Cargando…

Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination

BACKGROUND: The Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes (PROVEN) is one of the first large pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to be conducted in U.S. nursing homes (N = 119 intervention and N = 241 control across two health-care systems). The trial aims to evaluate the effectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palmer, Jennifer A., Parker, Victoria A., Barre, Lacey R., Mor, Vincent, Volandes, Angelo E., Belanger, Emmanuelle, Loomer, Lacey, McCreedy, Ellen, Mitchell, Susan L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31779684
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3725-5
_version_ 1783474400759119872
author Palmer, Jennifer A.
Parker, Victoria A.
Barre, Lacey R.
Mor, Vincent
Volandes, Angelo E.
Belanger, Emmanuelle
Loomer, Lacey
McCreedy, Ellen
Mitchell, Susan L.
author_facet Palmer, Jennifer A.
Parker, Victoria A.
Barre, Lacey R.
Mor, Vincent
Volandes, Angelo E.
Belanger, Emmanuelle
Loomer, Lacey
McCreedy, Ellen
Mitchell, Susan L.
author_sort Palmer, Jennifer A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes (PROVEN) is one of the first large pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to be conducted in U.S. nursing homes (N = 119 intervention and N = 241 control across two health-care systems). The trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a suite of videos to improve advance care planning (ACP) for nursing home patients. This report uses mixed methods to explore the optimal and suboptimal conditions necessary for implementation fidelity within pRCTs in nursing homes. METHODS: PROVEN’s protocol required designated facility champions to offer an ACP video to long-stay patients every 6 months during the 18-month implementation period. Champions completed a video status report, stored within electronic medical records, each time a video was offered. Data from the report were used to derive each facility’s adherence rate (i.e., cumulative video offer). Qualitative interviews held after 15 months with champions were purposively sampled from facilities within the highest and lowest adherence rates (i.e., those in the top and bottom quintiles). Two researchers analyzed interview data thematically using a deductive approach based upon six domains of the revised Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF). Matrices were developed to compare coded narratives by domain across facility adherence status. RESULTS: In total, 28 interviews involving 33 champions were analyzed. Different patterns were observed across high- versus low-adherence facilities for five CFIF domains. In low-adherence nursing homes, (1) there were limited implementation resources (Context), (2) there was often a perceived negative patient or family responsiveness to the program (Participant Responsiveness), and (3) champions were reticent in offering the videos (Recruitment). In high-adherence nursing homes, (1) there was more perceived patient and family willingness to engage in the program (Participant Responsiveness), (2) champions supplemented the video with ACP conversations (Quality of Delivery), (3) there were strategic approaches to recruitment (Recruitment), and (4) champions appreciated external facilitation (Strategies to Facilitate Implementation). CONCLUSIONS: Critical lessons for implementing pRCTs in nursing homes emerged from this report: (1) flexible fidelity is important (i.e., delivering core elements of an intervention while permitting the adaptation of non-core elements), (2) reciprocal facilitation is vital (i.e., early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in research design and, reciprocally, researchers’ and organizational leaders’ ongoing support of the implementation), and (3) organizational and champion readiness should be formally assessed early and throughout implementation to facilitate remediation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612688. Registered on 19 November 2015.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6883560
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68835602019-12-03 Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination Palmer, Jennifer A. Parker, Victoria A. Barre, Lacey R. Mor, Vincent Volandes, Angelo E. Belanger, Emmanuelle Loomer, Lacey McCreedy, Ellen Mitchell, Susan L. Trials Research BACKGROUND: The Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes (PROVEN) is one of the first large pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to be conducted in U.S. nursing homes (N = 119 intervention and N = 241 control across two health-care systems). The trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a suite of videos to improve advance care planning (ACP) for nursing home patients. This report uses mixed methods to explore the optimal and suboptimal conditions necessary for implementation fidelity within pRCTs in nursing homes. METHODS: PROVEN’s protocol required designated facility champions to offer an ACP video to long-stay patients every 6 months during the 18-month implementation period. Champions completed a video status report, stored within electronic medical records, each time a video was offered. Data from the report were used to derive each facility’s adherence rate (i.e., cumulative video offer). Qualitative interviews held after 15 months with champions were purposively sampled from facilities within the highest and lowest adherence rates (i.e., those in the top and bottom quintiles). Two researchers analyzed interview data thematically using a deductive approach based upon six domains of the revised Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF). Matrices were developed to compare coded narratives by domain across facility adherence status. RESULTS: In total, 28 interviews involving 33 champions were analyzed. Different patterns were observed across high- versus low-adherence facilities for five CFIF domains. In low-adherence nursing homes, (1) there were limited implementation resources (Context), (2) there was often a perceived negative patient or family responsiveness to the program (Participant Responsiveness), and (3) champions were reticent in offering the videos (Recruitment). In high-adherence nursing homes, (1) there was more perceived patient and family willingness to engage in the program (Participant Responsiveness), (2) champions supplemented the video with ACP conversations (Quality of Delivery), (3) there were strategic approaches to recruitment (Recruitment), and (4) champions appreciated external facilitation (Strategies to Facilitate Implementation). CONCLUSIONS: Critical lessons for implementing pRCTs in nursing homes emerged from this report: (1) flexible fidelity is important (i.e., delivering core elements of an intervention while permitting the adaptation of non-core elements), (2) reciprocal facilitation is vital (i.e., early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in research design and, reciprocally, researchers’ and organizational leaders’ ongoing support of the implementation), and (3) organizational and champion readiness should be formally assessed early and throughout implementation to facilitate remediation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612688. Registered on 19 November 2015. BioMed Central 2019-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6883560/ /pubmed/31779684 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3725-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 Research
Palmer, Jennifer A.
Parker, Victoria A.
Barre, Lacey R.
Mor, Vincent
Volandes, Angelo E.
Belanger, Emmanuelle
Loomer, Lacey
McCreedy, Ellen
Mitchell, Susan L.
Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination
title Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination
title_full Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination
title_fullStr Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination
title_full_unstemmed Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination
title_short Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination
title_sort understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31779684
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3725-5
work_keys_str_mv AT palmerjennifera understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT parkervictoriaa understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT barrelaceyr understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT morvincent understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT volandesangeloe understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT belangeremmanuelle understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT loomerlacey understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT mccreedyellen understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination
AT mitchellsusanl understandingimplementationfidelityinapragmaticrandomizedclinicaltrialinthenursinghomesettingamixedmethodsexamination