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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |