Implementation processes in a cognitive rehabilitation intervention for people with dementia: a complexity-informed qualitative analysis

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Objectives: Healthcare is often delivered through complex interventions. Understanding how to implement these successfully is important for optimising services. This article demonstrates how the complexity theory concept of ‘self-organisation’ can inform implementation, drawing on a process evaluation within a randomised controlled trial of the GREAT (Goal-oriented cognitive Rehabilitation in Early-stage Alzheimer’s and related dementias: a multi-centre single-blind randomised controlled Trial) intervention which compared a cognitive rehabilitation intervention for people with dementia with usual treatment. Design: A process evaluation examined experiences of GREAT therapists and participants receiving the intervention, through thematic analysis of a focus group with therapists and interviews with participants and their carers. Therapy records of participants receiving the intervention were also analysed using adapted framework analysis. Analysis adopted a critical realist perspective and a deductive-inductive approach to identify patterns in how the intervention operated. Setting: The GREAT intervention was delivered through home visits by therapists, in eight regions in the UK. Participants: Six therapists took part in a focus group, interviews were conducted with 25 participants and 26 carers, and therapy logs for 50 participants were analysed. Intervention: A 16-week cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with mild-to-moderate dementia. Results: ‘Self-organisation’ of the intervention occurred through adaptations made by therapists. Adaptations included simplifying the intervention for people with greater cognitive impairment, and extending it to meet additional needs. Relational work by therapists produced an emergent outcome of ‘social support’. Self-organised aspects of the intervention were less visible than formal components, but were important aspects of how it operated during the trial. This understanding can help to inform future implementation. Conclusions: Researchers are increasingly adopting complexity theory to understand interventions. This study extends the application of complexity theory by demonstrating how ‘self-organisation’ was a useful concept for understanding aspects of the intervention that would have been missed by focusing on formal intervention components. Analysis of self-organisation could enhance future process evaluations and implementation studies. Trial registration number: ISRCTN21027481.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Geriatr Nurs

The PAL is a career-completed assessment that indexes cognitive functional ability to inform individualised support. As hearing and vision loss are prevalent, we assessed the PAL for potential bias with hearing or vision impairment. We collected PAL responses for 333 adults aged over 60 years in the UK, France, Canada, Greece and Cyprus. All participants had normal cognition based on self-reported status and normal range scores on a cognitive screening test. Using a Kruskal-Wallis test, we compared PAL item response distributions for people with assessed hearing or vision loss compared to those with normal sensory function. There were no differences in response distributions between hearing or vision impaired groups versus those with normal sensory function on any PAL item. The PAL reliably indexes cognitive functional ability and may be used to inform support tailored to individual cognitive level amongst older adults with prevalent hearing and vision impairments.Ears, Eyes and Mind: The ‘SENSE-Cog Project’ to improve mental well-being for elderly Europeans with sensory impairmen

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London