Facilitators and Barriers in the Implementation and Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements in Daily Practice

Objectives: At the Erasmus Medical Center, patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are implemented on a hospital-wide scale. However, less than half of the patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) use these PROMs. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate facilitators and barriers for adoption of PROMs to develop guidance around implementation. Methods: A mixed-methods study with a combination of interviews and focus groups and questionnaires was conducted, involving patients, both PROM nonresponders and PROM responders, HCPs, and medicine students and nurse specialists in training (hereafter “students”). Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic content analysis. Subsequently, questionnaires were developed and presented to all stakeholders to validate the findings. Finally, identified themes and implementation recommendations were presented in a final questionnaire to the Value-Based Healthcare Erasmus Medical Center expert group to prioritize findings. Results: Interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 14 HCPs and 4 students, and 2 focus groups with 5 students. The questionnaire was completed by 370 of 999 responders (37.0%), 173 of 1395 nonresponders (12.5%), and 44 of 194 HCPs (22.7%), and 40 students were reached via an open link. The identified facilitators and barriers were grouped into 4 overarching themes: training on PROMs at different levels in the education of (future) HCPs, motivate and reduce the burden for the HCP, implement generic and disease-specific PROMs simultaneously, and motivate, activate, and reduce the patient burden. Conclusions: Providing end users with digital tools, implementation support, and a clear hospital-wide vision is important, yet this does not guarantee successful adoption of PROMs. Successful adoption necessitates ongoing efforts to engage, motivate, and train end users.</p

Effects on staff outcomes and process evaluation of the educating nursing staff effectively (TENSE) program for managing challenging behavior in nursing home residents with dementia: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Challenging behavior is prevalent in people with dementia residing in nursing homes and places a high burden on the nursing staff of dementia special care units. This study evaluates an educational program for nursing staff for managing challenging behavior: The Educating Nursing Staff Effectively (TENSE) program. This program can be tailored to care organizations' wishes and needs and combines various learning styles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cluster-randomized controlled trial was to examine the short-term (3 months) and long-term (9 months) effects of the TENSE training program on experienced stress, work contentment, and stress reactions at work in nursing staff working in dementia special care units. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Nursing staff members of 18 dementia special care units within nine nursing homes from different Netherlands regions were randomized into an intervention (n = 168) or control (n = 129) group. The TENSE program consisted of a three-day training course and two follow-up sessions after three and six months, respectively. The primary outcome was stress experienced by nursing staff measured with the Utrecht Burnout Scale - C. Secondary outcomes were work contentment and stress reactions at work. Furthermore, process evaluation data on the reach of and compliance with the program and the program's feasibility and relevance were collected. Data were collected between November 2012 and November 2014. RESULTS: In general, the participants appreciated the quality and relevance of the TENSE training and evaluated the content of the training as beneficial. The TENSE training had no effect on the components of experienced stress, i.e., emotional exhaustion (p = 0.751), depersonalization (p = 0.701), and personal accomplishment (p = 0.182). Furthermore, no statistically significant effects of the intervention on work contentment and stress reactions at work were found. CONCLUSIONS: The TENSE training program did not have an effect on experienced stress, work contentment, nor stress reactions at work of nursing staff working in dementia special care units. In future studies, more focus on practicing new skills seems needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR (Dutch Trial Registration) number NTR3620

Systematic care for caregivers of people with dementia in the ambulatory mental health service: designing a multicentre, cluster, randomized, controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 81435.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Care for people with dementia and their informal caregivers is a challenging aim in healthcare. There is an urgent need for cost-effective support programs that prevent informal caregivers of people with dementia from becoming overburdened, which might result in a delay or decrease of patient institutionalization. For this reason, we have developed the Systematic Care Program for Dementia (SCPD). The SCPD consists of an assessment of caregiver's sense of competence and suggestions on how to deal with competence deficiencies. The efficiency of the SCPD will be evaluated in our study. METHODS AND DESIGN: In our ongoing, cluster, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial, the participants in six mental health services in four regions of the Netherlands have been randomized per service. Professionals of the ambulatory mental health services (psychologists and social psychiatric nurses) have been randomly allocated to either the intervention group or the control group. The study population consists of community-dwelling people with dementia and their informal caregivers (patient-caregiver dyads) coming into the health service. The dyads have been clustered to the professionals. The primary outcome measure is the patient's admission to a nursing home or home for the elderly at 12 months of follow-up. This measure is the most important variable for estimating cost differences between the intervention group and the control group. The secondary outcome measure is the quality of the patient's and caregiver's lives. DISCUSSION: A novelty in the SCPD is the pro-active and systematic approach. The focus on the caregiver's sense of competence is relevant to economical healthcare, since this sense of competence is an important determinant of delay of institutionalization of people with dementia. The SCPD might be able to facilitate this with a relatively small cost investment for caregivers' support, which could result in a major decrease in costs in the management of dementia. Implementation on a national level will be started if the SCPD proves to be efficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00147693

Influence of adherence to a systematic care program for caregivers of dementia patients

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of adherence to the Systematic Care Program for Dementia (SCPD) intervention protocol on patient and caregiver outcomes. DESIGN: Data were drawn from the SCPD study-a single-blind, multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Multivariate regression analyses were used to assess the influence of adherence on patient and caregiver outcomes. SETTING: Six community mental health services (CMHSs) across the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight mental health professionals treating 125 patient-caregiver dyads who were referred to the CMHS because of suspected patient dementia. INTERVENTION: Training of professionals in the SCPD and its subsequent use. The SCPD consists of a systematic assessment of caregiver problems and consequent interventions. MEASUREMENTS: The dependent variables were caregiver's sense of competence, caregiver's depressive symptoms, caregiver's distress due to the patient's behavioral problems, and the severity of patient's behavioral problems. The main independent variables were adherence to the SCPD intervention protocol and the intensity of the SCPD interventions. The follow-up lasted 12 months. RESULTS: Caregivers treated by adhering professionals had a better sense of competence than caregivers treated by nonadhering professionals at follow-up. No differences between intervention groups and controls were found for the other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Nonadherence to the intervention protocol might be a reason for the difference found in the sense of competence between the intervention groups. Furthermore, the intensity of the SCPD might have been too low. Moreover, it might be that overburdened caregivers found it difficult to make effective use of the help offered to them. A qualitative process analysis should be executed to explore more in-depth clarifications

Systematic care for caregivers of patients with dementia: a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Systematic Care Program for Dementia (SCPD) on patient institutionalization and to determine the predictors of institutionalization. DESIGN: Single-blind, multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Six community mental health services (CMHSs) across the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 295 patient-caregiver dyads referred to a CMHS with suspected patient dementia. INTERVENTION: Training of health professionals in the SCPD and its subsequent use. The SCPD consists of a systematic assessment of caregiver problems and alerts health professionals in flexible, connecting, proactive interventions to them. The intensity of the SCPD depends on the judgment of the health professional, based on individual caregiver needs. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Institutionalization in long-term care facilities at 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: No main intervention effect on institutionalization was found. However, a better sense of competence in the control group reduced the chance of institutionalization but not in the intervention group. The caregiver's sense of competence and depressive symptoms and the patient's behavioral problems and severity of dementia were the strongest predictors of institutionalization. The intensity of the program was low, even for dyads exposed to the SCPD. CONCLUSIONS: Although no main effect was found, the results suggest that the SCPD might prevent a deterioration of the sense of competence in the intervention group. The intensity of a program is crucial and should be prescribed on the basis of evidence rather than left to the discretion of health professionals. Future controlled trials in daily clinical practice should use a process analysis to control for compliance

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19

BACKGROUND: COVID‐19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life‐threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID‐19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID‐19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID‐19 clinics, has COVID‐19. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID‐19, or recruited known cases with COVID‐19 and also controls without COVID‐19 from a single‐gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS‐CoV‐2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full‐text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS‐2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID‐19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty‐five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in‐ and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID‐19 disease from COVID‐19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non‐consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID‐19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT‐PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID‐19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID‐19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty‐four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID‐19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID‐19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID‐19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia

Hippocampal extracellular matrix alterations contribute to cognitive impairment associated with a chronic depressive-like state in rats

Patients with depression often suffer from cognitive impairments that contribute to disease burden. We used social defeat-induced persistent stress (SDPS) to induce a depressive-like state in rats and then studied long-lasting memory deficits in the absence of acute stressors in these animals. The SDPS rat model showed reduced short-term object location memory and maintenance of long-term potentiation (LTP) in CA1 pyramidal neurons of the dorsal hippocampus. SDPS animals displayed increased expression of synaptic chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans in the dorsal hippocampus. These effects were abrogated by a 3-week treatment with the antidepressant imipramine starting 8 weeks after the last defeat encounter. Next, we observed an increase in the number of perineuronal nets (PNNs) surrounding parvalbumin-expressing interneurons and a decrease in the frequency of inhibitory postsynaptic currents (IPSCs) in the hippocampal CA1 region in SDPS animals. In vivo breakdown of the hippocampus CA1 extracellular matrix by the enzyme chondroitinase ABC administered intracranially restored the number of PNNs, LTP maintenance, hippocampal inhibitory tone, and memory performance on the object place recognition test. Our data reveal a causal link between increased hippocampal extracellular matrix and the cognitive deficits associated with a chronic depressive-like state in rats exposed to SDPS