Process evaluation of the implementation of a decision support system to prevent and treat disease-related malnutrition in a hospital setting

Mari Mohn Paulsen, Cecilie Varsi, Lene Frost Andersen, Mari Mohn Paulsen, Cecilie Varsi, Lene Frost Andersen

Abstract

Background: Malnutrition is present in 30% of hospitalized patients and has adverse outcomes for the patient and the healthcare system. The current practice for nutritional care is associated with many barriers. The MyFood decision support system was developed to prevent and treat malnutrition.

Methods: This paper reports on a process evaluation that was completed within an effectiveness trial. MyFood is a digital tool with an interface consisting of an app and a website. MyFood includes functions to record and evaluate dietary intake. It also provides reports to nurses, including tailored recommendations for nutritional treatment. We used an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design in a randomized controlled trial. The RE-AIM (Reach, Efficiency, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework was used to perform a process evaluation alongside the randomized controlled trial, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. An implementation plan, including implementation strategies, was developed to plan and guide the study.

Results: Reach: In total, 88% of eligible patients consented to participate (n = 100). Adoption: Approximately 75% of the nurses signed up to use MyFood and 50% used the reports.

Implementation: MyFood empowered the patients in their nutritional situation and acted as a motivation to eat to reach their nutritional target. The compliance of using MyFood was higher among the patients than the nurses. A barrier for use of MyFood among the nurses was different digital systems which were not integrated and the log-in procedure to the MyFood website. Despite limited use by some nurses, the majority of the nurses claimed that MyFood was useful, better than the current practice, and should be implemented in the healthcare system.

Conclusions: This study used a process evaluation to interpret the results of a randomized controlled trial more in-depth. The patients were highly compliant, however, the compliance was lower among the nurses. MyFood empowered the patients in their nutritional situation, the usability was considered as high, and the experiences and attitudes towards MyFood were primarily positive. Focus on strategies to improve the nurses' compliance may in the future improve the MyFood system's potential.

Trial registration: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov 26/01/2018 ( NCT03412695 ).

Keywords: Decision support system; Malnutrition; Process evaluation; RE-AIM, effectiveness-implementation hybrid design; eHealth.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Dietary recording and evaluation in MyFood
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Attitudes and experiences among nurses (n = 68) with the MyFood system, based on the Likert 5-point scale ranging from 1: ‘Totally disagree’ to 5: ‘Totally agree’

References

    1. Norman K, Pichard C, Lochs H, Pirlich M. Prognostic impact of disease-related malnutrition. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(1):5–15. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2007.10.007.
    1. Sauer AC, Goates S, Malone A, Mogensen KM, Gewirtz G, Sulz I, et al. Prevalence of malnutrition risk and the impact of nutrition risk on hospital outcomes: results from nutritionDay in the U.S. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2019;43(7):918–926. doi: 10.1002/jpen.1499.
    1. Sorensen J, Kondrup J, Prokopowicz J, Schiesser M, Krahenbuhl L, Meier R, et al. EuroOOPS: an international, multicentre study to implement nutritional risk screening and evaluate clinical outcome. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(3):340–349. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2008.03.012.
    1. Agarwal E. Disease-related malnutrition in the twenty-first century: from best evidence to best practice. Nutr Diet. 2017;74(3):213–216. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12364.
    1. Kruizenga H, van Keeken S, Weijs P, Bastiaanse L, Beijer S, Huisman-de Waal G, et al. Undernutrition screening survey in 564,063 patients: patients with a positive undernutrition screening score stay in hospital 1.4 d longer. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;103(4):1026–1032. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.126615.
    1. Paulsen MM, Hagen MLL, Froyen MH, Foss-Pedersen RJ, Bergsager D, Tangvik RJ, et al. A dietary assessment app for hospitalized patients at nutritional risk: development and evaluation of the MyFood app. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2018;6(9):e175. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9953.
    1. Paulsen MM, Paur I, Gjestland J, Henriksen C, Varsi C, Tangvik RJ, et al. Effects of using the MyFood decision support system on hospitalized patients’ nutritional status and treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(12):3607–3617. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.03.012.
    1. Scott SD, Rotter T, Flynn R, Brooks HM, Plesuk T, Bannar-Martin KH, et al. Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1161-y.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
    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. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–1327. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
    1. Lichtwarck B, Myhre J, Selbaek G, Kirkevold O, AMM R, Benth JS, et al. TIME to reduce agitation in persons with dementia in nursing homes. A process evaluation of a complex intervention. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):349. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4168-0.
    1. Olstad DL, Ball K, Abbott G, McNaughton SA, Le HN, Ni Mhurchu C, et al. A process evaluation of the supermarket healthy eating for life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13:27. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0352-3.
    1. Ward S, Chow AF, Humbert ML, Belanger M, Muhajarine N, Vatanparast H, et al. Promoting physical activity, healthy eating and gross motor skills development among preschoolers attending childcare centers: process evaluation of the healthy start-depart Sante intervention using the RE-AIM framework. Eval Program Plann. 2018;68:90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.02.005.
    1. National Clinical Effectiveness Committee . Implementation guide and toolkit for National Clinical Guidelines. 2018.
    1. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–226. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
    1. Landes SJ, McBain SA, Curran GM. An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Psychiatry Res. 2019;280:112513. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112513.
    1. The Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi). ID-porten 2018. . Accessed 7 May 2020.
    1. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.
    1. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.
    1. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) study. Implement Scie. 2015;10:109. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Paulsen MM, Varsi C, Paur I, Tangvik RJ, Andersen LF. Barriers and facilitators for implementing a decision support system to prevent and treat disease-related malnutrition in a hospital setting: qualitative study. JMIR formative Res. 2019;3(2):e11890. doi: 10.2196/11890.
    1. University of Oslo. Sensitive data services (TSD) 2015. . Accessed 7 May 2020.
    1. University of Oslo. Nettskjema 2018. . Accessed 7 May 2020.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847.
    1. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1985.
    1. Wildenbos GA, Peute L, Jaspers M. Aging barriers influencing mobile health usability for older adults: a literature based framework (MOLD-US) Int J Med Inform. 2018;114:66–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.03.012.
    1. Alvseike H, Bronnick K. Feasibility of the iPad as a hub for smart house technology in the elderly; effects of cognition, self-efficacy, and technology experience. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2012;5:299–306. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S35344.
    1. Vaportzis E, Clausen MG, Gow AJ. Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus group study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1687. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01687.
    1. Gibson CH. A concept analysis of empowerment. J Adv Nurs. 1991;16(3):354–361. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1991.tb01660.x.
    1. Calvillo J, Roman I, Roa LM. How technology is empowering patients? A literature review. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):643–652. doi: 10.1111/hex.12089.
    1. Leonardsen AL, Hardeland C, Helgesen AK, Grøndahl VA. Patient experiences with technology enabled care across healthcare settings- a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):779. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05633-4.
    1. Roberts S, Chaboyer W, Marshall AP. Hospital patients’ perceptions of using a technology-based intervention to participate in their nutrition care: a qualitative descriptive study. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2020;39:79–86. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.07.014.
    1. Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilczynski JM, Hemens BJ, You JJ, Handler SM, et al. Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;346:f657. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f657.
    1. Mahmood A, Kedia S, Wyant DK, Ahn S, Bhuyan SS. Use of mobile health applications for health-promoting behavior among individuals with chronic medical conditions. Digital Health. 2019;5:2055207619882181. doi: 10.1177/2055207619882181.
    1. Villalobos N, Vela FS, Hernandez LM. Digital healthcare intervention to improve self-management for patients with type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. J Sci Innov Med. 2020;3(3):1–11.
    1. Holst M, Rasmussen HH, Laursen BS. Can the patient perspective contribute to quality of nutritional care? Scand J Caring Sci. 2011;25(1):176–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00808.x.
    1. Roberts S, Marshall A, Chaboyer W. Hospital staffs’ perceptions of an electronic program to engage patients in nutrition care at the bedside: a qualitative study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0495-4.
    1. Varsi C, Solberg Nes L, Kristjansdottir OB, Kelders SM, Stenberg U, Zangi HA, et al. Implementation strategies to enhance the implementation of eHealth programs for patients with chronic illnesses: realist systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(9):e14255. doi: 10.2196/14255.
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of Health . National guidelines for prevention and treatment of malnutrition (Nasjonale faglige retningslinjer for forebygging og behandling av underernæring) Oslo: Helsedirektoratet, Avdeling ernæring; 2009.
    1. Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, Vellas B, Plauth M. ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002. Clin Nutr. 2003;22(4):415–421. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5614(03)00098-0.
    1. Pasient- og brukerrettighetsloven.1999. Lov om pasient-og brukerrettigheter av 1999-07-02 nr 63 (The Norwegian Patient's Rights Act). 1999. . Accessed 5 Aug 2020.
    1. Helsepersonelloven. 1999. Lov om helsepersonell m.v. av 1999-07-02 nr 64 (The Norwegian Health Personnel Act. 1999. . Accessed 5 Aug 2020.
    1. Varsi C, Ekstedt M, Gammon D, Borosund E, Ruland CM. Middle Managers’ experiences and role in implementing an interactive tailored patient assessment eHealth intervention in clinical practice. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015;33(6):249–257. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000158.
    1. Gerrish K, Laker S, Taylor C, Kennedy F, McDonnell A. Enhancing the quality of oral nutrition support for hospitalized patients: a mixed methods knowledge translation study (the EQONS study) J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(12):3182–3194. doi: 10.1111/jan.13085.
    1. Roberts S, Grealish L, Williams LT, Hopper Z, Jenkins J, Spencer A, et al. Development and process evaluation of a complex intervention for improving nutrition among hospitalised patients: a mixed methods study. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). 2019;7(2):1–14.
    1. Taylor J, Coates E, Wessels B, Mountain G, Hawley MS. Implementing solutions to improve and expand telehealth adoption: participatory action research in four community healthcare settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:529. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1195-3.
    1. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007;2:40. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-40.
    1. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
    1. Cowie J, Nicoll A, Dimova ED, Campbell P, Duncan EA. The barriers and facilitators influencing the sustainability of hospital-based interventions: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):588. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05434-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren