CONNECT for quality: protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial to improve fall prevention in nursing homes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Quality improvement (QI) programs focused on mastery of content by individual staff members are the current standard to improve resident outcomes in nursing homes. However, complexity science suggests that learning is a social process that occurs within the context of relationships and interactions among individuals. Thus, QI programs will not result in optimal changes in staff behavior unless the context for social learning is present. Accordingly, we developed CONNECT, an intervention to foster systematic use of management practices, which we propose will enhance effectiveness of a nursing home Falls QI program by strengthening the staff-to-staff interactions necessary for clinical problem-solving about complex problems such as falls. The study aims are to compare the impact of the CONNECT intervention, plus a falls reduction QI intervention (CONNECT + FALLS), to the falls reduction QI intervention alone (FALLS), on fall-related process measures, fall rates, and staff interaction measures.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>Sixteen nursing homes will be randomized to one of two study arms, CONNECT + FALLS or FALLS alone. Subjects (staff and residents) are clustered within nursing homes because the intervention addresses social processes and thus must be delivered within the social context, rather than to individuals. Nursing homes randomized to CONNECT + FALLS will receive three months of CONNECT first, followed by three months of FALLS. Nursing homes randomized to FALLS alone receive three months of FALLs QI and are offered CONNECT after data collection is completed. Complexity science measures, which reflect staff perceptions of communication, safety climate, and care quality, will be collected from staff at baseline, three months after, and six months after baseline to evaluate immediate and sustained impacts. FALLS measures including quality indicators (process measures) and fall rates will be collected for the six months prior to baseline and the six months after the end of the intervention. Analysis will use a three-level mixed model.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>By focusing on improving local interactions, CONNECT is expected to maximize staff's ability to implement content learned in a falls QI program and integrate it into knowledge and action. Our previous pilot work shows that CONNECT is feasible, acceptable and appropriate.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00636675">NCT00636675</a></p

TEAM-UP for quality: a cluster randomized controlled trial protocol focused on preventing pressure ulcers through repositioning frequency and precipitating factors

Background: Pressure ulcers/injuries (PrUs), a critical concern for nursing homes (NH), are responsible for chronic wounds, amputations, septic infections, and premature deaths. PrUs occur most commonly in older adults and NH residence is a risk factor for their development, with at least one of every nine U.S. NH residents experiencing a PrU and many NHs having high incidence and prevalence rates, in some instances well over 20%. PrU direct treatment costs are greater than prevention costs, making prevention-focused protocols critical. Current PrU prevention protocols recommend repositioning residents at moderate, high, and severe risk every 2 h. The advent of visco- elastic (VE) high-density foam support-surfaces over the past decade may now make it possible to extend the repositioning interval to every 3 or 4 h without increasing PrU development. The TEAM-UP (Turn Everyone And Move for Ulcer Prevention) study aims to determine: 1) whether repositioning interval can be extended for NH residents without compromising PrU incidence and 2) how changes in medical severity interact with changes in risk level and repositioning schedule to predict PrU development. Methods: In this proposed cluster randomized study, 9 NHs will be randomly assigned to one of three repositioning intervals (2, 3, or 4 h) for a 4-week period. Each enrolled site will use a single NH-wide repositioning interval as the standard of care for residents at low, moderate, and high risk of PrU development (N = 951) meeting the following criteria: minimum 3-day stay, without PrUs, no adhesive allergy, and using VE support surfaces (mattresses). An FDA-cleared patient monitoring system that records position/movement of these residents via individual wireless sensors will be used to visually cue staff when residents need repositioning and document compliance with repositioning protocols. Discussion: This study will advance knowledge about repositioning frequency and clinically assessed PrU risk level in relation to PrU incidence and medical severity. Outcomes of this research will contribute to future guidelines for more precise preventive nursing practices and refinement of PrU prevention guidelines. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02996331

Perspectives on Deprescribing in long-term care: qualitative findings from nurses, aides, residents, and proxies

Abstract Background Deprescribing initiatives in the long-term care (LTC) setting are often unsuccessful or not sustained. Prior research has considered how physicians and pharmacists feel about deprescribing, yet little is known about the perspectives of frontline nursing staff and residents. Our aim was to elicit perspectives from LTC nursing staff, patients, and proxies regarding their experiences and preferences for deprescribing in order to inform future deprescribing efforts in LTC. Methods This study was a qualitative analysis of interviews with nurses, nurse aides, a nurse practitioner, residents, and proxies (family member and/or responsible party) from three LTC facilities. The research team used semi-structured interviews. Guides were designed to inform an injury prevention intervention. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A qualitative framework analysis was used to summarize themes related to deprescribing. The full study team reviewed the summary to identify actionable, clinical implications. Results Twenty-six interviews with 28 participants were completed, including 11 nurse aides, three residents, seven proxies, one nurse practitioner, and six nurses. Three themes emerged that were consistent across facilities: 1) build trust with team members, including residents and proxies; 2) identify motivating factors that lead to resident, proxy, nurse practitioner, and staff acceptance of deprescribing; 3) standardize supportive processes to encourage deprescribing. These themes suggest several actionable steps to improve deprescribing initiatives including: 1) tell stories about successful deprescribing, 2) provide deprescribing education to frontline staff, 3) align medication risk/benefit discussions with what matters most to the resident, 4) standardize deprescribing monitoring protocols, 5) standardize interprofessional team huddles and care plan meetings to include deprescribing conversations, and 6) strengthen non-pharmacologic treatment programs. Conclusions By interviewing LTC stakeholders, we identified three important themes regarding successful deprescribing: Trust, Motivating Factors, and Supportive Processes. These themes may translate into actionable steps for clinicians and researchers to improve and sustain person-centered deprescribing initiatives. Trial registration NCT0424218

Barriers to providing osteoporosis care in skilled nursing facilities: perceptions of medical directors and directors of nursing

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify the barriers to osteoporosis clinical practice guideline use perceived by Medical Directors (MED DIR) and Directors of Nursing (DON) in skilled nursing facilities; and to describe differences in the perceptions of MED DIRs and DONs. DESIGN: The authors conducted a cross-sectional national survey. PARTICIPANTS: This study consisted of a random national sample of MED DIRs (n=1300) and DONs (n=1300) belonging to the American Medical Directors Association or the National Association of Directors of Nursing Administration in Long-term Care. MEASUREMENTS: A 24-item survey using a five-point Likert scale was developed. The survey measured agreement to questions in four domains (provider factors, guideline characteristics, patient factors, environmental factors) and 10 content areas (problem acknowledgment, patient/family concern, patient/family compliance, testing availability, safety, reimbursement, regulatory oversight, staff knowledge/time/ability, belief in guidelines, and malpractice liability). Response distributions to each item were plotted and differences between MED DIRs and DONs were tested. RESULTS: Survey response rates were 40% for MED DIRs and 48% for DONs. Respondents strongly agreed that fractures are a problem in their facilities and that osteoporosis guidelines are useful and cost-beneficial (mean responses \u3e or = 4.0). A large proportion of respondents (at least 40% of the sample) identified multiple patient comorbidities, reimbursement issues, length of stay, and regulatory oversight as barriers to providing osteoporosis care. Respondents did not believe that patient and family acceptance, testing availability, staff time, staff self-efficacy, or concerns about bisphosphonate safety were barriers to osteoporosis care. DONs were more likely than MED DIRs to believe that patients and families are concerned about fractures, whereas MED DIRs were more likely to endorse length of stay, staffing issues, and regulatory oversight as influencing treatment decisions. Years of practice and facility size, but not formal geriatrics training, significantly influenced responses. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers to implementing osteoporosis guidelines differ between facilities and between MED DIRs and DONs. Identification of these barriers could facilitate quality improvement initiatives and improve the quality of osteoporosis care

Do physicians within the same practice setting manage osteoporosis patients similarly? Implications for implementation research

Using data from long-term glucocorticoid users and long-term care residents, we evaluated osteoporosis prescribing patterns related to physician behavior and common practice settings. We found no significant clustering effect for common practice setting, suggesting that osteoporosis quality improvement (QI) efforts may be able to ignore this factor in designing QI interventions. INTRODUCTION: Patients\u27 receipt of prescription therapies are significantly influenced by their physician\u27s prescribing patterns. If physicians in the same practice setting influence one another\u27s prescribing, evidence implementation interventions must consider targeting the practice as well as individual physicians to achieve maximal success. METHODS: We examined receipt of osteoporosis treatment (OP Rx) from two prior evidence implementation studies: long-term glucocorticoid (GC) users and nursing home (NH) residents with prior fracture or osteoporosis. Common practice setting was defined as doctors practicing at the same address or in the same nursing home. Alternating logistic regression evaluated the relationship between OP Rx, common practice setting, and individual physician treatment patterns. RESULTS: Among 6,281 GC users in 1,296 practices, the proportion receiving OP Rx in each practice was 6-100%. Among 779 NH residents in 66 nursing homes, the proportion in each NH receiving OP Rx was 0-100%. In both, there was no significant relationship between receipt of OP Rx and common practice setting after accounting for treatment pattern of individual physicians. CONCLUSION: Physicians practicing together were not more alike in prescribing osteoporosis medications than those in different practices. Osteoporosis quality improvement may be able to ignore common practice settings and maximize statistical power by targeting individual physicians

Prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis treatment in nursing home residents with known osteoporosis or recent fracture

Summary: We studied nursing home residents with osteoporosis or recent fracture to determine the frequency and predictors of osteoporosis treatment. There was wide variation in performance, and both clinical and systems variables predicted use. This study shows that improvement in osteoporosis care is possible and important for many nursing homes. INTRODUCTION: We determined the prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in high-risk nursing home residents. METHODS: We identified 67 nursing facilities in North Carolina and Arizona with \u3e 10 residents with osteoporosis or recent hip fracture. Medical records (n=895) were abstracted for osteoporosis evaluation [dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), vitamin D level, serum calcium), treatment (calcium, vitamin D, osteoporosis medication, hip protectors), clinical, and systems covariates. Data were analyzed at the facility level using mixed models to account for the complex nesting of residents within providers and nursing facilities. RESULTS: Calcium and vitamin D was prescribed for 69% of residents, bisphosphonates for 19%, calcitonin for 14%, other pharmacologic therapies for 6%, and hip protectors for 2%. Overall, 36% received any bone protection (medication or hip protectors), with wide variation among facilities (0-85%). Factors significantly associated with any bone protection included female gender [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, (1.5-3.7)] and nonurban/suburban location [1.5, (1.1-2.2)]. Residents with esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), or dysphagia [0.6, (0.4-0.9)] and alcohol abuse [0.2, (0.0-0.9)] were less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the quality of osteoporosis treatment across nursing homes. Interventions that improve osteoporosis quality of care are needed