Development of a complex intervention aimed at reducing the risk of readmission of elderly patients discharged from the emergency department using the intervention mapping protocol

Abstract Background Limitations in performing daily activities and a incoherent discharge are risk factors for readmission of elderly patients after discharge from the emergency department. This paper describes the development and design of a complex intervention whose aim was to reduce the risk of readmission of elderly patients discharged from the emergency department. Methods The intervention was described using the Intervention Mapping approach. In step 1, a needs assessment was conducted to analyse causes of readmission. In steps 2 and 3, expected improvements in terms of intervention outcomes, performance objectives and change objectives were specified and linked to selected theory- and evidence-based methods. In step 4, the specific intervention components were developed; and in step 5, an implementation plan was described. Finally, in step 6, a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention was described. The intervention was informed by input from a literature search, informal interviews and an expert steering group. Results A three-phased theory- and evidence-based intervention was developed. The intervention consisted of 1) assessment of performance of daily activities, 2) defining a rehabilitation plan and 3) a follow-up home visit the day after discharge with focus on enhancing the patientsâ performance of daily activities. Conclusion The intervention mapping protocol was found to be a useful method to describe and systemize this theory- and evidence-based intervention

Additional file 1: of Development of a complex intervention aimed at reducing the risk of readmission of elderly patients discharged from the emergency department using the intervention mapping protocol

Keywords and search string. (PDF 27 kb

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses

Abstract Background A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking. Objectives The identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process. Methods Eligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included. Data sources: We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO. Charting methods: The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process. Results Twelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda. Conclusion None of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process. Protocol registration The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dygz8/ )

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses

Abstract Background A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking. Objectives The identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process. Methods Eligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included. Data sources: We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO. Charting methods: The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process. Results Twelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda. Conclusion None of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process. Protocol registration The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dygz8/ )

Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study

Abstract Background Managing low back pain (LBP) often involves MRI despite the fact that international guidelines do not recommend routine imaging. To allow us to explore the topic and use this knowledge in further research, a reliable method to review the MRI referrals is needed. Consequently, this study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of a method evaluating lumbar spine MRI referrals’ appropriateness. Methods Four inexperienced students (chiropractic master’s students) and a senior clinician (chiropractor) were included as independent raters in this inter-rater reliability study. Lumbar spine MRI referrals from primary care on patients (> 18 years) with LBP with or without leg pain were included. The referrals were classified using a modified version of the American College of Radiology (ACR) imaging appropriateness criteria for LBP. Categories of appropriate referrals included; fractures, cancer, previous surgery, candidate for surgery or suspicion of cauda equina. Inappropriate referrals included lacking information on previous non-surgical treatment, no word on non-surgical treatment duration, or “other reasons” for inappropriate referrals. After two rounds of training and consensus sessions, 50 lumbar spine MRI referrals were reviewed independently by the five raters. Inter-rater reliability was quantified using unweighted Kappa statistics, and the observed agreement was calculated with both a pairwise comparison and an overall five-rater comparison. Results Inter-rater reliability was substantial, with a Kappa value for appropriate vs. inappropriate referrals of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55–0.89). When six and eight subcategories were evaluated, the Kappa values were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58–0.91) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72–0.92), respectively. The overall percentage of agreement for appropriate and inappropriate referrals was 92% and ranged from 88 to 98% for the pairwise comparisons of the five raters’ results. For the six and eight subcategories, the overall agreement was 92 and 88%, respectively, ranging from 88 to 98% and 84–92%, respectively, for the pairwise comparisons. Conclusion The inter-rater reliability of the evaluation of the appropriateness of lumbar spine MRI referrals, according to the modified ACR-appropriateness criteria, was found to range from substantial to almost perfect and can be used for research and quality assurance purposes

Additional file 1 of Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study

Additional file 1:. Categorisation of the imaging referral

Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study

Abstract Background Managing low back pain (LBP) often involves MRI despite the fact that international guidelines do not recommend routine imaging. To allow us to explore the topic and use this knowledge in further research, a reliable method to review the MRI referrals is needed. Consequently, this study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of a method evaluating lumbar spine MRI referrals’ appropriateness. Methods Four inexperienced students (chiropractic master’s students) and a senior clinician (chiropractor) were included as independent raters in this inter-rater reliability study. Lumbar spine MRI referrals from primary care on patients (> 18 years) with LBP with or without leg pain were included. The referrals were classified using a modified version of the American College of Radiology (ACR) imaging appropriateness criteria for LBP. Categories of appropriate referrals included; fractures, cancer, previous surgery, candidate for surgery or suspicion of cauda equina. Inappropriate referrals included lacking information on previous non-surgical treatment, no word on non-surgical treatment duration, or “other reasons” for inappropriate referrals. After two rounds of training and consensus sessions, 50 lumbar spine MRI referrals were reviewed independently by the five raters. Inter-rater reliability was quantified using unweighted Kappa statistics, and the observed agreement was calculated with both a pairwise comparison and an overall five-rater comparison. Results Inter-rater reliability was substantial, with a Kappa value for appropriate vs. inappropriate referrals of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55–0.89). When six and eight subcategories were evaluated, the Kappa values were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58–0.91) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72–0.92), respectively. The overall percentage of agreement for appropriate and inappropriate referrals was 92% and ranged from 88 to 98% for the pairwise comparisons of the five raters’ results. For the six and eight subcategories, the overall agreement was 92 and 88%, respectively, ranging from 88 to 98% and 84–92%, respectively, for the pairwise comparisons. Conclusion The inter-rater reliability of the evaluation of the appropriateness of lumbar spine MRI referrals, according to the modified ACR-appropriateness criteria, was found to range from substantial to almost perfect and can be used for research and quality assurance purposes

Primary care physiotherapists ability to make correct management decisions – is there room for improvement? A mixed method study

Abstract Background With increasing interest in direct access to physiotherapy, it is important to consider the physiotherapists (PTs) ability to make correct management decisions, because identification of differential diagnostic pathologies and timely referral for specialist care is vital for patient safety. The aims of the study were to investigate PTs ability to make correct management decisions in patients presenting with musculoskeletal conditions and to identify explanatory factors associated with this ability. Furthermore, we wanted to explore the PTs views on the identified factors. Methods The study was a mixed methods study with an explanatory sequential design consisting of a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire comprised 12 clinical vignettes describing patient scenarios for musculoskeletal conditions, non-critical medical conditions and critical medical conditions. Based on this, the PTs indicated whether the patient should be managed by the PT or were in need of medical referral. Associations between correct decisions and explanatory variables was analyzed by mixed- effects logistic regression. Interviews were performed with nine PTs to explore their reactions to the results. A directed content analysis was performed. Results A total of 195 PTs participated in the questionnaire survey and 9 PTs were interviewed. Overall, PTs were more likely to make correct management decisions in the musculoskeletal conditions category, whereas wrong decisions were more often chosen for underlying medical conditions categories. Positive associations between correct management decision in the critical medical category were found for experience: odds ratio (OR) 2.73 (1.33;5.57) and passed quality audit OR 2.90 (1.50;5.58). In the interviews, PTs expressed concerns about the differential diagnostic abilities. They all noted, that experience is immensely important in the clinical reasoning process because the ability to recognise diagnostic patterns evolves over time. Furthermore, the quality audit seems to address and systematize the clinical reasoning process and workflow within the clinics. Conclusion The lack of ability to make correct management decision in critical medical categories and the uncertainties expressed by PT’s should raise concern, as direct access to physiotherapy is already well-established and the results indicate that patient safety could be at risk. The findings that experience and passed quality audit was associated with correct management decisions highlights the need for ongoing awareness and education into differential diagnostics