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

Differential In Vitro Effects of Intravenous versus Oral Formulations of Silibinin on the HCV Life Cycle and Inflammation

Silymarin prevents liver disease in many experimental rodent models, and is the most popular botanical medicine consumed by patients with hepatitis C. Silibinin is a major component of silymarin, consisting of the flavonolignans silybin A and silybin B, which are insoluble in aqueous solution. A chemically modified and soluble version of silibinin, SIL, has been shown to potently reduce hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA levels in vivo when administered intravenously. Silymarin and silibinin inhibit HCV infection in cell culture by targeting multiple steps in the virus lifecycle. We tested the hepatoprotective profiles of SIL and silibinin in assays that measure antiviral and anti-inflammatory functions. Both mixtures inhibited fusion of HCV pseudoparticles (HCVpp) with fluorescent liposomes in a dose-dependent fashion. SIL inhibited 5 clinical genotype 1b isolates of NS5B RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) activity better than silibinin, with IC50 values of 40–85 µM. The enhanced activity of SIL may have been in part due to inhibition of NS5B binding to RNA templates. However, inhibition of the RdRps by both mixtures plateaued at 43–73%, suggesting that the products are poor overall inhibitors of RdRp. Silibinin did not inhibit HCV replication in subgenomic genotype 1b or 2a replicon cell lines, but it did inhibit JFH-1 infection. In contrast, SIL inhibited 1b but not 2a subgenomic replicons and also inhibited JFH-1 infection. Both mixtures inhibited production of progeny virus particles. Silibinin but not SIL inhibited NF-κB- and IFN-B-dependent transcription in Huh7 cells. However, both mixtures inhibited T cell proliferation to similar degrees. These data underscore the differences and similarities between the intravenous and oral formulations of silibinin, which could influence the clinical effects of this mixture on patients with chronic liver diseases

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

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

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