Mixed methods process evaluation of an enhanced community-based rehabilitation intervention for elderly patients with hip fracture

Implementing an intervention to enhance care delivery and consistency for people with hip fracture and cognitive impairment in acute hospital wards: a mixed methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled feasibility trial (PERFECTED)

OBJECTIVES

To determine how, and under what circumstances, the PERFECT-ER intervention was implemented in five acute hospital wards and impacted on staff practices and perceptions.

DESIGN

Mixed methods process evaluation (undertaken between 2016 and 2018).

SETTING

Five acute hospital wards across three different UK regions.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n=3) admitted to acute wards with hip fracture and cognitive impairment, their relatives (n=29) and hospital staff (n=63).

INTERVENTIONS

PERFECT-ER, a multicomponent intervention designed to enhance the recovery of patients with hip fracture and cognitive impairment was implemented for 18 months. PERFECT-ER was implemented at ward level ensuring that multiple new and existing practices were undertaken consistently, on the assumption that collectively, small individual advances would improve care delivery for patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Implementation of the PERFECT-ER intervention examined through regular intervention scores, service improvement staff reports and action plans, and semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

RESULTS

The process evaluation identified points of implementation vulnerability and strength. All wards implemented some elements of PERFECT-ER. Implementation was fragile when ward pressures were high and when ward staff perceived the relative priority of intervention practices to be low. Adaptations to the implementation process may have reduced whole-ward staff engagement with implementation. However, strategical enlistment of senior ward influencers (such as ward managers, orthogeriatricians) combined with service improvement lead in-ward peer pressure tactics facilitated implementation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that implementation was expediated when senior staff were on board as opinion leaders and formally appointed internal implementation leaders exerted their power. Within hierarchical settings such as acute wards, key individuals appeared to influence implementation through endorsement and sometimes enforcement. This indicates that whole-ward interventions may not always require cognitive engagement from all ward staff to implement changes. Future ward-level implementation studies could consider how best to engage staff and most importantly, which staff to best target.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN99336264.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome - 'poor outcome' - was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below. Inpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. Ambulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Three trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. One trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty. The generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true. Given the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.

Orthogeriatric co-management for the care of older subjects with hip fracture: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus

BACKGROUND

Health outcomes of older subjects with hip fracture (HF) may be negatively influenced by multiple comorbidities and frailty. An integrated multidisciplinary approach (i.e. the orthogeriatric model) is, therefore, highly recommended, but its implementation in clinical practice suffers from the lack of shared management protocols and poor awareness of the problem. The present consensus document has been implemented to address these issues.

AIM

To develop evidence-based recommendations for the orthogeriatric co-management of older subjects with HF.

METHODS

A 20-member Expert Task Force of geriatricians, orthopaedics, anaesthesiologists, physiatrists, physiotherapists and general practitioners was established to develop evidence-based recommendations for the pre-, peri-, intra- and postoperative care of older in-patients (≥ 65 years) with HF. A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force system was used to rate the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 120 recommendations were proposed, covering 32 clinical topics and concerning preoperative evaluation (11 topics), perioperative (8 topics) and intraoperative (3 topics) management, and postoperative care (10 topics).

CONCLUSION

These recommendations should ease and promote the multidisciplinary management of older subjects with HF by integrating the expertise of different specialists. By providing a convenient list of topics of interest, they might assist in identifying unmet needs and research priorities.

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.

Protocol for a definitive randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a community-based rehabilitation programme following hip fracture: fracture in the elderly multidisciplinary rehabilitation-phase III (FEMuR III)

INTRODUCTION

Proximal femoral (hip) fracture is common, serious and costly. Rehabilitation may improve functional recovery but evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are lacking. An enhanced rehabilitation intervention was previously developed and a feasibility study tested the methods used for this randomised controlled trial (RCT). The objectives are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the enhanced rehabilitation programme following surgical repair of proximal femoral fracture in older people compared with usual care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Protocol for phase III, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority, pragmatic RCT with 1:1 allocation ratio; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with a built-in random element; secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be usual care (control) and usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation programme (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation will consist of a patient-held information workbook, goal setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blind; patient and carer participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 17 and 52 weeks' follow-up. Primary outcome at 52 weeks will be the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale. Secondary outcomes will measure anxiety and depression, health utility, cognitive status, hip pain intensity, falls self-efficacy, fear of falling, grip strength and physical function. Carer strain, anxiety and depression will be measured in carers. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events will be assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis from a health service and personal social care perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the enhanced rehabilitation programme.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

National Health Service research ethics approval reference 18/NE/0300. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN28376407; Pre-results registered on 23 November 2018.