Implementation of the Frailty Care Bundle (FCB) to promote mobilisation, nutrition and cognitive engagement in older people in acute care settings: protocol for an implementation science study

Background: Older people are among the most vulnerable patients in acute care hospitals. The hospitalisation process can result in newly acquired functional or cognitive deficits termed hospital associated decline (HAD). Prioritising fundamental care including mobilisation, nutrition, and cognitive engagement can reduce HAD risk. Aim: The Frailty Care Bundle (FCB) intervention aims to implement and evaluate evidence-based principles on early mobilisation, enhanced nutrition and increased cognitive engagement to prevent functional decline and HAD in older patients. Methods: A hybrid implementation science study will use a pragmatic prospective cohort design with a pre-post mixed methods evaluation to test the effect of the FCB on patient, staff, and health service outcomes. The evaluation will include a description of the implementation process, intervention adaptations, and economic costs analysis. The protocol follows the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI). The intervention design and implementation strategy will utilise the behaviour change theory COM-B (capability, motivation, opportunity) and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS). A clinical facilitator will use a co-production approach with staff. All patients will receive care as normal, the intervention is delivered at ward level and focuses on nurses and health care assistants (HCA) normative clinical practices. The intervention will be delivered in three hospitals on six wards including rehabilitation, acute trauma, medical and older adult wards. Evaluation: The evaluation will recruit a volunteer sample of 180 patients aged 65 years or older (pre 90; post 90 patients). The primary outcomes are measures of functional status (modified Barthel Index (MBI)) and mobilisation measured as average daily step count using accelerometers. Process data will include ward activity mapping, staff surveys and interviews and an economic cost-impact analysis. Conclusions: This is a complex intervention that involves ward and system level changes and has the potential to improve outcomes for older patients.

Accidental Hypothermia: 2021 Update

Accidental hypothermia is an unintentional drop of core temperature below 35 °C. Annually, thousands die of primary hypothermia and an unknown number die of secondary hypothermia worldwide. Hypothermia can be expected in emergency patients in the prehospital phase. Injured and intoxicated patients cool quickly even in subtropical regions. Preventive measures are important to avoid hypothermia or cooling in ill or injured patients. Diagnosis and assessment of the risk of cardiac arrest are based on clinical signs and core temperature measurement when available. Hypothermic patients with risk factors for imminent cardiac arrest (temperature < 30 °C in young and healthy patients and <32 °C in elderly persons, or patients with multiple comorbidities), ventricular dysrhythmias, or systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) and hypothermic patients who are already in cardiac arrest, should be transferred directly to an extracorporeal life support (ECLS) centre. If a hypothermic patient arrests, continuous cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) should be performed. In hypothermic patients, the chances of survival and good neurological outcome are higher than for normothermic patients for witnessed, unwitnessed and asystolic cardiac arrest. Mechanical CPR devices should be used for prolonged rescue, if available. In severely hypothermic patients in cardiac arrest, if continuous or mechanical CPR is not possible, intermittent CPR should be used. Rewarming can be accomplished by passive and active techniques. Most often, passive and active external techniques are used. Only in patients with refractory hypothermia or cardiac arrest are internal rewarming techniques required. ECLS rewarming should be performed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A post-resuscitation care bundle should complement treatment.

Co-development of a transitions in care bundle for patient transitions from the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods analysis of a stakeholder consensus meeting

Background Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community). Methods We conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle. Results Twenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants’ AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle. Conclusions Findings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.

Implementing a Goal-Directed Care Bundle after Acute Intracerebral Haemorrhage: Process Evaluation for the Third INTEnsive Care Bundle with Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Haemorrhage Trial Study in China

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The third INTEnsive care bundle with blood pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Haemorrhage Trial is an ongoing international, multicentre, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized trial to determine the effectiveness of a goal-directed care bundle (early intensive blood pressure [BP] lowering, glycaemic control, treatment of pyrexia, and reversal of anticoagulation), as compared to standard of care, on patient-centred outcomes after acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). An embedded process evaluation aims to identify factors related to the uptake and implementation of the intervention. Herein, we present the process evaluation results for hospital sites in China. <b><i>Methods/Design:</i></b> A mixed methods approach, including surveys, focused group discussions and interviews with clinicians, routine monitoring, and recruitment logs were used to collect data across purposively sampled hospitals. Medical Research Council guidance and normalization process theory were used as theoretical frameworks for design, data analysis, and synthesis. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twenty quantitative surveys were completed with clinicians, and 26 interviews and 2 focus group discussions were conducted during 2019–2020. The care bundle was generally delivered as planned and acceptable by doctors and nurses, but difficulties were reported in achieving the protocol-defined target levels of BP and glycaemic control. Resistance to implementing the care bundle occurred for patients perceived to be at high risk of adverse effects. Common organizational contextual factors that impeded implementation included delayed processes and limited medication supply, while established background care procedures, expertise, and capacity influenced its integration into routine practice. Areas to facilitate implementation included optimizing workflow within available resources, having a dedicated team, and recognizing the potential benefits of the intervention. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Varied established care protocols across sites, different levels of background expertise, and lack of staff capacity impeded the integration of goal-directed care bundle into routine practice for ICH patients in China. Ready identification, and efforts to address, these barriers could facilitate uptake of future guideline-recommended interventions for the management of patients with ICH.

Hyperglycaemia in COVID-19: improving recognition and management in a single centre

Background: Hyperglycaemia is a recognised complication of COVID-19 disease and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Effects are noted in individuals with and without diabetes and potentiated by the use of recognised COVID-19 treatments such as corticosteroids. Early glycaemic control in the inpatient with COVID-19 disease impacts significantly on outcomes. Methods: A three-phase improvement project evaluated the recognition and management of hyperglycaemia in 120 adult inpatients with COVID-19 disease over a 4-month period. A local guideline and a separate acute care ‘bundle’ were implemented to improve performance. The main outcomes of the project were evaluated in a repeated cross- sectional design; assessing the performance of regular capillary blood glucose monitoring and appropriate treatment of hyperglycaemia where indicated. Results: Prior to intervention, 78.6% of patients had appropriate capillary blood glucose monitoring and no patients were deemed to receive appropriate treatment. Following interventions, 83–100% of patients had appropriate monitoring and 75–100% received appropriate treatment. Conclusions: In this setting, implementation of a guideline and a care bundle contributed towards improved recognition and management of hyperglycaemia in patients with COVID-19 disease. Future study could assess the impact of interventions on a larger scale whilst investigating variation in the subtype of diabetes, patient sex and other demographics on outcomes such as length of stay, morbidity and mortality.

Improved outcomes following the implementation of a decompensated cirrhosis discharge bundle

IntroductionMortality from liver disease is increasing and management of decompensated cirrhosis (DC) is inconsistent across the UK. Patients with DC have complex medical needs when discharged from hospital and early readmissions are common. Our aims were: (1) to develop a Decompensated Cirrhosis Discharge Bundle (DCDB) to optimise ongoing care and (2) evaluate the impact of the DCDB.MethodsA baseline review of the management of patients with DC was conducted in Newcastle in 2017. The DCCB was developed and implemented in 2018. Impact of the DCDB was evaluated in two cycles, first a paper version (November 2018–October 2019) and then an electronic version (November 2020–March 2021). Key clinical data were collected from the time of discharge.ResultsOverall, 192 patients (62% male; median age 55; median model for end-stage liver disease 17; 72% alcohol related) were reviewed in three cycles. At baseline, management was suboptimal, particularly ascites/diuretic management and provision of follow-up for alcohol misuse and 12% of patients had a potentially avoidable readmission within 30 days. After DCDB introduction, care improved across most domains, particularly electrolyte monitoring (p=0.012) and provision of community alcohol follow-up (p=0.026). Potentially preventable readmissions fell to 5% (p=0.055).ConclusionsUse of a care bundle for patients with DC can standardise care and improve patient management. If used more widely this could improve outcomes and reduce variability in care for patients with DC.