Qualitative Evaluation of a Novel Educational Tool to Communicate Individualized Hip Fracture Prognostic Information to Patients and Surrogates: My Hip Fracture (My-HF).

INTRODUCTION: Mortality and morbidity are high for older adults after hip fracture (HF), but patients and surrogate decision makers (SDMs) are typically unaware of the poor prognosis. We developed a novel educational tool, My Hip Fracture (My-HF), to provide patients and SDMs of patients hospitalized with acute HF individualized estimates of their post-HF prognosis. We conducted initial usability testing of My-HF in a sample of patients with HF and SDMs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: My-HF provides information about: 1) anatomy and risk factors for HF; 2) Hip fracture treatment received; 3) individualized predicted risk of adverse events and 4) anticipated discharge trajectory. We conducted a qualitative usability study using a convenience sample of hospitalized, post-operative patients with acute HF or SDMs of patients who lacked decision-making capacity. We used semi-structured interviews to obtain feedback. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and concepts. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 8 patients and 9 SDMs (mean age of interviewees 70.1 years, 41% female). My-HF was generally well received. Thematic analysis identified legibility and visual appeal, comprehension, numeracy, utility and reflection as prominent themes. Most respondents found My-HF to be useful in improving their understanding of HF and as a potential mechanism for sharing information with other care team members (including family and professionals). Suggestions for improvement of legibility, presentation of the individualized prognosis information and content were identified. DISCUSSION: Patients and SDMs are generally accepting of My-HF and found it useful for communicating individualized prognostic information. Feedback identified areas for improvement for future iterations of the tool. CONCLUSION: My-HF presents a means of addressing the gap in understanding of prognosis post-HF as a part of patient-centered care. Further evaluation will be needed to assess the impact of My-HF on patient and SDM reported outcomes as we transition from a paper to smart-phone enabled web application.

A Clinical Communication Tool (Loop) for Team-Based Care in Pediatric and Adult Care Settings: Hybrid Mixed Methods Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Communication within the circle of care is central to coordinated, safe, and effective care; yet patients, caregivers, and health care providers often experience poor communication and fragmented care. Through a sequential program of research, the Loop Research Collaborative developed a web-based, asynchronous clinical communication system for team-based care. Loop assembles the circle of care centered on a patient, in private networking spaces called Patient Loops. The patient, their caregiver, or both are part of the Patient Loop. The communication is threaded, it can be filtered and sorted in multiple ways, it is securely stored, and can be exported for upload to a medical record. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate Loop. The study reporting adheres to the Standards for Reporting Implementation Research. METHODS: The study was a hybrid type II mixed methods design to simultaneously evaluate Loop's clinical and implementation effectiveness, and implementation barriers and facilitators in 6 health care sites. Data included monthly user check-in interviews and bimonthly surveys to capture patient or caregiver experience of continuity of care, in-depth interviews to explore barriers and facilitators based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and Loop usage extracted directly from the Loop system. RESULTS: We recruited 25 initiating health care providers across 6 sites who then identified patients or caregivers for recruitment. Of 147 patient or caregiver participants who were assessed and met screening criteria, 57 consented and 52 were enrolled on Loop, creating 52 Patient Loops. Across all Patient Loops, 96 additional health care providers consented to join the Loop teams. Loop usage was followed for up to 8 months. The median number of messages exchanged per team was 1 (range 0-28). The monthly check-in and CFIR interviews showed that although participants acknowledged that Loop could potentially fill a gap, existing modes of communication, workflows, incentives, and the lack of integration with the hospital electronic medical records and patient portals were barriers to its adoption. While participants acknowledged Loop's potential value for engaging the patient and caregiver, and for improving communication within the patient's circle of care, Loop's relative advantage was not realized during the study and there was insufficient tension for change. Missing data limited the analysis of continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Fundamental structural and implementation challenges persist toward realizing Loop's potential as a shared system of asynchronous communication. Barriers include health information system integration; system, organizational, and individual tension for change; and a fee structure for health care provider compensation for asynchronous communication.