Embedding implementation science in the research pipeline.

Clinical and health services researchers seek to discover effective programs, practices, and interventions to improve people's health. The current paradigm for evidence generation is incremental and misaligned to translate evidence-based discoveries into real-world settings. This persistent challenge are "valleys of death" that represent missed opportunities and preventable missteps to actually use scientific advancements in real-world clinical settings where they can improve health and well-being (De Geest S, Zúñiga F, Brunkert T et al. Powering Swiss health care for the future: implementation science to bridge "the valley of death". 2020;150:w20323). Only one in seven of evidence-based interventions is ever implemented. It is after an average of 17 years. We propose embedding the principles of implementation science throughout the research pipeline, from discovery to adoption, to efficiently translate discoveries into real-world contexts (Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. 2000;9:65-70). We outline implications for capacity building, including composition of the research team, study design, and competencies that could bolster the value proposition of implementation science. We describe a research paradigm that recognizes scientists' responsibility to ensure their discoveries be translated into real-world settings.

Most innovative research is not used in clinical care settings. When it is, it takes a very long time to get into the real world. This means that patients may not get the best care possible to improve their health. The research community has tools that can help design innovative research in ways that it could work in clinical care settings and tools to help that happen faster, so that clinical care teams and patients can use innovative research. This is called implementation science. We outline why it is important to use implementation science ideas and teams earlier and how we can support infrastructure to do so.

The unrecognized role of fidelity in effectiveness-implementation hybrid trials: simulation study and guidance for implementation researchers.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs are a relatively new approach to evaluate efficacious interventions in real-world settings while concurrently gathering information on the implementation. Intervention fidelity can significantly influence the effectiveness of an intervention during implementation. However little guidance exists for applied researchers conducting effectiveness-implementation hybrid trials regarding the impact of fidelity on intervention effects and power. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study based on parameters from a clinical example study. For the simulation, we explored parallel and stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (CRTs) and hypothetical patterns of fidelity increase during implementation: slow, linear, and fast. Based on fixed design parameters, i.e., the number of clusters (C = 6), time points (T = 7), and patients per cluster (n = 10) we used linear mixed models to estimate the intervention effect and calculated the power for different fidelity patterns. Further, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to compare outcomes based on different assumptions for the intracluster-correlation coefficient and the cluster size. RESULTS: Ensuring high fidelity from the beginning is central to achieve accurate intervention effect estimates in stepped-wedge and parallel CRTs. The importance of high fidelity in the earlier stages is more emphasized in stepped-wedge designs than in parallel CRTs. In contrast, if the increase of fidelity is too slow despite relatively high starting levels, the study will likely be underpowered and the intervention effect estimates will also be biased. This effect is more accentuated in parallel CRTs, here reaching 100% fidelity within the next measurement points is crucial. CONCLUSIONS: This study discusses the importance of intervention fidelity for the study`s power and highlights different recommendations to deal with low fidelity in parallel and stepped-wedge CRTs from a design perspective. Applied researchers should consider the detrimental effect of low fidelity in their evaluation design. Overall, there are fewer options to adjust the trial design after the fact in parallel CRT as compared to stepped-wedge CRTs. Particular emphasis should be placed on the selection of contextually relevant implementation strategies.

Methodological approaches to study context in intervention implementation studies: an evidence gap map.

BACKGROUND: Within implementation science studies, contextual analysis is increasingly recognized as foundational to interventions' successful and sustainable implementation. However, inconsistencies between methodological approaches currently limit progress in studying context and guidance to standardize the use of those approaches is scant. Therefore, this study's objective was to systematically review and map current methodological approaches to contextual analysis in intervention implementation studies. The results would help us both to systematize the process of contextual analysis and identify gaps in the current evidence. METHODS: We conducted an evidence gap map (EGM) based on literature data via a stepwise approach. First, using an empirically developed search string, we randomly sampled 20% of all intervention implementation studies available from PubMed per year (2015-2020). Second, we assessed included studies that conducted a contextual analysis. Data extraction and evaluation followed the Basel Approach for CoNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA), using a color-coded rating scheme. Also based on BANANA and on the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework-an implementation framework that pays ample attention to context- we created visual maps of various approaches to contextual analysis. RESULTS: Of 15, 286 identified intervention implementation studies and study protocols, 3017 were screened for inclusion. Of those, 110 warranted close examination, revealing 22% that reported on contextual analysis. Only one study explicitly applied a framework for contextual analysis. Data were most commonly collected via surveys (n = 15) and individual interviews (n = 13). Ten studies reported mixed-methods analyses. Twenty-two assessed meso-level contextual and setting factors, with socio-cultural aspects most commonly studied. Eighteen described the use of contextual information for subsequent project phases (e.g., intervention development/adaption, selecting implementation strategies). Nine reported contextual factors' influences on implementation and/or effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes current approaches to contextual analysis in implementation science and provides a novel framework for evaluating and mapping it. By synthesizing our findings graphically in figures, we provide an initial evidence base framework that can incorporate new findings as necessary. We strongly recommend further development of methodological approaches both to conduct contextual analysis and to systematize the reporting of it. These actions will increase the quality and consistency of implementation science research.

Development of a medication literacy assessment instrument (MELIA) for older people receiving home care.

AIM: To develop a consensus-based instrument [MELIA] to assess the medication literacy of older home care patients to ultimately optimize medication safety. DESIGN: This study was part of the project 'Study of Medication Safety in Home Care' (doMESTIC), which took place from 2016 to 2020 in Switzerland. The development process for the medication literacy assessment instrument encompassed six steps. METHOD: First, a scoping literature search was conducted in the Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases as 2) a basis for the development of assessment items. This was followed by 3) a cognitive interview with home care patients and 4) the first round of a Delphi process. Then, 5) a focus group interview with home care experts was conducted before 6) the second Delphi round. The project took place between August 2020 and June 2021. With these different steps, perspectives of both patients and various home care and medication safety experts were included in the development of the assessment instrument. RESULTS: A detailed instrument consisting of 20 items as well as a 7-item short version were developed. The short version is intended for efficient preliminary screening to identify patients at high risk for medication management-related problems. CONCLUSION: Medication literacy in patients 65 years and older receiving professional home care is a key issue in preventing medication errors. A targeted assessment, starting with an efficient short version of MELIA, allows for prioritization of patients for interventions to optimize medication safety while ensuring their independence as much as possible. IMPACT: Systematic assessment of patients' medication literacy helps to provide them with targeted and individual support in their medication management to avoid medication errors and increase patient safety. The development of MELIA is a first step in providing an assessment instrument specifically for the home care setting. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient participation was an integral part of the instrument development. The initial 23 items were optimized based on cognitive interviews with four home care patients. The next steps of the instrument development were based on feedback of health care professionals-encompassing advance practice nurses, regular nurses, pharmacists and general practitioners-during a two-step Delphi process as well as a focus group discussion.

Health economic evaluation of a nurse-led care model from the nursing home perspective focusing on residents' hospitalisations.

BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluations of the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice provide vital information but are rarely conducted. We evaluated the health economic impact associated with implementation and intervention of the INTERCARE model-an EBI to reduce hospitalisations of nursing home (NH) residents-compared to usual NH care. METHODS: The INTERCARE model was conducted in 11 NHs in Switzerland. It was implemented as a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study with a multi-centre non-randomised stepped-wedge design. To isolate the implementation strategies' costs, time and other resources from the NHs' perspective, we applied time-driven activity-based costing. To define its intervention costs, time and other resources, we considered intervention-relevant expenditures, particularly the work of the INTERCARE nurse-a core INTERCARE element. Further, the costs and revenues from the hotel and nursing services were analysed to calculate the NHs' losses and savings per resident hospitalisation. Finally, alongside our cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), a sensitivity analysis focused on the intervention's effectiveness-i.e., regarding reduction of the hospitalisation rate-relative to the INTERCARE costs. All economic variables and CEA were assessed from the NHs' perspective. RESULTS: Implementation strategy costs and time consumption per bed averaged 685CHF and 9.35 h respectively, with possibilities to adjust material and human resources to each NH's needs. Average yearly intervention costs for the INTERCARE nurse salary per bed were 939CHF with an average of 1.4 INTERCARE nurses per 100 beds and an average employment rate of 76% of full-time equivalent per nurse. Resident hospitalisation represented a total average loss of 52% of NH revenues, but negligible cost savings. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the INTERCARE model compared to usual care was 22'595CHF per avoided hospitalisation. As expected, the most influential sensitivity analysis variable regarding the CEA was the pre- to post-INTERCARE change in hospitalisation rate. CONCLUSIONS: As initial health-economic evidence, these results indicate that the INTERCARE model was more costly but also more effective compared to usual care in participating Swiss German NHs. Further implementation and evaluation of this model in randomised controlled studies are planned to build stronger evidential support for its clinical and economic effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03590470 ).

Barriers and Facilitators for Conducting Implementation Science in German-Speaking Countries: Findings from the Promote ImpSci Interview Study.

On a global scale, implementation science has developed considerably as a discipline in recent years. In German-speaking countries, the field has been gaining significance as well, but respective efforts in building capacity and advancing the research infrastructure are still rare. The present study investigates barriers and facilitators for conducting implementation science in German-speaking countries with the goal of formulating recommendations for creating a more supportive research infrastructure. We conducted an interview study with nine well-established implementation researchers affiliated with universities in Austria, Germany, or Switzerland. The interviews were held via Zoom or phone in November and December 2020, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Barriers that relate to characteristics of the discipline were difficulties in building a common understanding of the field and the complexity of implementation research projects. Although supportive scientific networks were important facilitators, interviewees mentioned challenges in connecting with likeminded researchers. A further barrier was the lack of opportunities for education and training in implementation science, especially in the German language. Also, participants reported a missing readiness in academia for establishing implementation science that should be addressed by advocacy of the discipline toward academic decision makers. Moreover, since most national funding agencies prioritize basic research over applied research, some interviewees named flexibility in handling research funds as a facilitator for implementation research. The results inform an agenda for promoting implementation science in German-speaking countries and can be beneficial to other countries that are currently advancing their implementation research capacity and infrastructure. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00046-3.

Improving In-Hospital Care For Older Adults: A Mixed Methods Study Protocol to Evaluate a System-Wide Sub-Acute Care Intervention in Canada.

Introduction: Acute care hospitals often inadequately prepare older adults to transition back to the community. Interventions that seek to improve this transition process are usually evaluated using healthcare use outcomes (e.g., hospital re-visit rates) only, and do not gather provider and patient perspectives about strategies to better integrate care. This protocol describes how we will use complementary research approaches to evaluate an in-hospital sub-acute care (SAC) intervention, designed to better prepare and transition older adults home. Methods: In three sequential research phases, we will assess (1) SAC transition pathways and effectiveness using administrative data, (2) provider fidelity to SAC core practices using chart audits, and (3) SAC implementation outcomes (e.g., facilitators and barriers to success, strategies to better integrate care) using provider and patient interviews. Results: Findings from each phase will be combined to determine SAC effectiveness and efficiency; to assess intervention components and implementation processes that 'work' or require modification; and to identify provider and patient suggestions for improving care integration, both while patients are hospitalized and to some extent after they transition back home. Discussion: This protocol helps to establish a blueprint for comprehensively evaluating interventions conducted in complex care settings using complementary research approaches and data sources.

Implementation of a complex intervention to reduce hospitalizations from nursing homes: a mixed-method evaluation of implementation processes and outcomes.

BACKGROUND | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of three intervention elements to reduce hospitalizations in nursing home residents. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-method design within a hybrid type-2 effectiveness-implementation study. SETTING: Eleven nursing homes in the German-speaking region of Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative data were collected from 573 care workers; qualitative data were collected from 108 care workers and the leadership from 11 nursing homes. INTERVENTION: Three intervention elements targeting care workers were implemented to reduce unplanned hospitalizations: (1) the STOP&WATCH instrument for early recognition of changes in resident condition; (2) the ISBAR instrument for structured communication; and (3) specially-trained INTERCARE nurses providing on-site geriatric support. Multifaceted implementation strategies focusing both on the overall nursing home organization and on the care workers were used. METHODS: The quantitative part comprised surveys of care workers six- and twelve-months post-intervention. The intervention's acceptability, feasibility and uptake were assessed using validated and self-developed scales. Qualitative data were collected in 22 focus groups with care workers, then analyzed using thematic analysis methodology. Data on implementation processes were collected during implementation meetings with nursing home leadership and were analyzed via content analysis. Findings were integrated using a complementary approach. RESULTS: The ISBAR instrument and the INTERCARE nurse role were considered acceptable, feasible, and taken up by > 70% of care workers. The STOP&WATCH instrument showed the lowest acceptance (mean: 68%), ranging from 24 to 100% across eleven nursing homes. A combination of factors, including the amount of information received, the amount of support provided in daily practice, the users' perceived ease of using the intervention and its adaptations, and the intervention's usefulness, appeared to influence the implementation's success. Two exemplary nursing homes illustrated context-specific implementation processes that serve as either barriers or facilitators to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, alongside the provision of information shortly before intervention start, constant daily support is crucial for implementation success. Ideally, this support is provided by designated and trained individuals who oversee implementation at the organizational and unit levels. Leaders who seek to implement interventions in nursing homes should consider their complexity and their consequences for workflow to optimize implementation processes accordingly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03590470 ) on the 18/06/2018.

SCOPE: safer care for older persons (in residential) environments-a pilot study to enhance care aide-led quality improvement in nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents require daily support. While care aides provide most of this support they are rarely empowered to lead quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Researchers have shown that care aide-led teams can successfully participate in a QI intervention called Safer Care for Older Persons in Residential Care Environments (SCOPE). In preparation for a large-scale study, we conducted a 1-year pilot to evaluate how well coaching strategies helped teams to enact this intervention. Secondarily, we measured if improvements in team cohesion and communication, and resident quality of care, occurred. METHODS: This study was conducted using a prospective single-arm study design, on 7 nursing homes in Winnipeg Manitoba belonging to the Translating Research in Elder Care research program. One QI team was selected per site, led by care aides who partnered with other front-line staff. Each team received facilitated coaching to enact SCOPE during three learning sessions, and additional support from quality advisors between these sessions. Researchers developed a rubric to evaluate how well teams enacted their interventions (i.e., created actionable aim statements, implemented interventions using plan-do-study-act cycles, and used measurement to guide decision-making). Team cohesion and communication were measured using surveys, and changes in unit-level quality indicators were measured using Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set data. RESULTS: Most teams successfully enacted their interventions. Five of 7 teams created adequate-to-excellent aim statements. While 6 of 7 teams successfully implemented plan-do-study-act cycles, only 2 reported spreading their change ideas to other residents and staff on their unit. Three of 7 teams explicitly stated how measurement was used to guide intervention decisions. Teams scored high in cohesion and communication at baseline, and hence improved minimally. Indicators of resident quality care improved in 4 nursing home units; teams at 3 of these sites were scored as 'excellent' in two or more enactment areas, versus 1 of the 3 remaining teams. CONCLUSIONS: Our coaching strategies helped most care aide-led teams to enact SCOPE. Coaching modifications are needed to help teams more effectively use measurement. Refinements to our evaluation rubric are also recommended.

Understanding dynamic complexity in context-Enriching contextual analysis in implementation science from a constructivist perspective.

Context in implementation science includes not only characteristics of a setting in which an intervention will be delivered, but also social systems (e.g., interrelationships). Context is dynamic and interacts with both, the intervention and its implementation. Therefore, contextual analysis is recognized as an indispensable part of implementation science methodology: it provides the foundation for successful and sustainable implementation projects. Yet, driven by the prevailing post-positivist understanding of context, contextual analysis typically focuses on individual characteristics of context i.e., contextual dynamics and interactions go unnoticed. Conducting contextual analysis from a constructivist perspective promotes a multilayered approach, building a more comprehensive understanding of context, and thus facilitating successful implementation. In this article, we highlight the limitations of prevailing perspectives on context and approaches to contextual analysis. We then describe how contextual analysis can be enriched by working from a constructivist perspective. We finish with a discussion of the methodological and practical implications the proposed changes would entail. Emerging literature attempts to address both the concept of context and methods for contextual analysis. Various theories, models and frameworks consider context, however, many of these are reductionistic and do not acknowledge the dynamic nature of context or interactions within it. To complement recent conceptualizations of context, we suggest consider the following five constructivist concepts: 1) social space; 2) social place; 3) agency; 4) sensation; and 5) embodiment. We demonstrate the value of these concepts using COVID-19 vaccination uptake as an example and integrate the concepts in the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework-an implementation science framework that pays ample attention to context. To study context from a constructivist perspective, we also suggest additional considerations in view of methodologies for data collection and analysis, e.g., rapid ethnographic methods. A constructivist perspective contributes to a stronger conceptualization of contextual analysis. Considering the five constructivist concepts helps to overcome contextual analysis' current shortcomings, while revealing complex dynamics that usually go unnoticed. Thus, more comprehensive understanding of context can be developed to inform subsequent phases of an implementation project, thereby maximizing an intervention's uptake and sustainability.

Prioritizing supports and services to help older adults age in place: A Delphi study comparing the perspectives of family/friend care partners and healthcare stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Aging in place (AIP) is a policy strategy designed to help older adults remain in their community. While planners internationally have modified aspects of the older adult care continuum (e.g., home care, assisted living, nursing homes) to facilitate AIP, further improvements to community-based supports and services are also required. This study compared and constrasted the community-based factors (e.g., supports, services and personal strategies or characteristics) that family/friend care partners and healthcare stakeholders (i.e., planners/providers) view as most important to help older adults successfully AIP. METHODS: An initial list of factors shown to influence AIP was created from the academic literature. These factors were used to develop a Delphi survey implemented separately on care partners and healthcare stakeholders. Respondents rated the importance of each factor using a 10-point Likert Scale (1 = not important; 10 = absolutely critical). Consensus in each group was defined when at least 80% of participants scored a factor ≥8 ("very important"), with an interquartile range ≤2. Respondents suggested additional factors during Delphi round one. RESULTS: Care partners (N = 25) and healthcare stakeholders (N = 36) completed two and three Delphi rounds, respectively. These groups independently agreed that the following 3 (out of 27) factors were very important to help older adults age in place: keeping one's home safe, maintaining strong inter-personal relationships, and coordinating care across formal providers. While healthcare stakeholders did not reach consensus on other factors, care partners agreed that 7 additional factors (e.g., access to affordable housing, having mental health programs) were important for AIP. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to healthcare stakeholders, care partners felt that more and diverse community-based factors are important to support older adults to successfully AIP. Future research should replicate these findings in other jurisdictions, examine the availability and accessibility of the priority factors, and develop sustainable solutions to enhance their effectiveness.

Relevant Journals for Identifying Implementation Science Articles: Results of an International Implementation Science Expert Survey.

In implementation science (IS), conducting well-targeted and reproducible literature searches is challenging due to non-specific and varying terminology that is fragmented over multiple disciplines. A list of journals that publish IS-relevant content for use in search strings can support this process. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 56 Australian, European, and North American IS experts to identify and prioritize relevant journals that publish IS articles. Journals' relevance was assessed by providing each with a list of 12 journals, to which they were encouraged to add additional journal names and comments as free text. We also assessed which journals had published special IS-focused issues-identified via PubMed and Google searches-over the last 20 years. Data were analyzed descriptively. Between February 28 and March 15, 2020, a purposive sample of 34/56 experts participated in the survey (response rate: 60.7%). Implementation Science and BMC Health Services Research were perceived as relevant by 97.1% of participants; other journals' relevance varied internationally. Experts proposed 50 additional journals from various clinical fields and health science disciplines. We identified 12 calls and 53 special issues on IS published within various journals and research fields. Experts' comments confirmed the described challenges in identifying IS literature. This report presents experts' ratings of IS journals, which can be included in strategies supporting searches of IS evidence. However, challenges in identifying IS evidence remain geographically and interdisciplinary. Further investment is needed to develop reproducible search strings to capture IS evidence as an important step in improving IS research quality.

Use of Pain Management Champions to Enhance Guideline Implementation by Care Workers in Nursing Homes.

BACKGROUND: Underutilization of evidence-based pain management in nursing homes (NHs) is common. Evidence toward effective approaches to improve adoption of evidence-based practices in NHs is limited. Application of theory in evaluation approaches can increase understanding of implementation challenges. AIM: To get a better understanding of the impact of implementation strategies by exploring the underlying mechanisms using behavioral theory. METHODS: This mixed-methods study is embedded in an implementation-effectiveness study of a pain management guideline in four Swiss NHs. To evaluate our implementation strategies, training workshops were held, and trained pain champions were introduced. We also developed a conceptual framework. Based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory, we hypothesized how our implementation strategies might affect changes in care workers' behavior. Care workers' questionnaire surveys were conducted at baseline (n = 136), after 3 months (n = 99), and after 6 months (n = 83) to assess self-efficacy in pain management and self-reported guideline adoption. We computed linear mixed-effect models to assess changes over time in self-efficacy and logistic regressions to assess associations between self-efficacy and guideline adoption. Concurrently, we conducted focus groups with care workers (n = 8) to explore their response to the implementation strategies. RESULTS: Overall, there was a significant increase in self-efficacy at both time points (p < .001). We found significant associations between self-efficacy and adoption of two guideline components, that is, performing a comprehensive pain assessment and using observational pain assessment tools in cognitively impaired residents. Qualitative findings showed that implementation strategies were received positively by care workers. Focus group participants reported more attentiveness to residents' pain experience. The participants also reported increases in assessment and documentation of pain with more detail than before. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Our findings highlighted that the training and use of pain champions increased self-efficacy and thereby induced behavior change leading to guideline adoption. Regarding persistent implementation challenges, a theory-based conceptual model contributes to the overall understanding.

A Contextual Analysis to Explore Barriers and Facilitators of Pain Management in Swiss Nursing Homes.

PURPOSE: As part of a contextual analysis, this study aimed to generate a comprehensive understanding of barriers and facilitators to pain management in nursing homes to identify potential leverage points for future implementation studies. DESIGN: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study embedded in a cross-sectional study in 20 Swiss nursing homes (data collection: July-December 2016). METHODS: Quantitative data were collected via care worker questionnaire surveys comprising 20 items assessing perceptions of barriers to pain management. Descriptive statistics were computed. In the subsequent qualitative strand we conducted four focus group discussions with care workers (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nursing aides) using a knowledge-mapping approach. Findings of both strands were merged and mapped onto domains of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation determine Behavior (COM-B) system, a model for behavior, to identify determinants for behavior change. FINDINGS: Data from 343 completed care worker surveys (response rate 67.3%) and four focus groups with care workers were analyzed. Items rated most problematic were as follows: lack of availability of nonpharmacological treatment (60.9%), lack of application of nonpharmacological treatment (53.6%), reluctance of residents to report pain (51.1%), and lack of time for a comprehensive pain assessment (50.5%). Focus groups partly corroborated quantitative findings and complemented them with facilitators, such as close collaboration with physicians and further barriers (e.g., organizational factors such as high turnover and a lack of established routines in pain management). CONCLUSIONS: Our approach using a behavioral model highlighted a need for implementation strategies that improve pain management knowledge and focus on motivational aspects to establish new routines and habits related to pain management among care workers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings suggest that future approaches to improve pain management in nursing homes should go beyond provision of education and training. To establish new practices or adapt existing ones, a more complex approach (e.g., introduction of external or internal facilitators) is necessary to influence motivation and ultimately change behavior.

Who to Talk to About my Pain? A Brief Qualitative Study on Perception of Pain and its Management in Swiss Nursing Home Residents.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of pain in nursing home (NH) residents is high. Insufficiently treated pain reduces quality of life and often leads to negative health consequences. Pain experience in older people can be influenced by physical, psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual factors. AIMS: To inform development of NH pain management interventions, we studied residents' pain related perceptions and needs. DESIGN: This was a qualitative descriptive substudy (embedded in ProQuaS, a larger pain project). SETTINGS: Three Swiss NHs. PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS: A purposeful sample of eight NH residents with severe pain and no severe cognitive impairment, based on information from the Minimum Data Set. METHODS: Eight semistructured interviews were conducted between October and December 2016. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three central themes were identified from the interview data: dealing with major life changes, managing pain, and using formal care. The interviews highlighted the multidimensionality of pain experience in NH residents. In complex pain situations, participants perceived that care workers did not respond adequately to their needs. They had learned to cope with their pain using self-developed strategies and direct consultations with their physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The perceived lack of responsiveness may prompt NH residents to bypass care workers with their pain management concerns. This study's findings will inform the development of an educational intervention for NH care workers.