The Modified and Extended Hospital Elder Life Program: A remote model of care to expand delirium prevention

BackgroundDelirium is a common complication of hospitalization and is associated with poor outcomes. Multicomponent delirium prevention strategies such as the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) have proven effective but rely on face-to-face intervention protocols and volunteer staff, which was not possible due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We developed the Modified and Extended Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP-ME), an innovative adaptation of HELP for remote and/or physically distanced applications.MethodsHELP-ME protocols were adapted from well-established multicomponent delirium prevention strategies and were implemented at four expert HELP sites. Each site contributed to the protocol modifications and compilation of a HELP-ME Operations Manual with standardized protocols and training instructions during three expert panel working groups. Implementation was overseen and monitored during seven learning sessions plus four coaching sessions from January 8, 2021, through September 24, 2021. Feasibility of implementing HELP-ME was measured by protocol adherence rates. Focus groups were conducted to evaluate the acceptability, provide feedback, and identify facilitators and barriers to implementation.ResultsA total of 106 patients were enrolled across four sites, and data were collected for 214 patient-days. Overall adherence was 82% (1473 completed protocols/1798 patient-days), achieving our feasibility target of >75% overall adherence. Individual adherence rates ranged from 55% to 96% across sites for the individual protocols. Protocols with high adherence rates included the nursing delirium protocol (96%), nursing medication review (96%), vision (89%), hearing (87%), and orientation (88%), whereas lower adherence occurred with fluid repletion (64%) and range-of-motion exercises (55%). Focus group feedback was generally positive for acceptability, with recommendations that an optimal approach would be hybrid, balancing in-person and remote interventions for potency and long-term sustainability.ConclusionsHELP-ME was fully implemented at four HELP sites, demonstrating feasibility and acceptability. Testing hybrid approaches and evaluating effectiveness is recommended for future work.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/176043/1/jgs18212_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/176043/2/jgs18212.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/176043/3/jgs18212-sup-0001-TableS1.pd

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Introduction Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.Methods and analysis This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.Ethics and dissemination This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.Trial registration number NCT05346588