Promoting patient and nurse safety: testing a behavioural health intervention in a learning healthcare system: results of the DEMEANOR pragmatic, cluster, cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on clinical staff safety within a learning healthcare system, the purpose of this study was to test an innovative model of care for addressing disruptive behaviour in hospitalised patients to determine whether it should be scaled up at the system level. METHODS: The Disruptive bEhaviour manageMEnt ANd prevention in hospitalised patients using a behaviOuRal (DEMEANOR) intervention team was a pragmatic, cluster, cross-over trial. A behavioural intervention team (BIT) with a psychiatric mental health advanced practice nurse and a social worker, with psychiatrist consultation, switched between units each month and occurrences of disruptive behaviours (eg, documented violence control measures, violence risk) compared. Nursing surveys assessed self-perceived efficacy and comfort managing disruptive patient behaviour. RESULTS: A total of 3800 patients hospitalised on the two units met the criteria for inclusion. Of those, 1841 (48.4%) were exposed to the BIT intervention and 1959 (51.6%) were in the control group. A total of 11 132 individual behavioural issues associated with 203 patient encounters were documented. There were no differences in the use of behavioural interventions, violence risk or injurious behaviour or sitter use between patients exposed to BIT and those in the control group. Tracking these data did rely on nursing documentation of such events. Nurses (82 pre and 48 post) rated BIT as the most beneficial support they received to manage patients exhibiting disruptive, threatening or acting out behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The BIT intervention was perceived as beneficial by nurses in preparing them to provide care for patients exhibiting disruptive, threatening or acting out behaviour, but documented patient behaviour was not observed to change. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03777241.

Impact of a Follow-up Telephone Call Program on 30-Day Readmissions (FUTR-30): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Real-world Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Telephone call programs are a common intervention used to improve patients' transition to outpatient care after hospital discharge. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a follow-up telephone call program as a readmission reduction initiative. RESEARCH DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized controlled real-world effectiveness trial. SUBJECTS: We enrolled and randomized all patients discharged home from a hospital general medicine service to a follow-up telephone call program or usual care discharge. Patients discharged against medical advice were excluded. The intervention was a hospital program, delivering a semistructured follow-up telephone call from a nurse within 3-7 days of discharge, designed to assess understanding and provide education, and assistance to support discharge plan implementation. MEASURES: Our primary endpoint was hospital inpatient readmission within 30 days identified by the electronic health record. Secondary endpoints included observation readmission, emergency department revisit, and mortality within 30 days, and patient experience ratings. RESULTS: All 3054 patients discharged home were enrolled and randomized to the telephone call program (n=1534) or usual care discharge (n=1520). Using a prespecified intention-to-treat analysis, we found no evidence supporting differences in 30-day inpatient readmissions [14.9% vs. 15.3%; difference -0.4 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI), -2.9 to 2.1; P=0.76], observation readmissions [3.8% vs. 3.6%; difference 0.2 (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.6); P=0.74], emergency department revisits [6.1% vs. 5.4%; difference 0.7 (95% CI, -1.0 to 2.3); P=0.43], or mortality [4.4% vs. 4.9%; difference -0.5 (95% CI, -2.0 to 1.0); P=0.51] between telephone call and usual care groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of an impact on 30-day readmissions or mortality due to the postdischarge telephone call program.

The Disruptive bEhavior manageMEnt ANd prevention in hospitalized patients using a behaviORal intervention team (DEMEANOR) study protocol: a pragmatic, cluster, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Disruptive behavior in hospitalized patients has become a priority area of safety concern for clinical staff, and also has consequences for patient management and hospital course. Proactive screening and intervention of patients with behavioral comorbidities has been reported to reduce disruptive behavior in some settings, but it has not been studied in a rigorous way. METHODS: The Disruptive bEhavior manageMEnt ANd prevention in hospitalized patients using a behaviORal intervention team (DEMEANOR) study is a pragmatic, cluster, crossover trial that is being conducted. Each month, the behavioral intervention team, comprising a psychiatric-mental health advanced practice nurse and a clinical social worker, with psychiatrist consultation as needed, rotates between an adult medicine unit and a mixed cardiac unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, TN, USA. The team proactively screens patients upon admission, utilizing a protocol which includes a comprehensive chart review and, if indicated, a brief interview, seeking to identify those patients who possess risk factors indicative of either a potential psychological barrier to their own clinical progress or a potential risk for exhibiting disruptive, aggressive, or self-injurious behavior during their hospitalization. Once identified, the team provides interventions aimed at mitigating these risks, educates and supports the patient care teams (nurses, physicians, and others), and assists non-psychiatric staff in the management of patients who require behavioral healthcare. Patients who are both admitted to and discharged from either unit are included in the study. Anticipated enrollment is approximately 1790 patients. The two primary outcomes are (1) a composite of objective measures related to the patients' disruptive, threatening, or acting out behaviors, and (2) staff self-reported comfort with and confidence in their ability to manage patients exhibiting disruptive, threatening, or acting out behavior. Secondary outcomes include patient length of stay, patient attendant (sitter) use, and the unit nursing staff retention. DISCUSSION: This ongoing trial will provide evidence on the real-world effectiveness of a proactive behavioral intervention to prevent disruptive, threatening, or acting out events in adult hospitalized patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777241. Registered on 14 December 2018.

Randomised controlled pragmatic clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of a discharge follow-up phone call on 30-day hospital readmissions: balancing pragmatic and explanatory design considerations.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital readmissions within 30 days are a healthcare quality problem associated with increased costs and poor health outcomes. Identifying interventions to improve patients' successful transition from inpatient to outpatient care is a continued challenge. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre pragmatic randomised and controlled clinical trial examining the effectiveness of a discharge follow-up phone call to reduce 30-day inpatient readmissions. Our primary endpoint is inpatient readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge censored for death analysed with an intention-to-treat approach. Secondary endpoints included observation status readmission within 30 days, time to readmission, all-cause emergency department revisits within 30 days, patient satisfaction (measured as mean Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores) and 30-day mortality. Exploratory endpoints include the need for assistance with discharge plan implementation among those randomised to the intervention arm and reached by the study nurse, and the number of call attempts to achieve successful intervention delivery. Consistent with the Learning Healthcare System model for clinical research, timeliness is a critical quality for studies to most effectively inform hospital clinical practice. We are challenged to apply pragmatic design elements in order to maintain a high-quality practicable study providing timely results. This type of prospective pragmatic trial empowers the advancement of hospital-wide evidence-based practice directly affecting patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study results will inform the structure, objective and function of future iterations of the hospital's discharge follow-up phone call programme and be submitted for publication in the literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03050918; Pre-results.

Learning curve in transradial cardiac catheterization: procedure-related parameters stratified by operators' transradial volume.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether radial artery access is associated with a reduction in fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and other procedural variables over a 27-month period during which the radial artery approach was incorporated in a single academic Medical Center. BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between increased volume and decreased procedural time, no studies have looked at the integration of radial access over time. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients who presented to the Vanderbilt University Medical Center cardiac catheterization laboratory from January 1, 2009 to April 1, 2011. Patients who underwent radial access diagnostic catheterization with and without percutaneous coronary intervention were included in this study. A total of 1112 diagnostic cardiac catheterizations through the radial access site were analyzed. High-volume, intermediate-volume, and low-volume operators were grouped based on the percentage of procedures performed through a radial approach. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2011, there was a significant decrease in fluoroscopy time in all operator groups for diagnostic catheterization (P=.035). The high-volume operator group had 1.88 and 3.66 minute reductions in fluoroscopy time compared to the intermediate- and low-volume operator groups, respectively (both P<.001). Likewise, the intermediate-volume operator group had a 1.77 minute improvement compared to the low-volume operator group, but this did not reach statistical significance (P=.102). The improvement in fluoroscopy time and other procedure-related parameters was seen after approximately 25 cases with further improvement after 75 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of the radial access approach in the cardiac catheterization laboratory led to a decrease in fluoroscopy time for each operator and operator group over the last 3 years. Our data demonstrated that higher-volume radial operators have better procedure, room, and fluoroscopy times when compared to intermediate- and low-volume operators. However, lower-volume operators have a reduction in procedure-related parameters with increased radial cases. Number of procedures needed to become sufficient was demonstrated in the current study.