Barriers and enablers to the implementation of the 6-PACK falls prevention program: A preimplementation study in hospitals participating in a cluster randomised controlled trial

Evidence for effective falls prevention interventions in acute wards is limited. One reason for this may be suboptimal program implementation. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and enablers of the implementation of the 6-PACK falls prevention program to inform the implementation in a randomised controlled trial. Strategies to optimise successful implementation of 6-PACK were also sought. A mixed-methods approach was applied in 24 acute wards from 6 Australian hospitals. Participants were nurses working on participating wards and senior hospital staff including Nurse Unit Managers; senior physicians; Directors of Nursing; and senior personnel involved in quality and safety or falls prevention. Information on barriers and enablers of 6-PACK implementation was obtained through surveys, focus groups and interviews. Questions reflected the COM-B framework that includes three behaviour change constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation. Focus group and interview data were analysed thematically, and survey data descriptively. The survey response rate was 60% (420/702), and 12 focus groups (n = 96 nurses) and 24 interviews with senior staff were conducted. Capability barriers included beliefs that falls could not be prevented; and limited knowledge on falls prevention in patients with complex care needs (e.g. cognitive impairment). Capability enablers included education and training, particularly face to face case study based approaches. Lack of resources was identified as an opportunity barrier. Leadership, champions and using data to drive practice change were recognised as opportunity enablers. Motivation barriers included complacency and lack of ownership in falls prevention efforts. Motivation enablers included senior staff articulating clear goals and a commitment to falls prevention; and use of reminders, audits and feedback. The information gained from this study suggests that regular practical face-to-face education and training for nurses; provision of equipment; audit, reminders and feedback; leadership and champions; and the provision of falls data is key to successful falls prevention program implementation in acute hospitals

Implementation fidelity of a nurse-led falls prevention program in acute hospitals during the 6-PACK trial

Background: When tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 31,411 patients, the nurse-led 6-PACK falls prevention program did not reduce falls. Poor implementation fidelity (i.e., program not implemented as intended) may explain this result. Despite repeated calls for the examination of implementation fidelity as an essential component of evaluating interventions designed to improve the delivery of care, it has been neglected in prior falls prevention studies. This study examined implementation fidelity of the 6-PACK program during a large multi-site RCT. Methods: Based on the 6-PACK implementation framework and intervention description, implementation fidelity was examined by quantifying adherence to program components and organizational support. Adherence indicators were: 1) falls-risk tool completion; and for patients classified as high-risk, provision of 2) a ‘Falls alert’ sign; and 3) at least one additional 6-PACK intervention. Organizational support indicators were: 1) provision of resources (executive sponsorship, site clinical leaders and equipment); 2) implementation activities (modification of patient care plans; training; implementation tailoring; audits, reminders and feedback; and provision of data); and 3) program acceptability. Data were collected from daily bedside observation, medical records, resource utilization diaries and nurse surveys. Results: All seven intervention components were delivered on the 12 intervention wards. Program adherence data were collected from 103,398 observations and medical record audits. The falls-risk tool was completed each day for 75% of patients. Of the 38% of patients classified as high-risk, 79% had a ‘Falls alert’ sign and 63% were provided with at least one additional 6-PACK intervention, as recommended. All hospitals provided the recommended resources and undertook the nine outlined program implementation activities. Most of the nurses surveyed considered program components important for falls prevention. Conclusions: While implementation fidelity was variable across wards, overall it was found to be acceptable during the RCT. Implementation failure is unlikely to be a key factor for the observed lack of program effectiveness in the 6-PACK trial. Trial registration: The 6-PACK cluster RCT is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000332921 (29 March 2011)

Mapping of barrier and enabler themes to COM-B domains.

<p>Mapping of barrier and enabler themes to COM-B domains.</p

Mapping of survey, focus group and interview questions to the COM-B domains [11].

<p>Mapping of survey, focus group and interview questions to the COM-B domains [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0171932#pone.0171932.ref011" target="_blank">11</a>].</p

Common variation at 3p22.1 and 7p15.3 influences multiple myeloma risk

To identify risk variants for multiple myeloma, we conducted a genome-wide association study of 1,675 individuals with multiple myeloma and 5,903 control subjects. We identified risk loci for multiple myeloma at 3p22.1 (rs1052501 in ULK4; odds ratio (OR) = 1.32; P = 7.47 × 10(-9)) and 7p15.3 (rs4487645, OR = 1.38; P = 3.33 × 10(-15)). In addition, we observed a promising association at 2p23.3 (rs6746082, OR = 1.29; P = 1.22 × 10(-7)). Our study identifies new genomic regions associated with multiple myeloma risk that may lead to new etiological insights