 patients were identified, with 12 359 patients undergoing protocolized care pathways and 8568 patients undergoing standard care pathways. Thirteen unique protocolized pathways were identified, with a median of eight components (range 6-15), with compliance of 24-100%. Protocolized care pathways were associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to standard care pathways (mean difference -2.47, 95% c.i. -4.01 to -0.93, P = 0.002). Protocolized care pathways had no impact on postoperative mortality (OR 0.87, 95% c.i. 0.41 to 1.87, P = 0.72). A reduction in specific postoperative complications was observed, including postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.42 95% c.i. 0.24 to 0.73, P = 0.002) and surgical site infection (OR 0.34, 95% c.i. 0.21 to 0.55, P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Protocolized care pathways in the emergency setting currently lack standardization, with variable components and low compliance; however, despite this they are associated with short-term clinical benefits.

Uncertainties and opportunities in delivering environmentally sustainable surgery: the surgeons' view

Surgery is a carbon-heavy activity and creates a high volume of waste. Surgical teams around the world want to deliver more environmentally sustainable surgery but are unsure what to do and how to create change. There are many interventions available, but resources and time are limited. Capital investment into healthcare and engagement of senior management are challenging. However, frontline teams can change behaviours and drive wider change. Patients have a voice here too, as they would like to ensure their surgery does not harm their local community but are concerned about the effects on them when changes are made. Environmentally sustainable surgery is at the start of its journey. Surgeons need to rapidly upskill their generic knowledge base, identify which measures they can implement locally and take part in national research programmes. Surgical teams in the NHS have the chance to create a world-leading programme that can bring change to hospitals around the world. This article provides an overview of how surgeons see the surgical team being involved in environmentally sustainable surgery.

Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023

BACKGROUND

Large-scale improvement programmes are a frequent response to quality and safety problems in health systems globally, but have mixed impact. The extent to which they meet criteria for programme quality, particularly in relation to transparency of reporting and evaluation, is unclear.

AIM

To identify large-scale improvement programmes focused on intrapartum care implemented in English National Health Service maternity services in the period 2010-2023, and to conduct a structured quality assessment.

METHODS

We drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance to inform the design and reporting of our study. We identified relevant programmes using multiple search strategies of grey literature, research databases and other sources. Programmes that met a prespecified definition of improvement programme, that focused on intrapartum care and that had a retrievable evaluation report were subject to structured assessment using selected features of programme quality.

RESULTS

We identified 1434 records via databases and other sources. 14 major initiatives in English maternity services could not be quality assessed due to lack of a retrievable evaluation report. Quality assessment of the 15 improvement programmes meeting our criteria for assessment found highly variable quality and reporting. Programme specification was variable and mostly low quality. Only eight reported the evidence base for their interventions. Description of implementation support was poor and none reported customisation for challenged services. None reported reduction of inequalities as an explicit goal. Only seven made use of explicit patient and public involvement practices, and only six explicitly used published theories/models/frameworks to guide implementation. Programmes varied in their reporting of the planning, scope and design of evaluation, with weak designs evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor transparency of reporting and weak or absent evaluation undermine large-scale improvement programmes by limiting learning and accountability. This review indicates important targets for improving quality in large-scale programmes.

One-year mortality rates after standardized management for emergency laparotomy: results from the Swedish SMASH study

BACKGROUND

Patients who require an emergency laparotomy suffer from high mortality and morbidity rates. Studies have shown that the standardization of perioperative management reduces complications in the short term. The aim of the present study was to report long-term mortality rates for the SMASH (Standardized perioperative Management of patients operated with acute Abdominal Surgery in a High-risk and emergency setting) study, as well as short- and long-term outcomes for different age groups within the SMASH study.

METHODS

A prospective intervention study was introduced in 2018, with the aim of investigating the introduction of a standardized protocol for emergency laparotomy. For 42 months, intervention patients were managed according to the protocol and outcomes were then compared with those of historical controls.

RESULTS

A total of 1344 unique patients were included (681 in the intervention group and 663 in the control group). The 90-day mortality rate was 14.1 per cent in the intervention group and 20.8 per cent in the control group (P = 0.002) and the 1-year mortality rate in adjusted analyses was 19.7 and 27.8 per cent respectively (P =< 0.001). An age-related subgroup analysis showed that the oldest patients (76 years and older, 260 in the intervention group and 240 in the control group) had a 1-year mortality rate of 29.6 and 43.8 per cent respectively (P = 0.004) and a mean duration of hospital stay of 9.9 and 11.6 days respectively (P = 0.027). Among older adults (61-75 years), the mean duration of hospital stay was 11.7 days in the intervention group compared with 15.1 days in the control group (P = 0.009) and the mean duration of ICU care was reduced to 4.49 days compared with 7.29 days (P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

The standardized protocol associated with an emergency laparotomy appears to be beneficial, even in the long term. For elderly patients, it appears to reduce mortality rates and the durations of hospital stay and ICU care.

Enhanced recovery protocols in trauma and emergency abdominal surgery: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) have been shown to improve patient outcomes and is now regarded as standard of care in elective surgical setting. However, the literature addressing the use of ERP in trauma and emergency abdominal surgery (EAS) is limited and heterogenous. A scoping review was conducted to comprehensively assess the literature on ERP in trauma laparotomy and EAS.

METHODS

Three bibliographic databases were searched for studies addressing ERP in trauma laparotomy and EAS. We extracted the study characteristics including study design, country, year, surgical procedures, ERP components used, and outcomes. Reporting was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

After screening of 1631 articles for eligibility, 39 studies were included in the review. There has been an increase in the number of articles in the field, with 44% of the identified studies published between 2020 and 2022. Fourteen different protocols were identified, with varying components for each operative phase (preoperative; 29, intraoperative; 20, postoperative; 27). The majority of the studies addressed the effectiveness of ERP on clinical outcomes (31/39: 79%). Only two studies (5%) included purely trauma populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies on ERP implementations in the EAS populations were published across a range of countries, with improved outcomes. However, a clear gap in ERP research on trauma laparotomy was identified. This scoping review indicates that standardization of care through ERP implementation has potential to improve the quality of care in both EAS and trauma laparotomy.

A cluster randomised controlled trial, process and economic evaluation of quality improvement collaboratives aligned to a national audit to improve the care for people with diabetes (EQUIPD): study protocol

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes and raised glucose levels are at greater risk of retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, sexual health problems and foot disease. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends continuous subcutaneous 'insulin pump' therapy for people with type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c is above 69 mmol/mol. Insulin pump use can improve quality of life, cut cardiovascular risk and increase treatment satisfaction. About 90,000 people in England and Wales meet NICE criteria for insulin pumps but do not use one. Insulin pump use also varies markedly by deprivation, ethnicity, sex and location. Increasing insulin pump use is a key improvement priority. Audit and feedback is a common but variably effective intervention. Limited capabilities of healthcare providers to mount effective responses to feedback from national audits, such as the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), undermines efforts to improve care. We have co-developed a theoretically and empirically informed quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to strengthen local responses to feedback with patients and carers, national audits and healthcare providers. We will evaluate whether the QIC improves the uptake of insulin pumps following NDA feedback.

METHODS

We will undertake an efficient cluster randomised trial using routine data. The QIC will be delivered alongside the NDA to specialist diabetes teams in England and Wales. Our primary outcome will be the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes and an HbA1c above 69 mmol/mol who start and continue insulin pump use during the 18-month intervention period. Secondary outcomes will assess change in glucose control and duration of pump use. Subgroup analyses will explore impacts upon inequalities by ethnicity, sex, age and deprivation. A theory-informed process evaluation will explore diabetes specialist teams' engagement, implementation, fidelity and tailoring through observations, interviews, surveys and documentary analysis. An economic evaluation will micro-cost the QIC, estimate cost-effectiveness of NDA feedback with QIC and estimate the budget impact of NHS-wide QIC roll out.

DISCUSSION

Our study responds to a need for more head-to-head trials of different ways of reinforcing feedback delivery. Our findings will have implications for other large-scale audit and feedback programmes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN82176651 Registered 18 October 2022.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient

BACKGROUND

This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care.

METHODS

Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations.

RESULTS

Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research

The saying "horses for courses" refers to the idea that different people and things possess different skills or qualities that are appropriate in different situations. In this paper, we apply the analogy of "horses for courses" to stimulate a debate about how and why we need to get better at selecting appropriate implementation research methods that take account of the context in which implementation occurs. To ensure that implementation research achieves its intended purpose of enhancing the uptake of research-informed evidence in policy and practice, we start from a position that implementation research should be explicitly connected to implementation practice. Building on our collective experience as implementation researchers, implementation practitioners (users of implementation research), implementation facilitators and implementation educators and subsequent deliberations with an international, inter-disciplinary group involved in practising and studying implementation, we present a discussion paper with practical suggestions that aim to inform more practice-relevant implementation research.

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres.

METHODS

This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries.

RESULTS

In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries.

Scaling up an intervention to protect preterm infants from neurodevelopmental disabilities - findings from a qualitative process evaluation comparing standard with enhanced quality improvement support packages for maternity units in England

BACKGROUND

A quality improvement strategy (PReCePT) was used in a standard and enhanced format to scale up a clinical intervention (administering magnesium sulphate to women in preterm labour) across all maternity units in England to protect prematurely born infants from neurodevelopmental disabilities. Formal evaluations reported the effectiveness of the standard package alone in increasing the administration of magnesium sulphate. In this paper, we focus on the findings of the process evaluations, using normalisation process theory to explain how different implementation contexts generated the observed outcomes relating to normative and relational restructuring and sustainment.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with key individuals in implementation of leadership positions nationally and locally. Interviews were analysed initially using the framework method. We then engaged recursively with NPT constructs to generate generalisable insights with pragmatic applicability in other settings.

RESULTS

In total, 72 interviews were conducted with good representation from units across England and staff from the National Academic Health Science Network. We found that all units irrespective of whether they received a standard or enhanced QI package were successful in the 'normative restructuring' of their setting to enable magnesium sulphate to be administered. This suggests that this implementation outcome is necessary to achieve improvements. However, it may not be sufficient to sustain the changes once additional resources have been withdrawn. Sustainment, our findings suggest, required 'relational restructuring' to accommodate altered workflows and facilitate the sharing of responsibilities and tasks in daily practice. Relational restructuring was more likely to have been achieved units receiving enhanced QI support but also happened in units with standard QI support, especially in those where perinatal team working was already well established.

CONCLUSION

Unlike other large QI-focused spread-and-scale programmes which failed to show any impact on outcomes, the PReCePT programme in both the enhanced and standard support packages led to improvements in the uptake of magnesium sulphate. The findings suggest that QI programmes interact with the enabling factors, such as strong interprofessional team working, already present in the setting. A standard package with minimal support was therefore sufficient in settings with enabling factors, but enhanced support was required in units where these were absent.

Exploring the intersection of hermeneutics and implementation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

An enduring challenge remains about how to effectively implement programs, services, or practices. Too often, implementation does not achieve its intended effectiveness, fidelity, and sustainability, even when frameworks or theories determine implementation strategies and actions. A different approach is needed. This scoping review joined two markedly different bodies of literature: implementation and hermeneutics. Implementation is usually depicted as focused, direct, and somewhat linear, while hermeneutics attends to the messiness of everyday experience and human interaction. Both, however, are concerned with practical solutions to real-life problems. The purpose of the scoping review was to summarize existing knowledge on how a hermeneutic approach has informed the process of implementing health programs, services, or practices.

METHODS

We completed a scoping review by taking a Gadamerian hermeneutic approach to the JBI scoping review method. Following a pilot search, we searched eight health-related electronic databases using broadly stated terms such as implementation and hermeneutics. A diverse research team that included a patient and healthcare leader, working in pairs, independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles. Through the use of inclusion criteria and full-team dialogue, we selected the final articles and identified their characteristics, hermeneutic features, and implementation components.

RESULTS

Electronic searches resulted in 2871 unique studies. After full-text screening, we retained six articles that addressed both hermeneutics and implementing a program, service, or practice. The studies varied widely in location, topic, implementation strategies, and hermeneutic approach. All addressed assumptions underpinning implementation, the human dimensions of implementing, power differentials, and knowledge creation during implementation. All studies addressed issues foundational to implementing such as cross-cultural communication and surfacing and addressing tensions during processes of change. The studies showed how creating conceptual knowledge was a precursor to concrete, instrumental knowledge for action and behavioral change. Finally, each study demonstrated how the hermeneutic process of the fusion of horizons created new understandings needed for implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Hermeneutics and implementation have rarely been combined. The studies reveal important features that can contribute to implementation success. Implementers and implementation research may benefit from understanding, articulating, and communicating hermeneutic approaches that foster the relational and contextual foundations necessary for successful implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered at the Centre for Open Science on September 10, 2019. MacLeod M, Snadden D, McCaffrey G, Zimmer L, Wilson E, Graham I, et al. A hermeneutic approach to advancing implementation science: a scoping review protocol 2019. Accessed at osf.io/eac37.

The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: an integrative systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Return on Investment (ROI) is increasingly being used to evaluate financial benefits from healthcare Quality Improvement (QI). ROI is traditionally used to evaluate investment performance in the commercial field. Little is known about ROI in healthcare. The aim of this systematic review was to analyse and develop ROI as a concept and develop a ROI conceptual framework for large-scale healthcare QI programmes.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Global health, PsycInfo, EconLit, NHS EED, Web of Science, Google Scholar using ROI or returns-on-investment concepts (e.g., cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, value). We combined this terms with healthcare and QI. Included articles discussed at least three organisational QI benefits, including financial or patient benefits. We synthesised the different ways in which ROI or return-on-investment concepts were used and discussed by the QI literature; first the economically focused, then the non-economically focused QI literature. We then integrated these literatures to summarise their combined views.

RESULTS

We retrieved 10 428 articles. One hundred and two (102) articles were selected for full text screening. Of these 34 were excluded and 68 included. The included articles were QI economic, effectiveness, process, and impact evaluations as well as reports and conceptual literature. Fifteen of 68 articles were directly focused on QI programme economic outcomes. Of these, only four focused on ROI. ROI related concepts in this group included cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, ROI, cost-saving, cost-reduction, and cost-avoidance. The remaining articles mainly mentioned efficiency, productivity, value, or benefits. Financial outcomes were not the main goal of QI programmes. We found that the ROI concept in healthcare QI aligned with the concepts of value and benefit, both monetary and non-monetary.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of the reviewed literature indicates that ROI in QI is conceptualised as value or benefit as demonstrated through a combination of significant outcomes for one or more stakeholders in healthcare organisations. As such, organisations at different developmental stages can deduce benefits that are relevant and legitimate as per their contextual needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Review registration: PROSPERO; CRD42021236948.

Scaling up of safety and quality improvement interventions in perioperative care: a systematic scoping review of implementation strategies and effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Globally, 5 billion people lack access to safe surgical care with more deaths due to lack of quality care rather than lack of access. While many proven quality improvement (QI) interventions exist in high-income countries, implementing them in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) faces further challenges. Currently, theory-driven, systematically articulated knowledge of the factors that support successful scale-up of QI in perioperative care in these settings is lacking. We aimed to identify all perioperative safety and QI interventions applied at scale in LMICs and evaluate their implementation mechanisms using implementation theory.

METHODS

Systematic scoping review of perioperative QI interventions in LMICs from 1960 to 2020. Studies were identified through Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar. Data were extracted in two phases: (1) abstract review to identify the range of QI interventions; (2) studies describing scale-up (three or more sites), had full texts retrieved and analysed for; implementation strategies and scale-up frameworks used; and implementation outcomes reported.

RESULTS

We screened 45 128 articles, identifying 137 studies describing perioperative QI interventions across 47 countries. Only 31 of 137 (23%) articles reported scale-up with the most common intervention being the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. The most common implementation strategies were training and educating stakeholders, developing stakeholder relationships, and using evaluative and iterative strategies. Reporting of implementation mechanisms was generally poor; and although the components of scale-up frameworks were reported, relevant frameworks were rarely referenced.

CONCLUSION

Many studies report implementation of QI interventions, but few report successful scale-up from single to multiple-site implementation. Greater use of implementation science methodology may help determine what works, where and why, thereby aiding more widespread scale-up and dissemination of perioperative QI interventions.

A scoping review of local quality improvement using data from UK perioperative National Clinical Audits

Background

Significant resources are invested in the UK to collect data for National Clinical Audits (NCAs), but it is unclear whether and how they facilitate local quality improvement (QI). The perioperative setting is a unique context for QI due to its multidisciplinary nature and history of measurement. It is unclear which NCAs evaluate perioperative care, to what extent their data have been used for QI, and which factors influence this usage.

Methods

NCAs were identified from the directories held by Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP), Scottish Healthcare Audits and the Welsh National Clinical Audit and Outcome Review Advisory Committee. QI reports were identified by the following: systematically searching MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar and HMIC up to December 2019, hand-searching grey literature and consulting relevant stakeholders. We charted features describing both the NCAs and the QI reports and summarised quantitative data using descriptive statistics and qualitative themes using framework analysis.

Results

We identified 36 perioperative NCAs in the UK and 209 reports of local QI which used data from 19 (73%) of these NCAs. Six (17%) NCAs contributed 185 (89%) of these reports. Only one NCA had a registry of local QI projects. The QI reports were mostly brief, unstructured, often published by NCAs themselves and likely subject to significant reporting bias. Factors reported to influence local QI included the following: perceived data validity, measurement of clinical processes as well as outcomes, timely feedback, financial incentives, sharing of best practice, local improvement capabilities and time constraints of clinicians.

Conclusions

There is limited public reporting of UK perioperative NCA data for local QI, despite evidence of improvement of most NCA metrics at the national level. It is therefore unclear how these improvements are being made, and it is likely that opportunities are being missed to share learning between local sites. We make recommendations for how NCAs could better support the conduct, evaluation and reporting of local QI and suggest topics which future research should investigate.

Trial registration

The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42018092993).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-022-00273-0.

Identifying and understanding benefits associated with return-on-investment from large-scale healthcare Quality Improvement programmes: an integrative systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

We previously developed a Quality Improvement (QI) Return-on-Investment (ROI) conceptual framework for large-scale healthcare QI programmes. We defined ROI as any monetary or non-monetary value or benefit derived from QI. We called the framework the QI-ROI conceptual framework. The current study describes the different categories of benefits covered by this framework and explores the relationships between these benefits.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Global health, PsycInfo, EconLit, NHS EED, Web of Science, Google Scholar, organisational journals, and citations, using ROI or returns-on-investment concepts (e.g., cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, value) combined with healthcare and QI. Our analysis was informed by Complexity Theory in view of the complexity of large QI programmes. We used Framework analysis to analyse the data using a preliminary ROI conceptual framework that was based on organisational obligations towards its stakeholders. Included articles discussed at least three organisational benefits towards these obligations, with at least one financial or patient benefit. We synthesized the different QI benefits discussed.

RESULTS

We retrieved 10 428 articles. One hundred and two (102) articles were selected for full text screening. Of these 34 were excluded and 68 included. Included articles were QI economic, effectiveness, process, and impact evaluations as well as conceptual literature. Based on these literatures, we reviewed and updated our QI-ROI conceptual framework from our first study. Our QI-ROI conceptual framework consists of four categories: 1) organisational performance, 2) organisational development, 3) external outcomes, and 4) unintended outcomes (positive and negative). We found that QI benefits are interlinked, and that ROI in large-scale QI is not merely an end-outcome; there are earlier benefits that matter to organisations that contribute to overall ROI. Organisations also found positive aspects of negative unintended consequences, such as learning from failed QI.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our analysis indicated that the QI-ROI conceptual framework is made-up of multi-faceted and interconnected benefits from large-scale QI programmes. One or more of these may be desirable depending on each organisation's goals and objectives, as well as stage of development. As such, it is possible for organisations to deduce incremental benefits or returns-on-investments throughout a programme lifecycle that are relevant and legitimate.

Data-driven quality improvement program to prevent hospitalisation and improve care of people living with coronary heart disease: Protocol for a process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Practice-level quality improvement initiatives using rapidly advancing technology offers a multidimensional approach to reduce cardiovascular disease burden. For the "QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living with heart disease" (QUEL) cluster randomised controlled trial, a 12-month quality improvement intervention was designed for primary care practices to use data and implement progressive changes using "Plan, Do, Study, Act" cycles within their practices with training in a series of interactive workshops. This protocol aims to describe the systematic methods to conduct a process evaluation of the data-driven intervention within the QUEL study.

METHODS

A mixed-method approach will be used to conduct the evaluation. Quantitative data collected throughout the intervention period, via surveys and intervention materials, will be used to (1) identify the key elements of the intervention and how, for whom and in what context it was effective; (2) determine if the intervention is delivered as intended; and (3) describe practice engagement, commitment and capacity associated with various intervention components. Qualitative data, collected via semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions, will be used to gather in-depth understanding of the (1) satisfaction, utility, barriers and enablers; (2) acceptability, uptake and feasibility, and (3) effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Findings from the evaluation will provide new knowledge on the implementation of a complex, multi-component intervention at practice-level using their own electronic patient data to enhance secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12619001790134.

Maintaining Implementation through Dynamic Adaptations (MIDAS): protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of implementation strategies to optimize and sustain use of evidence-based practices in Veteran Health Administration (VHA) patients

Background

The adoption and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is a challenge within many healthcare systems, especially in settings that have already strived but failed to achieve longer-term goals. The Veterans Affairs (VA) Maintaining Implementation through Dynamic Adaptations (MIDAS) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) program was funded as a series of trials to test multi-component implementation strategies to sustain optimal use of three EBPs: (1) a deprescribing approach intended to reduce potentially inappropriate polypharmacy; (2) appropriate dosing and drug selection of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); and (3) use of cognitive behavioral therapy as first-line treatment for insomnia before pharmacologic treatment. We describe the design and methods for a harmonized series of cluster-randomized control trials comparing two implementation strategies.

Methods

For each trial, we will recruit 8–12 clinics (24–36 total). All will have access to relevant clinical data to identify patients who may benefit from the target EBP at that clinic and provider. For each trial, clinics will be randomized to one of two implementation strategies to improve the use of the EBPs: (1) individual-level academic detailing (AD) or (2) AD plus the team-based Learn. Engage. Act. Process. (LEAP) quality improvement (QI) learning program. The primary outcomes will be operationalized across the three trials as a patient-level dichotomous response (yes/no) indicating patients with potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among those who may benefit from the EBP. This outcome will be computed using month-by-month administrative data. Primary comparison between the two implementation strategies will be analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with clinic-level monthly (13 to 36 months) percent of PIMs as the dependent variable. Primary comparative endpoint will be at 18 months post-baseline. Each trial will also be analyzed independently.

Discussion

MIDAS QUERI trials will focus on fostering sustained use of EBPs that previously had targeted but incomplete implementation. Our implementation approaches are designed to engage frontline clinicians in a dynamic optimization process that integrates the use of actional clinical data and making incremental changes, designed to be feasible within busy clinical settings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05065502. Registered October 4, 2021—retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00297-z.

Delivery of drinking, eating and mobilising (DrEaMing) and its association with length of hospital stay after major noncardiac surgery: observational cohort study

Background

Enhanced recovery pathways are associated with improved postoperative outcomes. However, as enhanced recovery pathways have become more complex and varied, compliance has reduced. The ‘DrEaMing’ bundle re-prioritises early postoperative delivery of drinking, eating, and mobilising. We investigated relationships between DrEaMing compliance, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in a prospective multicentre major surgical cohort.

Methods

We interrogated the UK Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme dataset. Analyses were conducted in four stages. In an exploratory cohort, we identified independent predictors of DrEaMing. We quantified the association between delivery of DrEaMing (and its component variables) and prolonged LOS in a homogenous colorectal subgroup and assessed generalisability in multispecialty patients. Finally, LOS and complications were compared across hospitals, stratified by DrEaMing compliance.

Results

The exploratory cohort comprised 22 218 records, the colorectal subgroup 7230, and the multispecialty subgroup 5713. DrEaMing compliance was 59% (13 112 patients), 60% (4341 patients), and 60% (3421), respectively, but varied substantially between hospitals. Delivery of DrEaMing predicted reduced odds of prolonged LOS in colorectal (odds ratio 0.51 [0.43–0.59], P<0.001) and multispecialty cohorts (odds ratio 0.47 [0.41–0.53], P<0.001). At the hospital level, complications were not the primary determinant of LOS after colorectal surgery, but consistent delivery of DrEaMing was associated with significantly shorter LOS.

Conclusions

Delivery of bundled and unbundled DrEaMing was associated with substantial reductions in postoperative LOS, independent of the effects of confounder variables. Consistency of process delivery, and not complications, predicted shorter hospital-level length of stay. DrEaMing may be adopted by perioperative health systems as a quality metric to support improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital length of stay.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST)—avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to introduce change in the NHS

Background

The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to implement large-scale change in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, specifically for improving outcomes in patients undergoing primary, elective total hip or knee replacement.

Methods

We undertook a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the roll-out of two preoperative pathways: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) decolonisation (infection arm) and anaemia screening and treatment (anaemia arm). NHS Trusts are public sector organisations that provide healthcare within a geographical area. NHS Trusts (n = 41) in England providing primary, elective total hip and knee replacements, but that did not have a preoperative anaemia screening or MSSA decolonisation pathway in place, were randomised to one of the two parallel collaboratives. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. Twenty-seven Trusts completed the trial (11 anaemia, 16 infection). Outcome data were collected for procedures performed between November 2018 and November 2019.

Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infection (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days post-surgery) for the anaemia and infection trial arms, respectively. Secondary outcomes were deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of hospital stay, critical care admissions and unplanned readmissions. Process measures included the proportion of eligible patients receiving each preoperative initiative.

Results

There were 19,254 procedures from 27 NHS Trusts included in the results (6324 from 11 Trusts in the anaemia arm, 12,930 from 16 Trusts in the infection arm). There were no improvements observed for blood transfusion (anaemia arm 183 (2.9%); infection arm 302 (2.3%) transfusions; adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 0.52–2.75, p = 0.67) or MSSA deep SSI (anaemia arm 8 (0.13%); infection arm 18 (0.14%); adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.42–2.46, p = 0.98). There were no significant improvements in any secondary outcome. This is despite process measures showing the preoperative pathways were implemented for 73.7% and 61.1% of eligible procedures in the infection and anaemia arms, respectively.

Conclusions

Quality improvement collaboratives did not result in improved patient outcomes in this trial; however, there was some evidence they may support successful implementation of new preoperative pathways in the NHS.

Trial registration

Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018, ISRCTN11085475

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01193-9.

Improving safety and outcomes in perioperative care: does implementation matter?

The IMPROVE study describes a large perioperative quality improvement project with reporting of both compliance with improvement activities and patient outcomes. It highlights the importance of such projects, as well as the challenges in implementing change and proving benefit. Challenges identified include the importance of effective training in practice change, selection of trial design and relevant quality measures, and how the context of quality improvement initiatives may influence outcomes. Quality improvement programmes of this nature, despite the difficulties with implementation and trial design, remain a high priority because of their positive influence on improving clinical practice.

Enhanced peri-operative care to improve outcomes for high-risk surgical patients in Brazil: a single-centre before-and-after cohort study

Mortality and morbidity for high-risk surgical patients are often high, especially in low-resource settings. Enhanced peri-operative care has the potential to reduce preventable deaths but must be designed to meet local needs. This before-and-after cohort study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a postoperative 48-hour enhanced care pathway for high-risk surgical patients ('high-risk surgical bundle') who did not meet the criteria for elective admission to intensive care. The pathway comprised of six elements: risk identification and communication; adoption of a high-risk post-anaesthesia care unit discharge checklist; prompt nursing admission to ward; intensification of vital signs monitoring; troponin measurement; and prompt access to medical support if required. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Data describing 1189 patients from two groups, before and after implementation of the pathway, were compared. The usual care group comprised a retrospective cohort of high-risk surgical patients between September 2015 and December 2016. The intervention group prospectively included high-risk surgical patients from February 2019 to March 2020. Unadjusted mortality rate was 10.5% (78/746) for the usual care and 6.3% (28/443) for the intervention group. After adjustment, the intervention effect remained significant (RR 0.46 (95%CI 0.30-0.72). The high-risk surgical bundle group received more rapid response team calls (24% vs. 12.6%; RR 0.63 [95%CI 0.49-0.80]) and surgical re-interventions (18.9 vs. 7.5%; RR 0.41 [95%CI 0.30-0.59]). These data suggest that a clinical pathway based on enhanced surveillance for high-risk surgical patients in a resource-constrained setting could reduce in-hospital mortality.

Process evaluations undertaken alongside randomised controlled trials in the hospital setting: A scoping review

Background

There is increasing recognition of the importance of undertaking process evaluations alongside implementation of health interventions by examining mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. However, a comprehensive synthesis of process evaluations undertaken alongside clinical trials in hospital settings is lacking. We undertook a scoping review to address this gap.

Methods

This review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping studies. Studies were identified using four databases; Ovid Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Two authors independently screened all titles and available abstracts, with a third author available to adjudicate. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described a process evaluation undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial in the hospital setting. Data were abstracted by one author and checked by two others and analysed both descriptively and using inductive content analysis.

Results

Data were extracted from 30 articles reporting on 15 trials, most of which were cluster randomised trials (c-RTs) (n = 12). The most common data collection methods used in process evaluations were interviews, questionnaires or surveys, and records or logs. Data analysis revealed three themes relative to how authors: use process data to interpret, understand and explain trial outcomes; evaluate responses to the intervention; and consider the implementation context.

Conclusions

Findings from this review demonstrate the complex nature of intervention implementation in the hospital setting. Overall, there is need for standardised reporting of process evaluations and more explicit descriptions of how authors use frameworks to guide their evaluation.

Increased adherence to perioperative safety guidelines associated with improved patient safety outcomes: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

National Dutch guidelines have been introduced to improve suboptimal perioperative care. A multifaceted implementation programme (IMPlementatie Richtlijnen Operatieve VEiligheid [IMPROVE]) has been developed to support hospitals in applying these guidelines. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IMPROVE on guideline adherence and the association between guideline adherence and patient safety.

METHODS

Nine hospitals participated in this unblinded, superiority, stepped-wedge, cluster RCT in patients with major noncardiac surgery (mortality risk ≥1%). IMPROVE consisted of educational activities, audit and feedback, reminders, organisational, team-directed, and patient-mediated activities. The primary outcome of the study was guideline adherence measured by nine patient safety indicators on the process (stop moments from the composite STOP bundle, and timely administration of antibiotics) and on the structure of perioperative care. Secondary safety outcomes included in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections, mortality, length of hospital stay, and unplanned care.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 1934 patients. The IMPROVE programme improved one stop moment: 'discharge from recovery room' (+16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-23%). This stop moment was related to decreased mortality (-3%; 95% CI, -4% to -1%), fewer complications (-8%; 95% CI, -13% to -3%), and fewer unscheduled transfers to the ICU (-6%; 95% CI, -9% to -3%). IMPROVE negatively affected one other stop moment - 'discharge from the hospital' - possibly because of the limited resources of hospitals to improve all stop moments together.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed implementation effects of IMPROVE were found. We found some positive associations between guideline adherence and patient safety (i.e. mortality, complications, and unscheduled transfers to the ICU) except for the timely administration of antibiotics.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR3568 (Dutch Trial Registry).

Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based paediatric early warning system improvement programme: the PUMA mixed methods study

Background

Paediatric mortality rates in the United Kingdom are amongst the highest in Europe. Clinically missed deterioration is a contributory factor. Evidence to support any single intervention to address this problem is limited, but a cumulative body of research highlights the need for a systems approach.

Methods

An evidence-based, theoretically informed, paediatric early warning system improvement programme (PUMA Programme) was developed and implemented in two general hospitals (no onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) and two tertiary hospitals (with onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) in the United Kingdom. Designed to harness local expertise to implement contextually appropriate improvement initiatives, the PUMA Programme includes a propositional model of a paediatric early warning system, system assessment tools, guidance to support improvement initiatives and structured facilitation and support.

Each hospital was evaluated using interrupted time series and qualitative case studies. The primary quantitative outcome was a composite metric (adverse events), representing the number of children monthly that experienced one of the following: mortality, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, unplanned admission to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, or unplanned admission to Higher Dependency Unit. System changes were assessed qualitatively through observations of clinical practice and interviews with staff and parents. A qualitative evaluation of implementation processes was undertaken.

Results

All sites assessed their paediatric early warning systems and identified areas for improvement. All made contextually appropriate system changes, despite implementation challenges. There was a decline in the adverse event rate trend in three sites; in one site where system wide changes were organisationally supported, the decline was significant (ß = -0.09 (95% CI: − 0.15, − 0.05); p = < 0.001). Changes in trends coincided with implementation of site-specific changes.

Conclusions

System level change to improve paediatric early warning systems can bring about positive impacts on clinical outcomes, but in paediatric practice, where the patient population is smaller and clinical outcomes event rates are low, alternative outcome measures are required to support research and quality improvement beyond large specialist centres, and methodological work on rare events is indicated. With investment in the development of alternative outcome measures and methodologies, programmes like PUMA could improve mortality and morbidity in paediatrics and other patient populations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07314-2.

Process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve bronchiolitis management - a PREDICT mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Bronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users' perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data.

METHODS

A pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use.

CONCLUSION

Our targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415 .

Understanding the performance of a pan-African intervention to reduce postoperative mortality: a mixed-methods process evaluation of the ASOS-2 trial

BACKGROUND

The African Surgical OutcomeS-2 (ASOS-2) trial tested an enhanced postoperative surveillance intervention to reduce postoperative mortality in Africa. We undertook a concurrent evaluation to understand the process of intervention delivery.

METHODS

Mixed-methods process evaluation, including field notes, interviews, and post-trial questionnaire responses. Qualitative analysis used the framework method with subsequent creation of comparative case studies, grouping hospitals by intervention fidelity. A post-trial questionnaire was developed using initial qualitative analyses. Categorical variables were summarised as count (%) and continuous variables as median (inter-quartile range [IQR]). Odds ratios (OR) were used to rank influences by impact on fidelity.

RESULTS

The dataset included eight in-depth case studies, and 96 questionnaire responses (response rate 67%) plus intervention fidelity data for each trial site. Overall, 57% (n=55/96) of hospitals achieved intervention delivery using an inclusive definition of fidelity. Delivery of the ASOS-2 interventions and data collection presented a significant burden to the investigators, outstripping limited resources. The influences most associated with fidelity were: surgical staff enthusiasm for the trial (OR=3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-7.0); nursing management support of the trial (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.5); performance of a dummy run (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1); nursing colleagues seeing the value of the intervention(s) (OR=2.1; 95% CI, 0.9-5.7); and site investigators' belief in the effectiveness of the intervention (OR=3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-9.4).

CONCLUSIONS

ASOS-2 has proved that coordinated interventional research across Africa is possible, but delivering the ASOS-2 interventions was a major challenge for many investigators. Future improvement science efforts must include better planning for intervention delivery, additional support to investigators, and promotion of strong inter-professional teamwork.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials gov NCT03853824.

Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis

Background

The study objective was to analyse the implementation challenges experienced in carrying out the IMPROVE programme. This programme was designed to implement checklist-related improvement initiatives based on the national perioperative guidelines using a stepped-wedge trial design. A process analysis was carried out to investigate the involvement in the implementation activities.

Methods

An involvement rating measure was developed to express the extent to which the implementation programme was carried out in the hospitals. This measure reflects the number of IMPROVE-implementation activities executed and the estimated participation in these activities in all nine participating hospitals. These data were compared with prospectively collected field notes.

Results

Considerable variation between the hospitals was found with involvement ratings ranging from 0 to 6 (mean per measurement = 1.83 on a scale of 0–11). Major implementation challenges were respectively the study design (fixed design, time planning, long duration, repeated measurements, and data availability); the selection process of hospitals, departments and key contact person(s) (inadequately covering the entire perioperative team and stand-alone surgeons); the implementation programme (programme size and scope, tailoring, multicentre, lack of mandate, co-interventions by the Inspectorate, local intervention initiatives, intervention fatigue); and competitive events such as hospital mergers or the introduction of new IT systems, all reducing involvement.

Conclusions

The process analysis approach helped to explain the limited and delayed execution of the IMPROVE-implementation programme. This turned out to be very heterogeneous between hospitals, with variation in the number and content of implementation activities carried out. The identified implementation challenges reflect a high complexity with regard to the implementation programme, study design and setting. The involvement of the target professionals was put under pressure by many factors. We mostly encountered challenges, but at the same time we provide solutions for addressing them. A less complex implementation programme, a less fixed study design, a better thought-out selection of contact persons, as well as more commitment of the hospital management and surgeons would likely have contributed to better implementation results.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568, retrospectively registered on 2 August 2012.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07090-z.

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.

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update

BACKGROUND

The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.

METHODS

There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.

RESULTS

Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout.

LIMITATIONS

The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.

CONCLUSIONS

This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers.

FUTURE WORK

We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.

FUNDING

This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Implementation Strategies and the Uptake of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify the implementation strategies used in World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) uptake in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); examine any association of implementation strategies with implementation effectiveness; and to assess the clinical impact.

BACKGROUND

The SSC is associated with improved surgical outcomes but effective implementation strategies are poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from June 2008 to February 2019 and included primary studies on SSC use in LMICs. Coprimary objectives were identification of implementation strategies used and evaluation of associations between strategies and implementation effectiveness. To assess the clinical impact of the SSC, we estimated overall pooled relative risks for mortality and morbidity. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018100034).

RESULTS

We screened 1562 citations and included 47 papers. Median number of discrete implementation strategies used per study was 4 (IQR: 1-14, range 0-28). No strategies were identified in 12 studies. SSC implementation occurred with high penetration (81%, SD 20%) and fidelity (85%, SD 13%), but we did not detect an association between implementation strategies and implementation outcomes. SSC use was associated with a reduction in mortality (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67-0.89), all complications (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.71) and infectious complications (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.37-0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

The SSC is used with high fidelity and penetration is associated with improved clinical outcomes in LMICs. Implementation appears well supported by a small number of tailored strategies. Further application of implementation science methodology is required among the global surgical community.

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve hospital discharge: process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients.

DESIGN

Extension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering.

SETTING

General internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Convenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Two-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine.

PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS

Data collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Intervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies.

RESULTS

Recruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18427377.

A comparison of intensive vs. light-touch quality improvement interventions for maternal health in Uttar Pradesh, India

Background

Poor patient experiences during delivery leads to delayed presentation at facilities and contributes to poor maternal health outcomes. Person-centered maternity care (PCMC) is a key component of quality. Improving PCMC requires changing the process of care which can be complex and necessitate significant external input, making replication and scale difficult. This study compares the effectiveness two Quality Improvement (QI) intervention phases, one Intensive, one Light-Touch.

Methods

We use a matched case-control design to compare two phases of a QI Intervention targeting PCMC, with three facilities in each. The Intensive phase was introduced into three government facilities where teams were supported to identify, design, and test potential improvements over 12 months. The Light-Touch phase was subsequently introduced in three other government facilities and changes were tracked over six months. We compared the two groups using multivariate linear regression and difference-in-difference models to assess changes in PCMC outcome

Results

Both Intensive and Light-Touch arms demonstrated large improvements in PCMC. On a scale from 0 to 100, Intensive facilities increased in PCMC scores from 85.02 to 97.13, while Light-Touch facilities increased from 63.42 to 87.47. For both there was a ‘halo’ effect, with a similar improvement recorded for the specific improvement activities focused on, as w ell as aspects of PCMC not directly addressed.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that a short, inexpensive, light-touch and directive intervention can change staff practices and significantly improve the experiences of women during childbirth. It also shows that improvements in a few areas of provider-patient interaction have a ‘halo’ effect, changing many other aspects of patient-provider interaction at the same time.

Trial registration

QI Phase 1 - NCT04208867. Retrospectively registered. December 19th, 2019.

QI Phase 2 –NCT04208841. Retrospectively registered. December 23, 2019.

Feasibility of Enhanced Recovery in Emergency Colorectal Operation

BACKGROUND

Emergency colorectal operations account for considerable surgical morbidity, leading to increased recognition of the importance of standardized care. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have successfully provided a framework to standardize elective surgical care, with some ERP elements spreading to emergency procedures. This study aims to characterize the degree of spread and demonstrate feasibility of ERP extension to emergency colorectal operations.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing colorectal operations were identified from a national ERP collaborative. Adherence to ERP process measures-multimodal pain control, early Foley removal, postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, early mobilization, early feeding, and 30-day clinical outcomes-was analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate association between process measure adherence and 30-day clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 31,511 patients underwent colorectal operations at 235 hospitals; 3,086 were emergencies and 28,425 were elective. For emergency cases, rates of early Foley removal (92.0%) and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (75.7%) were highest. Rates of multimodal pain control (55.9%), early mobilization (37.1%), and early liquid intake (33.4%) were modest. Nonadherence was more common in patients younger than 65 years (43.4%), with independent functional status (94%), American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification 1 to 3 (62.5%), and without physiologic derangement (39.9%). Lack of mobilization or liquid intake was independently associated with increased odds of ileus (odds ratio [OR] 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.75 and OR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.96 to 2.95) and prolonged length of stay (OR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.85 to 2.83 and OR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.70 to 2.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the unplanned nature of emergency colorectal operations historically excluded patients from ERPs, our findings suggest ERPs have observable diffusion beyond elective surgical procedures. Deliberate implementation with adherence auditing can improve ERP uptake and outcomes in emergency colorectal operations.

Quality improvement and emergency laparotomy care: what have we learnt from recent major QI efforts?

More than 1.53 million adults undergo inpatient surgery in the UK NHS. Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery have a much greater risk of death than patients admitted for elective surgery. Widespread variations in key standards of care between hospitals exist and are associated with differences in mortality rates.Recently there have been three large-scale initiatives to improve quality of care for emergency laparotomy patients: the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit, the enhanced perioperative care for high-risk patients trial and the Emergency Laparotomy Collaborative. Here we provide a critical review of what we currently know about the use of structured methods for improving the quality of healthcare services, with reference to the three initiatives. We find that using structured methods to improve care is the hallmark of quality improvement but attention must too be paid to the context in which these methods are used.

Scaling up perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) services; use of a logic model approach

Perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) services are gaining traction, in acknowledgment of the poorer outcomes experienced by older surgical patients. In response to the NHS' growing focus on scaling innovation, a logic model of the POPS service at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust was developed to articulate a founding centre's experience. The logic model was applied as a means of service evaluation and to guide implementation of a new POPS service at a district general trust. This is a novel study within the field of perioperative medicine for older people, interlinking implementation science theory to achieve meaningful clinical results and describe the lessons learnt during the process. Future work will include validation of this logic model to facilitate national POPS scale-up.

Facilitators and "deal breakers": a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams

BACKGROUND

High quality goal setting in stroke rehabilitation is vital, but challenging to deliver. The G-AP framework (including staff training and a stroke survivor held G-AP record) guides patient centred goal setting with stroke survivors in community rehabilitation teams. We found G-AP was acceptable, feasible to deliver and clinically useful in one team. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed methods investigation of G-AP implementation in diverse community teams prior to a large-scale evaluation.

METHODS

We approached Scottish community rehabilitation teams to take part. Following training, G-AP was delivered to stroke survivors within participating teams for 6 months. We investigated staff experiences of G-AP training and its implementation using focus groups and a training questionnaire. We investigated fidelity of G-AP delivery through case note review. Focus group data were analysed using a Framework approach; identified themes were mapped into Normalisation Process Theory constructs. Questionnaire and case note data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

We recruited three teams comprising 55 rehabilitation staff. Almost all staff (93%, 51/55) participated in G-AP training; of those, 80% (n = 41/51) completed the training questionnaire. Training was rated as 'good' or 'very good' by almost all staff (92%, n = 37/41). G-AP was broadly implemented as intended in two teams. Implementation facilitators included - G-AP 'made sense'; repetitive use of G-AP in practice; flexible G-AP delivery and positive staff appraisals of G-AP impact. G-AP failed to gain traction in the third team. Implementation barriers included - delays between G-AP training and implementation; limited leadership engagement; a poor 'fit' between G-AP and the team organisational structure and simultaneous delivery of other goal setting methods. Staff recommended (i) development of training to include implementation planning; (ii) ongoing local implementation review and tailoring, and (iii) development of electronic and aphasia friendly G-AP records.

CONCLUSIONS

The interaction between G-AP and the practice setting is critical to implementation success or failure. Whilst facilitators support implementation success, barriers can collectively act as implementation "deal breakers". Local G-AP implementation efforts should be planned, monitored and tailored. These insights can inform implementation of other complex interventions in community rehabilitation settings.

Using the Knowledge to Action Framework to Describe a Nationwide Implementation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in Cameroon

BACKGROUND

Surgical safety has advanced rapidly with evidence of improved patient outcomes through structural and process interventions. However, knowledge of how to apply these interventions successfully and sustainably at scale is often lacking. The 2019 Global Ministerial Patient Safety Summit called for a focus on implementation strategies to maintain momentum in patient safety improvements, especially in low- and middle-income settings. This study uses an implementation framework, knowledge to action, to examine a model of nationwide World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist implementation in Cameroon. Cameroon is a lower-middle-income country, and based on data from high- and low-income countries, we hypothesized that more than 50% of participants would be using the checklist (penetration) in the correct manner (fidelity) 4 months postintervention.

METHODS

A collaboration of 3 stakeholders (Ministry of Health, academic institution, and nongovernmental organization) used a prospective observational design. Based on knowledge to action, there were 3 phases to the study implementation: problem identification (lack of routine checklist use in Cameroonian hospitals), multifaceted implementation strategy (3-day multidisciplinary training course, coaching, facilitated leadership engagement, and support networks), and outcome evaluation 4 months postintervention. Validated implementation outcomes were assessed. Primary outcomes were checklist use (penetration) and fidelity; secondary outcomes were perioperative teams' reactions, learning and behavior change; and tertiary outcomes were perioperative teams' acceptability of the checklist.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifty-one operating room staff members from 25 hospitals received training. Median time to evaluation was 4.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.5-5.5, range 3-7); checklist use (penetration) increased from 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16-25) to 56% (95% CI, 49-63); fidelity for adherence to 6 basic safety processes was high: verification of patient identification was 91% (95% CI, 87-95); risk assessment for difficult intubation was 79% (95% CI, 73-85): risk assessment for blood loss was 88% (95% CI, 83-93) use of pulse oximetry was 93% (95% CI, 90-97); antibiotic administration was 95% (95% CI, 91-98); surgical counting was 89% (95% CI, 84-93); and fidelity for nontechnical skills measured by the WHO Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale was 4.5 of 7 (95% CI, 3.5-5.4). Median scores for all secondary outcomes were 10/10, and 7 acceptability measures were consistently more than 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a multifaceted implementation strategy is associated with successful checklist implementation in a lower-middle-income country such as Cameroon, and suggests that a theoretical framework can be used to practically drive nationwide scale-up of checklist use.

APACHE II score validation in emergency abdominal surgery. A post hoc analysis of the InCare trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Accurate identification of high-risk patients is important. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score needs to be validated in a larger heterogeneous population before implementation. We aimed to assess the predictive value of the APACHE II score in emergency abdominal surgical patients. Furthermore, we compared the APACHE II score with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

METHODS

We included adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery screened for enrolment in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. The APACHE II score was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) statistics. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and admission to the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

We included a total of 885 patients. All-cause 30-day mortality was 5.0%, 90-day mortality was 8.9%, and a total of 7.9% of the patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The AUROC (95% confidence interval) of the APACHE II score was 0.72 (0.65-0.80) for 30-day mortality, 0.70 (0.64-0.76) for 90-day mortality and 0.65 (0.59-0.71) for admission to the intensive care unit. The CCI performed better in prediction of 90-day mortality (P = .04). All other results for the ASA score and CCI were comparable with the APACHE II score.

CONCLUSION

The APACHE II score predicted mortality moderately and admission to intensive care unit poorly in emergency abdominal surgical patients.

Priorities for peri-operative research in Africa

Deaths following surgery are the third largest contributor to deaths globally, and in Africa are twice the global average. There is a need for a peri-operative research agenda to ensure co-ordinated, collaborative research efforts across Africa in order to decrease peri-operative mortality. The objective was to determine the top 10 research priorities for peri-operative research in Africa. A Delphi technique was used to establish consensus on the top research priorities. The top 10 research priorities identified were (1) Develop training standards for peri-operative healthcare providers (surgical, anaesthesia and nursing) in Africa; (2) Develop minimum provision of care standards for peri-operative healthcare providers (surgical, anaesthesia and nursing) in Africa; (3) Early identification and management of mothers at risk from peripartum haemorrhage in the peri-operative period; (4) The role of communication and teamwork between surgical, anaesthetic, nursing and other teams involved in peri-operative care; (5) A facility audit/African World Health Organization situational analysis tool audit to assess emergency and essential surgical care, which includes anaesthetic equipment available and level of training and knowledge of peri-operative healthcare providers (surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses); (6) Establishing evidence-based practice guidelines for peri-operative physicians in Africa; (7) Economic analysis of strategies to finance access to surgery in Africa; (8) Establishment of a minimum dataset surgical registry; (9) A quality improvement programme to improve implementation of the surgical safety checklist; and (10) Peri-operative outcomes associated with emergency surgery. These peri-operative research priorities provide the structure for an intermediate-term research agenda to improve peri-operative outcomes across Africa.

Cost-effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery: Learning from 15,856 patients

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are exposed to a high risk of death. A quality improvement (QI) programme to improve the survival for these patients was evaluated in the Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients (EPOCH) trial. This study aims to assess its cost-effectiveness versus usual care from a UK health service perspective.

METHODS

Data collected in a subsample of trial participants were employed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the QI programme and usual care within the 180-day trial period, with results also extrapolated to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The probability of being cost-effective was determined for different cost-effectiveness thresholds (£13,000 to £30,000 per QALY). Analyses were performed for lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups based on the number of surgical indications (single vs multiple).

RESULTS

Within the trial period, QI was more costly (£467) but less effective (-0.002 QALYs). Over a lifetime, it was more costly (£1395) and more effective (0.018 QALYs), but did not appear to be cost-effective (ICER: £77,792 per QALY, higher than all cost-effectiveness thresholds; probability of being cost-effective: 28.7%-43.8% across the thresholds). For lower-risk patients, QI was more costly and less effective both within trial period and over a lifetime and it did not appear to be cost-effective. For higher-risk patients, it was more costly and more effective, and did not appear cost-effective within the trial period (ICER: £158,253 per QALY) but may be cost-effective over a lifetime (ICER: £14,293 per QALY).

CONCLUSION

The QI programme does not appear cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. For patients with multiple surgical indications, this programme is potentially cost-effective over a lifetime, but this is highly uncertain.