Factors influencing fidelity to guideline implementation strategies for improving pain care at cancer centres: a qualitative sub-study of the Stop Cancer PAIN Trial.
The Stop Cancer PAIN Trial was a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial which compared effectiveness of screening and guidelines with or without implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending six Australian outpatient comprehensive cancer centres (n = 688). A system for pain screening was introduced before observation of a 'control' phase. Implementation strategies introduced in the 'intervention' phase included: (1) audit of adherence to guideline recommendations, with feedback to clinical teams; (2) health professional education via an email-administered 'spaced education' module; and (3) a patient education booklet and self-management resource. Selection of strategies was informed by the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model (Michie et al., 2011) and evidence for each strategy's stand-alone effectiveness. A consultant physician at each centre supported the intervention as a 'clinical champion'. However, fidelity to the intervention was limited, and the Trial did not demonstrate effectiveness. This paper reports a sub-study of the Trial which aimed to identify factors inhibiting or enabling fidelity to inform future guideline implementation initiatives.
The qualitative sub-study enabled in-depth exploration of factors from the perspectives of personnel at each centre. Clinical champions, clinicians and clinic receptionists were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Analysis used a framework method and a largely deductive approach based on the COM-B Model.
Twenty-four people participated, including 15 physicians, 8 nurses and 1 clinic receptionist. Coding against the COM-B Model identified 'capability' to be the most influential component, with 'opportunity' and 'motivation' playing largely subsidiary roles. Findings suggest that fidelity could have been improved by: considering the readiness for change of each clinical setting; better articulating the intervention's value proposition; defining clinician roles and responsibilities, addressing perceptions that pain care falls beyond oncology clinicians' scopes of practice; integrating the intervention within existing systems and processes; promoting patient-clinician partnerships; investing in clinical champions among senior nursing and junior medical personnel, supported by medical leaders; and planning for slow incremental change rather than rapid uptake.
Future guideline implementation interventions may require a 'meta-implementation' approach based on complex systems theory to successfully integrate multiple strategies.
Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number: ACTRN 12615000064505; data: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspxid=367236&isReview=true .
Luckett T
，Phillips J
，Agar M
，Richards L
，Reynolds N
，Garcia M
，Davidson P
，Shaw T
，Currow D
，Boyle F
，Lam L
，McCaffrey N
，Lovell M
... -
《BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH》
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.
Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.
To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.
We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.
We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I2 = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I2 = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I2 = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.
Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.
Bajwah S
，Oluyase AO
，Yi D
，Gao W
，Evans CJ
，Grande G
，Todd C
，Costantini M
，Murtagh FE
，Higginson IJ
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
