Cost Analysis of a Transition Care Bundle Compared with Usual Care for COPD Patients Being Discharged from Hospital: Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients following acute exacerbations can reduce the risk of future exacerbations, improve health status, and lower care costs. While a transition care bundle (TCB) was associated with lower readmissions to hospitals than usual care (UC), it remains unclear whether the TCB was associated with cost savings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate how this TCB was associated with future Emergency Department (ED)/outpatient visits, hospital readmissions, and costs in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Patients who were aged 35 years or older, who were admitted to hospital for a COPD exacerbation, and had not been treated with a care bundle received either TCB or UC. Those who received the TCB were then randomized to either TCB alone or TCB enhanced with a care coordinator. Data collected were ED/outpatient visits, hospital admissions and associated resources used for index admissions, and 7-, 30- and 90-day post-index discharge. A decision model with a 90-day time horizon was developed to estimate the cost. A generalized linear regression was conducted to adjust for imbalance in patient characteristics and comorbidities, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the proportion of patients' combined ED/outpatient visits and inpatient admissions as well as the use of a care coordinator. RESULTS: Differences in length of stay (LOS) and costs between groups were statistically significant, although with some exceptions. Inpatient LOS and costs were 7.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9-7.3) and Canadian dollars (CAN$) 13,131 (95% CI CAN$12,969-CAN$13,294) in UC, 6.1 days (95% CI 5.8-6.5) and CAN$7634 (95% CI CAN$7546-CAN$7722) in TCB with a coordinator, and 5.9 days (95% CI 5.6-6.2) and CAN$8080 (95% CI CAN$7975-CAN$8184) in TCB without a coordinator. Decision modelling indicated TCB was less costly than UC, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of CAN$10,172 (40) versus CAN$15,588 (85), and TCB with a coordinator was slightly less costly than without a coordinator (CAN$10,109 [49] versus CAN$10,244 [57]). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the use of the TCB, with or without a care coordinator, appears to be an economically attractive intervention compared with UC.

Short-Term Health Outcomes of a Structured Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program Implemented Within Rural Canadian Sites Compared With an Established Urban Site: A Pre-Post Intervention Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate congruence in program delivery and short-term health outcomes of a structured pulmonary rehabilitation (S-PR) program implemented at 11 Canadian rural pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) sites compared with an urban reference site. DESIGN: Multi-center, pre- and post-intervention, comparative, observational study. SETTING: Eleven rural Canadian PR sites and 1 urban reference PR site. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) referred to PR. INTERVENTION: Clinicians at the reference site worked with local clinicians to implement the S-PR program in rural sites. A PR survey evaluated site congruence with the S-PR components, with congruence defined as delivering program components ≥80% in alignment with the S-PR program. Participants were enrolled in 16 sessions of group education and supervised exercise, offered twice or thrice a week. Health outcomes were tracked using a quality assurance database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcomes were congruence in program delivery and changes in the 6-minute walk (6MW) distance and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). RESULTS: A total of 555 participants (rural n=204 and reference n=351) were included in the analyses. There was congruence in exercise and group education; however, individual education varied. Following the S-PR program, 6MW distance increased, with greater changes observed at rural sites (51±67 m at rural sites vs 30±46 m at the reference site). CAT score was reduced by -2.6±5.4 points with no difference between reference and rural sites. Changes in 6MW distance and CAT scores were similar for participants at sites that were congruent vs noncongruent with the individual education component, and similar for patients with COPD, asthma, bronchiectasis, and interstitial lung disease. CONCLUSION: The S-PR program components can be implemented with good congruence in Canadian rural settings, resulting in similar short-term health outcomes as in an established urban site and across CRDs.

Optimizing COPD Acute Care Patient Outcomes Using a Standardized Transition Bundle and Care Coordinator: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are associated with high morbidity and mortality and frequent readmissions. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of a COPD transition bundle, with and without a care coordinator, on rehospitalizations and ED revisits? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two patient cohorts were selected: (1) the group exposed to the transition bundle and (2) the group not exposed to the transition bundle (usual care group). Patients exposed subsequently were randomized to a care coordinator. An AECOPD transition bundle was implemented in the hospital; patients randomized to the care coordinator were contacted ≤ 72 h after discharge. Six hundred four patients (320 to the care coordinator and 284 to routine care) who met eligibility criteria from five hospitals across three cities in Alberta, Canada, were exposed to the transition bundle, whereas 3,106 patients discharged from the same hospitals received the usual care. Primary outcomes were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day readmissions, median length of stay (LOS), and 30-day ED revisits. RESULTS: The transition bundle cohort were 83% (relative risk [RR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.35) less likely to be readmitted within 7 days and 26% (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91) less likely to be readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Ninety-day readmissions were unchanged (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18). The transition bundle was associated with a 7.3% (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.0-1.15) relative increase in LOS and a 76% (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.53-2.02) greater risk of a 30-day ED revisit. The care coordinator did not influence readmission or ED revisits. INTERPRETATION: The COPD transition bundle reduced 7- and 30-day hospital readmissions while increasing LOS and ED revisits. The care coordinator did not improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03358771; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 8 acute care hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were randomised either to virtual care and RAM (n=451) or to standard care (n=454). 903 participants (99.8%) completed the 31 day follow-up. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group received a tablet computer and RAM technology that measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and body weight. For 30 days the participants took daily biophysical measurements and photographs of their wound and interacted with nurses virtually. Participants in the standard care group received post-hospital discharge management according to the centre's usual care. Patients, healthcare providers, and data collectors were aware of patients' group allocations. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to group allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up. The 12 secondary outcomes included acute hospital care, detection and correction of drug errors, and pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation. RESULTS: All 905 participants (mean age 63.1 years) were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised. Days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up were 29.7 in the virtual care group and 29.5 in the standard care group: relative risk 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.02); absolute difference 0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.5% to 0.9%). 99 participants (22.0%) in the virtual care group and 124 (27.3%) in the standard care group required acute hospital care: relative risk 0.80 (0.64 to 1.01); absolute difference 5.3% (-0.3% to 10.9%). More participants in the virtual care group than standard care group had a drug error detected (134 (29.7%) v 25 (5.5%); absolute difference 24.2%, 19.5% to 28.9%) and a drug error corrected (absolute difference 24.4%, 19.9% to 28.9%). Fewer participants in the virtual care group than standard care group reported pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation: absolute differences 13.9% (7.4% to 20.4%), 11.9% (5.1% to 18.7%), and 9.6% (2.9% to 16.3%), respectively. Beneficial effects proved substantially larger in centres with a higher rate of care escalation. CONCLUSION: Virtual care with RAM shows promise in improving outcomes important to patients and to optimal health system function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344665.

A Case Study of Two Emerging Nurse Leaders Specializing in Virtual Health during the COVID-19 Global Pandemic.

In the field of digital health research, nurse leaders have an opportunity to be integral to the design, implementation and evaluation of virtual care interventions. This case study details the experiences of two emerging nurse leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic in providing research and clinical leadership for a national virtual health trial. These nurse leaders trained and led a national team of 70 nurses across eight participating centres delivering the virtual care and remote monitoring intervention, using the normalization process theory. This case study presents a theoretically informed approach to training and leadership and discusses the experiences and lessons learned.

Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After nonelective (i.e., semiurgent, urgent and emergent) surgeries, patients discharged from hospitals are at risk of readmissions, emergency department visits or death. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we are undertaking the Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM) trial to determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) compared with standard care will increase the number of days adult patients remain alive at home after being discharged following nonelective surgery. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial in which 900 adults who are being discharged after nonelective surgery from 8 Canadian hospitals are randomly assigned to receive virtual care with RAM or standard care. Outcome adjudicators are masked to group allocations. Patients in the experimental group learn how to use the study's tablet computer and RAM technology, which will measure their vital signs. For 30 days, patients take daily biophysical measurements and complete a recovery survey. Patients interact with nurses via the cellular modem-enabled tablet, who escalate care to preassigned and available physicians if RAM measurements exceed predetermined thresholds, patients report symptoms, a medication error is identified or the nurses have concerns they cannot resolve. The primary outcome is number of days alive at home during the 30 days after randomization. INTERPRETATION: This trial will inform management of patients after discharge following surgery in the COVID-19 pandemic and offer insights for management of patients who undergo nonelective surgery in a nonpandemic setting. Knowledge dissemination will be supported through an online multimedia resource centre, policy briefs, presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications and media engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04344665.

Factors influencing the implementation and uptake of a discharge care bundle for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in high-income countries. In addition to the high costs of initial hospitalization, COPD patients frequently return to the emergency department (ED) and are readmitted to hospital within 30 days of discharge. A COPD acute care discharge care bundle focused on optimizing care for patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD has been shown to reduce ED revisits and hospital readmissions. The aim of this study was to explore and understand factors influencing implementation and uptake of COPD discharge care bundle items in acute care facilities from the perspective of health care providers and patients. METHODS: Qualitative methodology was adopted. Nine focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured guide: seven with acute and primary/community health care providers and two with patients/family members. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and coded and analyzed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Forty-six health care providers and 14 patients/family members participated in the focus groups. Health care providers and patients identified four factors that can challenge the implementation of COPD discharge care bundles: process of care complexities, human capacity in care settings, communication and engagement, and attitudes and perceptions towards change. Both health care providers and patients recognized process of care complexity as the most important determinant of the COPD discharge bundle uptake. Processes of care complexity include patient activities in seeking and receiving care, as well as practitioner activities in making a diagnosis and recommending or implementing treatment. Important issues linked to human capacity in care settings included time constraints, high patient volume, and limited staffing. Communication during transitions in care across settings and patient engagement were also broadly discussed. Other important issues were linked to patients', providers', and system attitudes towards change and level of involvement in COPD discharge bundle implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Complexities in the process of care were perceived as the most important determinant of COPD discharge bundle implementation. Early engagement of health providers and patients in the uptake of COPD discharge bundle items as well as clear communication between acute and post-acute settings can contribute positively to bundle uptake and implementation success.

Development of a patient-centred, evidence-based and consensus-based discharge care bundle for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital and emergency department discharge for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often poorly organised. We developed a patient-centred, evidence-based and consensus-based discharge care bundle for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. METHODS: A purposeful sample of clinicians and patients were invited to participate in a two-round Delphi study (July-November 2015). In round 1, participants rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1=not at all important; 7=extremely important) the importance of 29 unique COPD care actions. Round 2 comprised items selected from round 1 based on consensus (>80% endorsement for Likert values 5-7). A list of 18 care items from round 2 was discussed in a face-to-face nominal group meeting. RESULTS: Seven care items were included in the COPD discharge bundle based on clinician and patient input: (1) ensure adequate inhaler technique is demonstrated; (2) send discharge summary to family physician and arrange follow-up; (3) optimise and reconcile prescription of respiratory medications; (4) provide a written discharge management plan and assess patient's and caregiver's comprehension of discharge instructions; (5) refer to pulmonary rehabilitation; (6) screen for frailty and comorbidities; and (7) assess smoking status, provide counselling and refer to smoking cessation programme. CONCLUSION: We present a seven-item, patient-centred, evidence-based and consensus-based discharge bundle for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. Alignment with clinical practice guidelines and feasibility of local adaptations of the bundle should be explored to facilitate wide applicability and evaluation of the effectiveness of the COPD discharge bundle.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of discharge care bundles for patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: A COPD discharge bundle is a set of evidence-based practices aimed at improving patient outcomes after discharge from acute care settings following an exacerbation. We conducted a systematic review on the effectiveness of COPD discharge bundles and summarised their individual care elements. METHODS: Biomedical electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from database inception through April 2016 to identify experimental studies evaluating care bundles offered to patients with COPD at discharge. Random-effects meta-analyses of clinical trials data were conducted for hospital readmissions, mortality, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The review included 14 studies (5 clinical trials, 7 uncontrolled trials, and 2 interrupted time series). A total of 26 distinct elements of care were included in the bundles of individual studies. Evidence from four clinical trials with moderate-to-high risk of bias showed that COPD discharge bundles reduced hospital readmissions (pooled risk ratio (RR): 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.99). There was insufficient evidence that care bundles influence long-term mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; four trials) or QoL (mean difference in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire: 1.84; 95% CI -2.13 to 5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Discharge bundles for patients with COPD led to fewer readmissions but did not significantly improve mortality or QoL. Future studies should employ higher quality research methods, fully report care bundle elements, implementation strategies and intervention fidelity to better evaluate the effectiveness of packaging evidence-based interventions together to improve outcomes of patients with COPD discharged from acute care settings.