Cargando…

Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis

BACKGROUND: Vital signs are the primary indicator of physiological status and for determining the need for urgent clinical treatment. Yet, if physiological signs of deterioration are missed, misinterpreted or mismanaged, then critical illness, unplanned intensive care admissions, cardiac arrest and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bucknall, Tracey K., Harvey, Gill, Considine, Julie, Mitchell, Imogen, Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Graham, Ian D., Mohebbi, Mohammadreza, Watts, Jennifer, Hutchinson, Alison M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28693596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0617-5
_version_ 1783249307973976064
author Bucknall, Tracey K.
Harvey, Gill
Considine, Julie
Mitchell, Imogen
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
Graham, Ian D.
Mohebbi, Mohammadreza
Watts, Jennifer
Hutchinson, Alison M.
author_facet Bucknall, Tracey K.
Harvey, Gill
Considine, Julie
Mitchell, Imogen
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
Graham, Ian D.
Mohebbi, Mohammadreza
Watts, Jennifer
Hutchinson, Alison M.
author_sort Bucknall, Tracey K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Vital signs are the primary indicator of physiological status and for determining the need for urgent clinical treatment. Yet, if physiological signs of deterioration are missed, misinterpreted or mismanaged, then critical illness, unplanned intensive care admissions, cardiac arrest and death may ensue. Although evidence demonstrates the benefit of early recognition and management of deteriorating patients, failure to escalate care and manage deteriorating patients remains a relatively frequent occurrence in hospitals. METHODS/DESIGN: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial design will be used to measure clinical effectiveness and cost of a facilitation intervention to improve nurses’ vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for patients with abnormal vital signs. A cost consequence analysis will evaluate the intervention cost and effectiveness, and a process evaluation will determine how the implementation of the intervention contributes to outcomes. We will compare clinical outcomes and costs from standard implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to facilitated implementation of CPGs. The primary outcome will be adherence to the CPGs by nurses, as measured by escalation of care as per organisational policy. The study will be conducted in four Australian major metropolitan teaching hospitals. In each hospital, eight to ten wards will be randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. Control wards will receive standard implementation of CPGs, while intervention wards will receive standard CPG implementation plus facilitation, using facilitation methods and processes tailored to the ward context. The intervention will be administered to all nursing staff at the ward level for 6 months. At each hospital, two types of facilitators will be provided: a hospital-level facilitator as the lead; and two ward-level facilitators for each ward. DISCUSSION: This study uses an innovative, networked approach to facilitation to enable uptake of CPGs. Findings will inform the intervention utility and knowledge translation measurement approaches. If successful, the study methodology and intervention has potential for translation to other health care standards. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12616000544471p
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5504605
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55046052017-07-12 Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis Bucknall, Tracey K. Harvey, Gill Considine, Julie Mitchell, Imogen Rycroft-Malone, Jo Graham, Ian D. Mohebbi, Mohammadreza Watts, Jennifer Hutchinson, Alison M. Implement Sci Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Vital signs are the primary indicator of physiological status and for determining the need for urgent clinical treatment. Yet, if physiological signs of deterioration are missed, misinterpreted or mismanaged, then critical illness, unplanned intensive care admissions, cardiac arrest and death may ensue. Although evidence demonstrates the benefit of early recognition and management of deteriorating patients, failure to escalate care and manage deteriorating patients remains a relatively frequent occurrence in hospitals. METHODS/DESIGN: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial design will be used to measure clinical effectiveness and cost of a facilitation intervention to improve nurses’ vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for patients with abnormal vital signs. A cost consequence analysis will evaluate the intervention cost and effectiveness, and a process evaluation will determine how the implementation of the intervention contributes to outcomes. We will compare clinical outcomes and costs from standard implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to facilitated implementation of CPGs. The primary outcome will be adherence to the CPGs by nurses, as measured by escalation of care as per organisational policy. The study will be conducted in four Australian major metropolitan teaching hospitals. In each hospital, eight to ten wards will be randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. Control wards will receive standard implementation of CPGs, while intervention wards will receive standard CPG implementation plus facilitation, using facilitation methods and processes tailored to the ward context. The intervention will be administered to all nursing staff at the ward level for 6 months. At each hospital, two types of facilitators will be provided: a hospital-level facilitator as the lead; and two ward-level facilitators for each ward. DISCUSSION: This study uses an innovative, networked approach to facilitation to enable uptake of CPGs. Findings will inform the intervention utility and knowledge translation measurement approaches. If successful, the study methodology and intervention has potential for translation to other health care standards. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12616000544471p BioMed Central 2017-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5504605/ /pubmed/28693596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0617-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Bucknall, Tracey K.
Harvey, Gill
Considine, Julie
Mitchell, Imogen
Rycroft-Malone, Jo
Graham, Ian D.
Mohebbi, Mohammadreza
Watts, Jennifer
Hutchinson, Alison M.
Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis
title Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis
title_full Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis
title_fullStr Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis
title_full_unstemmed Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis
title_short Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis
title_sort prioritising responses of nurses to deteriorating patient observations (pronto) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28693596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0617-5
work_keys_str_mv AT bucknalltraceyk prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT harveygill prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT considinejulie prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT mitchellimogen prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT rycroftmalonejo prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT grahamiand prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT mohebbimohammadreza prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT wattsjennifer prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis
AT hutchinsonalisonm prioritisingresponsesofnursestodeterioratingpatientobservationsprontoprotocoltestingtheeffectivenessofafacilitationinterventioninapragmaticclusterrandomisedtrialwithanembeddedprocessevaluationandcostanalysis