Using implementation science to encourage Serious Illness Conversations on general medicine inpatient services: An interrupted time series.

Myrna Katalina Serna, Catherine Yoon, Julie Fiskio, Joshua R Lakin, Anuj K Dalal, Jeffrey L Schnipper
{"title":"Using implementation science to encourage Serious Illness Conversations on general medicine inpatient services: An interrupted time series.","authors":"Myrna Katalina Serna, Catherine Yoon, Julie Fiskio, Joshua R Lakin, Anuj K Dalal, Jeffrey L Schnipper","doi":"10.1002/jhm.13537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) are not consistently integrated into existing inpatient workflows.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We assessed the implementation of multiple interventions aimed at encouraging SICs with hospitalized patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify determinants for conducting SICs by interviewing providers and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to develop a list of interventions. Adult patient encounters with a Readmission Risk Score (RRS) > 28% admitted to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 and without standardized SIC documentation in the prior year were included. A multivariable segmented logistic regression model, suitable for an interrupted time series analysis, was used to assess changes in the odds of standardized SIC documentation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Barriers included those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, such as extreme census. Facilitators included the presence of the Speaking About Goals and Expectations program and palliative care consultations. Key interventions included patient identification via the existing Quality and Safety Dashboard (QSD), weekly emails, in-person outreach, and training for faculty and trainees. There was no significant change in the odds of standardized SIC documentation despite interventions (change in temporal trend odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.98-1.39).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The lack of significant change in standardized SIC documentation may be attributed to insufficient or ineffective interventions and COVID-19-related challenges. Although patient identification is a known barrier to SICs, this issue was minimized with the use of the QSD and RRS. Further research is needed to enhance the implementation of SICs in inpatient settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) are not consistently integrated into existing inpatient workflows.

Objective: We assessed the implementation of multiple interventions aimed at encouraging SICs with hospitalized patients.

Methods: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify determinants for conducting SICs by interviewing providers and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to develop a list of interventions. Adult patient encounters with a Readmission Risk Score (RRS) > 28% admitted to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 and without standardized SIC documentation in the prior year were included. A multivariable segmented logistic regression model, suitable for an interrupted time series analysis, was used to assess changes in the odds of standardized SIC documentation.

Results: Barriers included those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, such as extreme census. Facilitators included the presence of the Speaking About Goals and Expectations program and palliative care consultations. Key interventions included patient identification via the existing Quality and Safety Dashboard (QSD), weekly emails, in-person outreach, and training for faculty and trainees. There was no significant change in the odds of standardized SIC documentation despite interventions (change in temporal trend odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.98-1.39).

Conclusion: The lack of significant change in standardized SIC documentation may be attributed to insufficient or ineffective interventions and COVID-19-related challenges. Although patient identification is a known barrier to SICs, this issue was minimized with the use of the QSD and RRS. Further research is needed to enhance the implementation of SICs in inpatient settings.

利用实施科学鼓励全科住院病人进行重病对话:间断时间序列。
背景:严重疾病会诊(SIC)没有与现有的住院病人工作流程一致:严重疾病对话(SIC)并没有持续融入现有的住院病人工作流程:我们评估了旨在鼓励住院患者进行重症疾病对话的多种干预措施的实施情况:我们利用实施研究综合框架(Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research)通过访谈医疗服务提供者来确定开展 SIC 的决定因素,并利用实施变革专家建议(Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change)来制定干预措施清单。我们纳入了在 2019 年 1 月至 2021 年 10 月期间接受全科医疗服务、再入院风险评分 (RRS) > 28% 且上一年没有标准化 SIC 文档的成人患者。采用适合间断时间序列分析的多变量分段逻辑回归模型来评估标准化 SIC 文件的几率变化:结果:障碍包括与 COVID-19 大流行相关的因素,如极端人口普查。促进因素包括 "谈论目标和期望 "项目的存在以及姑息关怀咨询。主要干预措施包括通过现有的质量与安全仪表板(QSD)识别患者、每周发送电子邮件、面对面宣传以及对教师和受训人员进行培训。尽管采取了干预措施,但标准化 SIC 文件的几率没有发生明显变化(时间趋势变化几率比 (OR) 1.16,95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.98-1.39):结论:标准化 SIC 文档缺乏重大变化可能是由于干预不足或无效以及 COVID-19 相关挑战造成的。虽然患者身份识别是 SIC 的一个已知障碍,但通过使用 QSD 和 RRS,这一问题已最小化。要在住院环境中加强 SIC 的实施,还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信