Implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors of a complex intervention to improve interprofessional collaboration and the quality of medical care for nursing home residents: study protocol of the process evaluation of the interprof ACT intervention package

Linda Steyer, Christian Kortkamp, Christiane Müller, Britta Tetzlaff, Nina Fleischmann, Clarissa E Weber, Martin Scherer, Anja Kühn, Anne-Marei Jarchow, Frederike Lüth, Sascha Köpke, Tim Friede, Hans-Helmut König, Eva Hummers, Indre Maurer, Katrin Balzer, Linda Steyer, Christian Kortkamp, Christiane Müller, Britta Tetzlaff, Nina Fleischmann, Clarissa E Weber, Martin Scherer, Anja Kühn, Anne-Marei Jarchow, Frederike Lüth, Sascha Köpke, Tim Friede, Hans-Helmut König, Eva Hummers, Indre Maurer, Katrin Balzer

Abstract

Background: To improve interprofessional collaboration between registered nurses (RNs) and general practitioners (GPs) for nursing home residents (NHRs), the interprof ACT intervention package was developed. This complex intervention includes six components (e.g., shared goal setting, standardized procedures for GPs' nursing home visits) that can be locally adapted. The cluster-randomized interprof ACT trial evaluates the effects of this intervention on the cumulative incidence of hospital admissions (primary outcome) and secondary outcomes (e.g., length of hospital stays, utilization of emergency care services, and quality of life) within 12 months. It also includes a process evaluation which is subject of this protocol. The objectives of this evaluation are to assess the implementation of the interprof ACT intervention package and downstream effects on nurse-physician collaboration as well as preconditions and prospects for successive implementation into routine care.

Methods: This study uses a mixed methods triangulation design involving all 34 participating nursing homes (clusters). The quantitative part comprises paper-based surveys among RNs, GPs, NHRs, and nursing home directors at baseline and 12 months. In the intervention group (17 clusters), data on the implementation of preplanned implementation strategies (training and supervision of nominated IPAVs, interprofessional kick-off meetings) and local implementation activities will be recorded. Major outcome domains are the dose, reach and fidelity of the implementation of the intervention package, changes in interprofessional collaboration, and contextual factors. The qualitative part will be conducted in a subsample of 8 nursing homes (4 per study group) and includes repeated non-participating observations and semistructured interviews on the interaction between involved health professionals and their work processes. Quantitative and qualitative data will be descriptively analyzed and then triangulated by means of joint displays and mixed methods informed regression models.

Discussion: By integrating a variety of qualitative and quantitative data sources, this process evaluation will allow comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the interprof ACT intervention package, the changes induced in interprofessional collaboration, and the influence of contextual factors. These data will reveal expected and unexpected changes in the procedures of interprofessional care delivery and thus facilitate accurate conclusions for the further design of routine care services for NHRs.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03426475 . Registered on 07/02/2018.

Keywords: Interprofessional collaboration; Mixed methods; Nursing homes; Process evaluation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of interprof ACT implementation strategies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
RCT enrollment, group allocation, and follow-ups. *Dose, reach, fidelity, and adaptions. Abbreviations: GPs general practitioners, NHRs nursing home residents
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Logic model of the interprof ACT intervention package. Numbered bold subheadings represent major outcome domains of the process evaluation. Abbreviation: GPs general practitioners

References

    1. Dwyer R, Gabbe B, Stoelwinder JU, Lowthian J. A systematic review of outcomes following emergency transfer to hospital for residents of aged care facilities. Age Ageing. 2014;43:759–766. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu117.
    1. Hoffmann F, Schmiemann G. Influence of age and sex on hospitalization of nursing home residents: a cross-sectional study from Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:55. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2008-7.
    1. Leutgeb R, Berger SJ, Szecsenyi J, Laux G. Potentially avoidable hospitalisations of German nursing home patients? A cross-sectional study on utilisation patterns and potential consequences for healthcare. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025269. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025269.
    1. Hsiao CJ, Hing E. Emergency department visits and resulting hospitalizations by elderly nursing home residents, 2001-2008. Res Aging. 2014;36:207–227. doi: 10.1177/0164027512473488.
    1. Hogan DB, Amuah JE, Strain LA, Wodchis WP, Soo A, Eliasziw M, et al. High rates of hospital admission among older residents in assisted living facilities: opportunities for intervention and impact on acute care. Open Med. 2014;8:e33–e45.
    1. Quinn T. Emergency hospital admissions from care-homes: who, why and what happens? A cross-sectional study. Gerontology. 2011;57:115–120. doi: 10.1159/000314962.
    1. Harrison JK, McKay IK, Grant P, Hannah J, Quinn TJ. Appropriateness of unscheduled hospital admissions from care homes. Clin Med. 2016;16:103–108. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-2-103.
    1. Richter C, Berg A, Langner H, Meyer G, Köpke S, Balzer K, et al. Effect of person-centred care on antipsychotic drug use in nursing homes (EPCentCare): a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2019;48:419–425. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afz016.
    1. Fassmer AM, Pulst A, Spreckelsen O, Hoffmann F. Perspectives of general practitioners and nursing staff on acute hospital transfers of nursing home residents in Germany: results of two cross-sectional studies. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:29. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01108-x.
    1. Müller CA, Fleischmann N, Cavazzini C, Heim S, Seide S, Geister C, et al. Interprofessional collaboration in nursing homes (interprof): development and piloting of measures to improve interprofessional collaboration and communication: a qualitative multicentre study. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19:14. doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0678-1.
    1. Tsakitzidis G, Timmermans O, Callewaert N, Verhoeven V, Lopez-Hartmann M, Truijen S, et al. Outcome indicators on interprofessional collaboration interventions for elderly. Int J Integr Care. 2016;16:5.
    1. Müller C, Hesjedal-Streller B, Fleischmann N, Tetzlaff B, Mallon T, Scherer M, et al. Effects of strategies to improve general practitioner-nurse collaboration and communication in regard to hospital admissions of nursing home residents (interprof ACT): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2020;21:913. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04736-x.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
    1. Lewin S, Hendry M, Chandler J, Oxman AD, Michie S, Shepperd S, et al. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR) BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:76. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0349-x.
    1. Threapleton DE, Chung RY, Wong SYS, Wong E, Chau P, Woo J, et al. Integrated care for older populations and its implementation facilitators and barriers: a rapid scoping review. International J Qual Health Care. 2017;29:327–334. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx041.
    1. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-15.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258.
    1. Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12:21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5.
    1. Creswell JW, Clark V, Garrett A. Methological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. In: Bergman M, editor. Advances in mixed methods research Theories and applications. London: Sage Publications; 2008. pp. 66–83.
    1. Frankenhauser-Mannuß J, Goetz K, Scheuer M, Szescenyi J, Leutgeb R. Ärztlicher Bereitschaftsdienst in Deutschland: Befragung von Bereitschaftsdienstärzten zur gegenwärtigen Situation (Kritische Aussagen). [Out-of-hours primary care in Germany: general practitioners' views on the current situation] Gesundheitswesen. 2014;76:428–433. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1367020.
    1. Kühne F, Behmann M, Bisson S, Walter U, Schneider N. Non-response in a survey of physicians on end-of-life care for the elderly. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:367. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-367.
    1. Steinhäuser J, Jäkel K, Szecsenyi J, Goetz K, Ledig T, Joos S. Prozeduren, die in der Allgemeinmedizin durchgeführt werden – eine Querschnittstudie. [Procedures performed in general practice - a cross-sectional study] Gesundheitswesen. 2016;79:1004–1011.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.
    1. Pinnock H, Sheikh A. Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI): enhancing reporting to improve care. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2017;27:42. doi: 10.1038/s41533-017-0045-7.
    1. Bitzer EM, Dierks ML, Dörning H, Schwartz FW. Zufriedenheit in der Arztpraxis aus Patientenperspektive – psychometrische Prüfung eines standardisierten Erhebungsinstrumentes. [Patient satisfaction with ambulatory care physicians - psychometric testing of a standardized questionnaire] Z Gesundh Wiss. 1999;7:196–209. doi: 10.1007/BF02956130.
    1. van den Bussche H, Jahncke-Latteck ÄD, Ernst A, Tetzlaff B, Wiese B, Schramm U. Zufriedene Hausärzte und kritische Pflegende - Probleme der interprofessionellen Zusammenarbeit in der Versorgung zu Hause lebender Menschen mit Demenz. [Satisfied general practitioners and critical nursing staff - problems of interprofessional cooperation in the home care of dementia patients] Gesundheitswesen. 2012;75:328–333. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1321754.
    1. Klingenberg A, Bahrs O, Szecsenyi J. Wie beurteilen Patienten Hausärzte und ihre Praxen? Deutsche Ergebnisse der europäischen Studie zur Bewertung hausärztlicher Versorgung durch Patienten (EUROPEP). [How do patients evaluate general practice? German results from the European project on patient evaluation of general practice care (EUROPEP)] Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 1999;93:437–445.
    1. Holle D, Halek M, Mayer H, Bartholomeyczik S. Die Auswirkungen der Verstehenden Diagnostik auf das Belastungserleben Pflegender im Umgang mit Menschen mit Demenz in der stationären Altenhilfe. [The influence of understanding diagnostics on perceived stress of nurses caring for nursing home residents with dementia] Pflege. 2011;24:303–316. doi: 10.1024/1012-5302/a000143.
    1. Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, McColl E, et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 1 - development of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT) BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:133. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0590-y.
    1. Finch TL, Girling M, May CR, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT) BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:135. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0591-x.
    1. Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health . Partnership self-assessment tool questionnaire. 2002.
    1. Lakeit S. Nurse-Physican Collaboration. A systematic literature review measuring nurse-physican collaboration, and the development and psychometric testing of one of these instruments for a German Target Group. Dissertation. Köln: Universität zu Köln (University of Cologne); 2015.
    1. Schroder C, Medves J, Paterson M, Byrnes V, Chapman C, O'Riordan A, et al. Development and pilot testing of the collaborative practice assessment tool. J Interprof Care. 2010;25:189–195. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2010.532620.
    1. Aiken LH, Patrician PA. Measuring organizational traits of hospitals: the revised nursing work index. Nurs Res. 2000;49:146–153. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200005000-00006.
    1. Lake ET. Development of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index. Res Nurs Health. 2002;25:176–188. doi: 10.1002/nur.10032.
    1. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43:535–554. doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208.
    1. May CR, Cummings A, Girling M, Bracher M, Mair FS, May CM, et al. Using normalization process theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13:80. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1.
    1. Vis C, Ruwaard J, Finch T, Rapley T, de Beurs D, van Stel H, et al. Toward an objective assessment of implementation processes for innovations in health care: psychometric evaluation of the normalization measure development (NoMAD) questionnaire among mental health care professionals. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e12376. doi: 10.2196/12376.
    1. ImpleMentAll Consortium . Normalization Measure development questionnaire (short NOMAD). German Version. 2018.
    1. Abraham J, Möhler R, Henkel A, Kupfer R, Icks A, Dintsios CM, et al. Implementation of a Multicomponent intervention to Prevent Physical Restraints In Nursing home residenTs (IMPRINT): study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15:86. doi: 10.1186/s12877-015-0086-0.
    1. Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Participant observation and fieldnotes. In: Atkinson P, Coffey A, Delamont S, Lofland J, Lofland L, editors. Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage; 2001. pp. 352–368.
    1. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
    1. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2018.
    1. Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. Kane RL, Huckfeldt P, Tappen R, Engstrom G, Rojido C, Newman D, et al. Effects of an intervention to reduce hospitalizations from nursing homes: a randomized implementation trial of the INTERACT program. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1257–1264. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2657.
    1. Sampson EL, Feast A, Blighe A, Froggatt K, Hunter R, Marston L, et al. Pilot cluster randomised trial of an evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in nursing home residents (Better health in residents of care homes with nursing-BHiRCH-NH study) BMJ Open. 2020;10:e040732. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040732.
    1. Huckfeldt PJ, Kane RL, Yang Z, Engstrom G, Tappen R, Rojido C, et al. Degree of implementation of the interventions to reduce acute care transfers (INTERACT) quality improvement program associated with number of hospitalizations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66:1830–1837. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15476.
    1. Hughes G, Shaw SE, Greenhalgh T. Rethinking integrated care: a systematic hermeneutic review of the literature on integrated care strategies and concepts. Milbank Q. 2020;98:446–492. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12459.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel