FLOW: Flow dysfunction of hemodialysis vascular access: A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of surveillance of arteriovenous fistulas and grafts.

INTRODUCTION: It is assumed that identification and correction of asymptomatic stenoses in the vascular access circuit will prevent thrombosis that would require urgent intervention to continue hemodialysis treatment. However, the evidence base for this assumption is limited. Recent international clinical practice guidelines reach different conclusions on the use of surveillance for vascular access flow dysfunction and recommend further research to inform clinical practice. METHODS: The FLOW trial is a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 individual participant treatment allocation ratio over two study arms. In the intervention group, only symptomatic vascular access stenoses detected by clinical monitoring are treated, whereas in the comparison group asymptomatic stenoses detected by surveillance using monthly dilution flow measurements are treated as well. Hemodialysis patients with a functional arteriovenous vascular access are enrolled. The primary outcome is the access-related intervention rate that will be analyzed using a general linear model with Poisson distribution. Secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, access-related serious adverse events, and quality of the surveillance process. A cost effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis will also be conducted. The study requires 828 patient-years of follow-up in 417 participants to detect a difference of 0.25 access-related interventions per year between study groups. DISCUSSION: As one of the largest randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical impact of vascular access surveillance using a strong double-blinded study design, we believe the FLOW trial will provide much-needed evidence to improve vascular access care for hemodialysis patients.

Characteristics for a tool for timely identification of palliative needs in heart failure: The views of Dutch patients, their families and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care can improve outcomes for patients with advanced chronic heart failure and their families, but timely recognition of palliative care needs remains challenging. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify characteristics of a tool to assess palliative care needs in chronic heart failure that are needed for successful implementation, according to patients, their family and healthcare professionals in The Netherlands. METHODS: Explorative qualitative study, part of the project 'Identification of patients with HeARt failure with PC needs' (I-HARP), focus groups and individual interviews were held with healthcare professionals, patients with chronic heart failure, and family members. Data were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients, 10 family members and 26 healthcare professionals participated. Direct-content analysis revealed desired tool characteristics for successful implementation in four constructs: relative advantage, adaptability, complexity, and design quality and packaging. Healthcare professionals indicated that a tool should increase awareness, understanding and knowledge concerning palliative care needs. A tool needs to: be adaptable to different disease stages, facilitate early identification of palliative care needs and ease open conversations about palliative care. The complexity of chronic heart failure should be considered in a personalized approach. CONCLUSIONS: The current study revealed the characteristics of a tool for timely identification of palliative care needs in chronic heart failure needed for successful implementation. The next steps will be to define the content of the tool, followed by development of a preliminary version and iterative testing of this version by the different stakeholders.

A stepped strategy that aims at the nationwide implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme in major gynaecological surgery: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes aim at an early recovery after surgical trauma and consequently at a reduced length of hospitalisation. This paper presents the protocol for a study that focuses on large-scale implementation of the ERAS programme in major gynaecological surgery in the Netherlands. The trial will evaluate effectiveness and costs of a stepped implementation approach that is characterised by tailoring the intensity of implementation activities to the needs of organisations and local barriers for change, in comparison with the generic breakthrough strategy that is usually applied in large-scale improvement projects in the Netherlands. METHODS: All Dutch hospitals authorised to perform major abdominal surgery in gynaecological oncology patients are eligible for inclusion in this cluster randomised controlled trial. The hospitals that already fully implemented the ERAS programme in their local perioperative management or those who predominantly admit gynaecological surgery patients to an external hospital replacement care facility will be excluded. Cluster randomisation will be applied at the hospital level and will be stratified based on tertiary status. Hospitals will be randomly assigned to the stepped implementation strategy or the breakthrough strategy. The control group will receive the traditional breakthrough strategy with three educational sessions and the use of plan-do-study-act cycles for planning and executing local improvement activities. The intervention group will receive an innovative stepped strategy comprising four levels of intensity of support. Implementation starts with generic low-cost activities and may build up to the highest level of tailored and labour-intensive activities. The decision for a stepwise increase in intensive support will be based on the success of implementation so far. Both implementation strategies will be completed within 1 year and evaluated on effect, process, and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome is length of postoperative hospital stay. Additional outcome measures are length of recovery, guideline adherence, and mean implementation costs per patient. DISCUSSION: This study takes up the challenge to evaluate an efficient strategy for large-scale implementation. Comparing effectiveness and costs of two different approaches, this study will help to define a preferred strategy for nationwide dissemination of best practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR4058.