Facilitating guideline implementation in primary health care practices

Introduction: Many patients continue to receive suboptimal services, inappropriate, unsafe, and costly care. Underutilization of research by health professionals is a common problem in the primary care setting. Although many theoretical frameworks can be used to help address such evidence-practice gaps, health care professionals may not be aware of the benefits of frameworks or of the most appropriate ones for their context and thus, may be faced with the challenge of selecting and using the most relevant one. Aim: The aim of this article was to describe the process used to adapt a knowledge translation framework to meet the local needs of health professionals working in one large primary care setting. Methods: The authors developed a 5-step approach for guideline implementation. This approach was informed by prior research and the authors’ experiences in supporting multidisciplinary teams of health care professionals during the implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines into primary care practices. To ensure that the 5-step approach was practical and suitable for the context of guideline implementation by multidisciplinary teams in primary health care, the implementation team adapted the “knowledge-to-action” framework using a multistep process. Results: The implementation approach consisted of the following 5 steps: identification, context analysis, development of implementation plan, evaluation, and sustainability. All 5 steps were described alongside details about a national low back pain project. Discussion: This article describes a collaborative, grassroots process that addressed an identified need in one complex context by adapting a knowledge translation framework to meet the local needs of health professionals working in primary care settings. Existing implementation frameworks may be too complex or abstract for use in busy clinical contexts. The 5-step approach presented in this paper resulted in practical steps that are more readily understood by health care professionals and staff on “the ground”. © The Author(s) 2020

Huge variability in restrictions of mobilization for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage - A European survey of practice.

INTRODUCTION One of the major goals of neurointensive care is to prevent secondary injuries following aSAH. Bed rest and patient immobilization are practiced in order to decrease the risk of DCI. RESEARCH QUESTION To explore the current practices in place concerning the management of patients with aSAH, specifically, protocols and habits regarding restrictions of mobilization and HOB positioning. MATERIAL AND METHODS A survey was designed, modified, and approved by the panel of the Trauma & Critical Care section of the EANS to cover the practice of restrictions of patient mobilization and HOB positioning in patients with aSAH. RESULTS Twenty-nine physicians from 17 countries completed the questionnaire. The majority (79.3%) stated that non-secured aneurysm and the presence of an EVD were the factors related to the establishment of restriction of mobilization. The average duration of the restriction varied widely ranging between 1 and 21 days. The presence of an EVD (13.8%) was found to be the main reason to recommend restriction of HOB elevation. The average duration of restriction of HOB positioning ranged between 3 and 14 days. Rebleeding or complications related to CSF over-drainage were found to be related to these restrictions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Restriction of patient mobilization regimens vary widely in Europe. Current limited evidence does not support an increased risk of DCI rather the early mobilization might be beneficial. Large prospective studies and/or the initiative of a RCT are needed to understand the significance of early mobilization on the outcome of patients with aSAH

Feasibility of individualised severe traumatic brain injury management using an automated assessment of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: the COGiTATE phase II study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Individualising therapy is an important challenge for intensive care of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Targeting a cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) tailored to optimise cerebrovascular autoregulation has been suggested as an attractive strategy on the basis of a large body of retrospective observational data. The objective of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility and safety of such a strategy compared with fixed thresholds which is the current standard of care from international consensus guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CPPOpt Guided Therapy: Assessment of Target Effectiveness (COGiTATE) is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised, controlled trial coordinated from Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht (The Netherlands). The other original participating centres are Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge (UK), and University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven (Belgium). Adult severe TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring are randomised within the first 24 hours of admission in neurocritical care unit. For the control arm, the CPP target is the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines target (60-70 mm Hg); for the intervention group an automated CPP target is provided as the CPP at which the patient's cerebrovascular reactivity is best preserved (CPPopt). For a maximum of 5 days, attending clinicians review the CPP target 4-hourly. The main hypothesis of COGiTATE are: (1) in the intervention group the percentage of the monitored time with measured CPP within a range of 5 mm Hg above or below CPPopt will reach 36%; (2) the difference in between groups in daily therapy intensity level score will be lower or equal to 3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for each participating centre. The results will be presented at international scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02982122

International comparative study of low back pain care pathways and analysis of key interventions

Purpose Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem worldwide. Significant practice variation exists despite guidelines, including strong interventionist focus by some practitioners. Translation of guidelines into pathways as integrated treatment plans is a next step to improve implementation. The goal of the present study was to analyze international examples of LBP pathways in order to identify key interventions as building elements for care pathway for LBP and radicular pain. Methods International examples of LBP pathways were searched in literature and grey literature. Authors of pathways were invited to fill a questionnaire and to participate in an in-depth telephone interview. Pathways were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed, to enable the identification of key interventions to serve as pathway building elements. Results Eleven international LBP care pathways were identified. Regional pathways were strongly organized and included significant training efforts for primary care providers and an intermediate level of caregivers in between general practitioners and hospital specialists. Hospital pathways had a focus on multidisciplinary collaboration and stepwise approach trajectories. Key elements common to all pathways included the consecutive screening for red flags, radicular pain and psychosocial risk factors, the emphasis on patient empowerment and self-management, the development of evidence-based consultable protocols, the focus on a multidisciplinary work mode and the monitoring of patient-reported outcome measures. Conclusion Essential building elements for the construction of LBP care pathways were identified from a transversal analysis of key interventions in a study of 11 international examples of LBP pathways

Early surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral hematoma:a CENTER-TBI study

Purpose: Evidence regarding the effect of surgery in traumatic intracerebral hematoma (t-ICH) is limited and relies on the STITCH(Trauma) trial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of early surgery to conservative treatment in patients with a t-ICH. Methods: In a prospective cohort, we included patients with a large t-ICH (&lt; 48 h of injury). Primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) at 6 months, analyzed with multivariable proportional odds logistic regression. Subgroups included injury severity and isolated vs. non-isolated t-ICH. Results: A total of 367 patients with a large t-ICH were included, of whom 160 received early surgery and 207 received conservative treatment. Patients receiving early surgery were younger (median age 54 vs. 58 years) and more severely injured (median Glasgow Coma Scale 7 vs. 10) compared to those treated conservatively. In the overall cohort, early surgery was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.1, (95% CI, 0.6–1.7)) compared to conservative treatment. Early surgery was associated with better outcome for patients with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH (AOR 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1–2.0); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3–2.5); P value for interaction 0.004). Conversely, in mild TBI and those with a smaller t-ICH (&lt; 33 cc), conservative treatment was associated with better outcome (AOR 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4–0.9); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5–1.0); P value for interaction 0.32). Conclusions: Early surgery in t-ICH might benefit those with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH, comparable with results of the STITCH(Trauma) trial.</p

Comparative effectiveness of surgery in traumatic acute subdural and intracerebral haematoma: study protocol for a prospective observational study within CENTER-TBI and Net-QuRe

INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists about the optimal treatment for patients with a traumatic acute subdural haematoma (ASDH) and an intracerebral haematoma/contusion (t-ICH). Treatment varies largely between different regions. The effect of this practice variation on patient outcome is unknown. Here, we present the protocol for a prospective multicentre observational study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of different treatment strategies in patients with ASDH and/or t-ICH. Specifically, the aims are to compare (1) an acute surgical approach to an expectant approach and (2) craniotomy to decompressive craniectomy when evacuating the haematoma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients presenting to the emergency room with an ASDH and/or an t-ICH are eligible for inclusion. Standardised prospective data on patient and injury characteristics, treatment and outcome will be collected on 1000 ASDH and 750 t-ICH patients in 60-70 centres within two multicentre prospective observational cohort studies: the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) and Neurotraumatology Quality Registry (Net-QuRe). The interventions of interest are acute surgery, defined as surgery directly after the first CT at presentation versus late or no surgery and craniotomy versus decompressive craniectomy. The primary outcome measure is the Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures include in-hospital mortality, quality of life and neuropsychological tests. In the primary analysis, the effect of treatment preference (eg, proportion of patients in which the intervention under study is preferred) per hospital will be analysed with random effects ordinal regression models, adjusted for casemix and stratified by study. Such a hospital-level approach reduces confounding by the indication. Sensitivity analyses will includ

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators. METHODS: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool. RESULTS: The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N = 24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N = 7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N = 49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N = 41, 82%), benchmarking (N = 42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N = 41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N = 48, 98%). CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future

Low-resolution pressure reactivity index and its derived optimal cerebral perfusion pressure in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI study

Abstract: Background: After traumatic brain injury (TBI), brain tissue can be further damaged when cerebral autoregulation is impaired. Managing cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) according to computed “optimal CPP” values based on cerebrovascular reactivity indices might contribute to preventing such secondary injuries. In this study, we examined the discriminative value of a low-resolution long pressure reactivity index (LPRx) and its derived “optimal CPP” in comparison to the well-established high-resolution pressure reactivity index (PRx). Methods: Using the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study dataset, the association of LPRx (correlation between 1-min averages of intracranial pressure and arterial blood pressure over a moving time frame of 20 min) and PRx (correlation between 10-s averages of intracranial pressure and arterial blood pressure over a moving time frame of 5 min) to outcome was assessed and compared using univariate and multivariate regression analysis. “Optimal CPP” values were calculated using a multi-window algorithm that was based on either LPRx or PRx, and their discriminative ability was compared. Results: LPRx and PRx were both significant predictors of mortality in univariate and multivariate regression analysis, but PRx displayed a higher discriminative ability. Similarly, deviations of actual CPP from “optimal CPP” values calculated from each index were significantly associated with outcome in univariate and multivariate analysis. “Optimal CPP” based on PRx, however, trended towards more precise predictions. Conclusions: LPRx and its derived “optimal CPP” which are based on low-resolution data were significantly associated with outcome after TBI. However, they did not reach the discriminative ability of the high-resolution PRx and its derived “optimal CPP.” Nevertheless, LPRx might still be an interesting tool to assess cerebrovascular reactivity in centers without high-resolution signal monitoring. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02210221. First submitted July 29, 2014. First posted August 6, 2014