ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances in hospitalized patients are linked to poor recovery. In preparation for a future randomized controlled trial, this pilot study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-component intervention (I-SLEEP) that educates and empowers inpatients to advocate for fewer nighttime disruptions in order to improve sleep during periods of hospitalization. METHODS: Eligible inpatients received I-SLEEP, which included an educational video, brochure, sleep kit, and three questions patients can ask their team to reduce nighttime disruptions. Following I-SLEEP, inpatients were surveyed on the primary feasibility outcomes of satisfaction with and use of I-SLEEP components. Inpatients were also surveyed regarding empowerment and understanding of intervention materials. Patient charts were reviewed to collect data on nighttime (11 PM-7 AM) vital sign and blood draws disruptions. RESULTS: Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of patients were satisfied with the brochure and 87% (n = 27/31) with the video. Nearly all (95%, n = 36/37) patients felt empowered to ask their providers to minimize nighttime disruptions and 68% (n = 26/37) intended to alter sleep habits post-discharge. Forty-nine percent (n = 18/37) of patients asked an I-SLEEP question. Patients who asked an I-SLEEP question were significantly more likely to experience nights with fewer disruptions due to nighttime vitals (19% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: This pilot study found that I-SLEEP was well-accepted and enabled hospitalized patients to advocate for less disrupted sleep. Educating patients to advocate for reducing nighttime disruptions may be a patient-centered, low-cost strategy to improve patients' care and in-hospital experience. These results suggest that I-SLEEP is ready to be evaluated against routine care in a future randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT04151251 .
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized children experience frequent nighttime awakenings. Oral medications are commonly administered around the clock despite the comparable efficacy of daytime administration schedules, which promote sleep. With this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a quality improvement initiative to increase the proportion of sleep-friendly antibiotic administration schedules. METHODS: Interprofessional stakeholders modified computerized provider order entry defaults for 4 oral antibiotic medications, from around the clock to administration occurring exclusively during waking hours. Additionally, care-team members received targeted education. Outcome measures included the proportion of sleep-friendly administration schedules and patient caregiver-reported disruptions to sleep. Pre- and posteducation surveys were used to evaluate education effectiveness. Balancing measures were missed antibiotic doses and related escalations of care. RESULTS: Interrupted time series analysis revealed a 72% increase (interceptpre: 18%; interceptpost: 90%; 95% confidence interval: 65%-79%; P < .001) in intercept for percentage of orders with sleep-friendly administration schedules (orders: n pre = 1014 and n post = 649). Compared with preeducation surveys, care-team members posteducation were more likely to agree that oral medications scheduled around the clock cause sleep disruption (resident: 71% pre, 90% post [P = .01]; nurse: 63% pre, 79% post [P = .03]). Although sleep-friendly orders increased, patient caregivers reported an increase in sleep disruption due to medications (pre 28%, post 46%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A simple, low-cost intervention of computerized provider order entry default modifications and education can increase the proportion of sleep-friendly oral antibiotic administration schedules for hospitalized children. Patient perception of sleep is impacted by multiple factors and often does not align with objective data. An increased focus on improving sleep during hospitalization may result in heightened awareness of disruptions.
Subject(s)
Inpatients , Quality Improvement , Caregivers , Child , Child, Hospitalized , Humans , SleepABSTRACT
The mission of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is to fund the production of high-quality evidence that will enable patients and clinicians to make informed, personalized healthcare decisions. Since 2012, the PCORI has invested $177 million in patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) that specifically targets the health needs of older adults, with additional relevant studies in its broader portfolio. Developing the PCORI's research portfolio has provided us with significant insights into what factors to consider when conducting CER in older adult populations. When comparing the net benefit of two or more interventions for older adults, investigators should consider the following: absolute risk difference, competing risks, life expectancy, the difference between chronologic and physiologic age, the importance of patient preferences, and other potential drivers of variable treatment effects. Investigators should also engage older adults and their caregivers as partners throughout the research process. Their input helps to identify key outcomes of interest and insights about the conduct of the research. As the PCORI continues to support research that addresses the healthcare decisions of the rapidly growing older adult population, it needs to partner with patients and researchers to identify the most important questions to address. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:21-28, 2019.
