Pressure ulcer multidisciplinary teams via telemedicine: a pragmatic cluster randomized stepped wedge trial in long term care

Anita Stern, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Mike Paulden, Shabbir Alibhai, Josephine Wong, George Tomlinson, Ann-Sylvia Brooker, Murray Krahn, Merrick Zwarenstein, Anita Stern, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Mike Paulden, Shabbir Alibhai, Josephine Wong, George Tomlinson, Ann-Sylvia Brooker, Murray Krahn, Merrick Zwarenstein

Abstract

Background: The study was conducted to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of enhanced multi-disciplinary teams (EMDTs) vs. 'usual care' for the treatment of pressure ulcers in long term care (LTC) facilities in Ontario, Canada

Methods: We conducted a multi-method study: a pragmatic cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial, ethnographic observation and in-depth interviews, and an economic evaluation. Long term care facilities (clusters) were randomly allocated to start dates of the intervention. An advance practice nurse (APN) with expertise in skin and wound care visited intervention facilities to educate staff on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, supported by an off-site hospital based expert multi-disciplinary wound care team via email, telephone, or video link as needed. The primary outcome was rate of reduction in pressure ulcer surface area (cm2/day) measured on before and after standard photographs by an assessor blinded to facility allocation. Secondary outcomes were time to healing, probability of healing, pressure ulcer incidence, pressure ulcer prevalence, wound pain, hospitalization, emergency department visits, utility, and cost.

Results: 12 of 15 eligible LTC facilities were randomly selected to participate and randomized to start date of the intervention following the stepped wedge design. 137 residents with a total of 259 pressure ulcers (stage 2 or greater) were recruited over the 17 month study period. No statistically significant differences were found between control and intervention periods on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation demonstrated a mean reduction in direct care costs of $650 per resident compared to 'usual care'. The qualitative study suggested that onsite support by APN wound specialists was welcomed, and is responsible for reduced costs through discontinuation of expensive non evidence based treatments. Insufficient allocation of nursing home staff time to wound care may explain the lack of impact on healing.

Conclusion: Enhanced multi-disciplinary wound care teams were cost effective, with most benefit through cost reduction initiated by APNs, but did not improve the treatment of pressure ulcers in nursing homes. Policy makers should consider the potential yield of strengthening evidence based primary care within LTC facilities, through outreach by APNs.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01232764.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Referral rubric.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Facility recruitment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Resident (wound) recruitment.

References

    1. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: clinical practice guideline. Washington (DC): National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009. Pressure ulcer treatment recommendations; pp. 51–120.
    1. Horn SD, Bender SA, Ferguson ML, Smout RJ, Bergstrom N, Taler G, Cook AS, Sharkey SS, Coble Voss A. The national pressure ulcer long-term care study: pressure ulcer development in long-term care residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;14:359–367.
    1. Woodbury MG, Houghton PE. Prevalence of Pressure Ulcers in Canadian Health Care Settings. Ostomy Wound Management. 2004;14(10):22–38.
    1. Cuddigan J, Berlowitz DR, Ayello EA. Pressure ulcers in America: Prevalence, incidence and implications for future: an executive summary of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Monograph. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2001;14:208–215.
    1. Bennett G, Dealey C, Posnett J. The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age Ageing. 2004;14(3):230–235.
    1. Pham B, Stern A, Chen W, Sander B, John-Baptiste A, Machado M, Thein HH, Gomes T, Wodchis W, Bayoumi A, Krahn M. Preventing pressure ulcers in Long-Term Care: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Archives of Internal Medicine. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.473.
    1. Pieper B, Langemo D, Cuddigan J. Pressure ulcer pain: a systematic literature review and national pressure ulcer advisory panel white paper. Ostomy Wound Management. 2009;14(2):16–31.
    1. Gorecki C, Brown J, Nelson A, Briggs M, Schoonhoven L, Dealey C, Defloor T, Nixon J. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review. JAGS. 2009;14:1175–1183.
    1. Toronto Health Economic Technology Assessment (THETA) collaborative. Cost Effectiveness of Prevention Strategies for Pressure Ulcers in Long-Term Care: Projection from the Ontario Pressure Ulcer Model: THETA Ontario Pressure Ulcer Team and the Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care THETA. 2008. pp. 1–86. .
    1. Health Quality Ontario Evidence Development Process. [accessed July 14th, 2013]
    1. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Community-based care for chronic wound management: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series. 2009;14(18)
    1. Dobke M, Renkielska A, De Neve J, Chao J, Bhavsar D. Telemedicine for problematic wound management: enhancing communication between long-term care, skilled nursing, and home caregivers and a surgical wound specialist. Wounds. 2006;14(9):256–261.
    1. Eminovic´ N, De Keizer NF, Wyatt J, Ter Riet G, Peek N, Van Weert HC, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Bindels PJE. Teledermatologic consultation and reduction in referrals to dermatologists: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Arch Dermatology. 2009;14(5):558–564.
    1. Reddy M, Gill SS, Kalkar SR, Wu W, Anderson PJ, Rochon PA. Treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. JAMA. 2008;14:2647–2662.
    1. Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;14(2):182–191.
    1. Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) Assessment & Management of Stage I to IV Pressure Ulcers - Revised 2007. 2007. [accessed July 13th, 2013].
    1. Adobe Photoshop. [accessed July 13th, 2013]
    1. Bergstrom N, Smout R, Horn S, Spector W, Hartz A, Limcangco R. Stage 2 Pressure Ulcer Healing in Nursing Homes. JAGS. 2008;14:1252–1258.
    1. Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold; 2000.
    1. Bergstrom N, Horn SD, Smout RJ, Bender SA, Ferguson ML, Taler G, Sauer AC, Sharkey SS, Voss AC. The national pressure ulcer long-term care study: outcomes of pressure ulcer treatments in long-term care. Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 2005;14:1721–1729.
    1. Laird NM, Ware JH. Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data. Biometrics. 1982;14:963–974.
    1. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. New York: Springer; 2000.
    1. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Amer Statist Assn. 1958;14:457–481.
    1. McCulloch CE, Shayle R, Searle J, Neuhaus M. Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. Chicester/GB: Wiley and Sons; 2008.
    1. Stern A, Krahn MD, Alibhai SMH, Baker GR, Brooker AS, Chadwick S, Fierheller M, Harris C, Hon J, Juanxi Li C, Jeffs LP, Kowgier M, Levin L, McLaren AM, Mitsakakis N, Norton L, Parslow N, Paulden M, Pham B, Reeves S, Santos J, Teague L, Tomlinson G, Vidmar M, Witteman W, Woo K, Woodbury G, Wong J, Zwarenstein MF. Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI) Final Report. 2013. p. . To be published on the CPSI website post journal publication. .
    1. Saha S, Smith MEB, Totten A, Fu R, Wasson N, Rahman B, Motu'apuaka M, Hickam DH. Pressure Ulcer Treatment Strategies: Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 90. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC003-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2013. [accessed Nov. 11th, 2013]
    1. Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP) Methodological Recommendations for Comparative Effectiveness Research on the Treatment of Chronic Wounds. 2013. [accessed July 13th, 2013]
    1. Vu T, Harris A, Duncan G, Sussman G. Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary wound care in nursing homes: a pseudo-randomized pragmatic cluster trial. Family Practice. 2007;14(4):372–379.
    1. Castle N, Decker F. Top Management Leadership Style and Quality of Care in Nursing Homes. The Gerontologist. 2011;14(5):630–642.
    1. Havig AK, Skogstad A, Kjekshus LE, Romøren TI. Leadership, staffing and quality of care in nursing homes. BMC Health Services Research. 2011;14:327.
    1. Bostick JE, Rantz MJ, Flesner M, Riggs CJ. Systematic review of studies of staffing and quality in nursing homes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2006;14:366–376.
    1. Schnelle JF, Simmons SF, Harrington C, Cadogan M, Garcia E, Bates-Jensen BM. Relationship of Nursing Home Staffing to Quality of Care. Health Services Research. 2004;14(2):225–250.
    1. Castle N, Engberg J. Staff turnover and quality of care in nursing homes. Medical Care. 2005;14(6):616–626.
    1. Dobke M, Bhavsar D, Gosman AA MD, De Neve J, De Neve B. Streamlining the management of patients with problematic wounds: must a multidisciplinary team formulate all patient management? Wounds. 2007;14(12) [accessed July 13th, 2013]
    1. Sarhan F, Weatherburn G, Graham A, Thiyagarajan C. Use of digital images in the assessment and treatment of pressure ulcers in patients with spinal injuries in community settings. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2010;14:207–210.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit