Improving safety and preventing falls using an evidence-based, front-line staff huddling practice: protocol for a pragmatic trial to increase quality of care in State Veterans Homes.

INTRODUCTION: Falls in nursing homes are a major cause for decreases in residents' quality of life and overall health. This study aims to reduce resident falls by implementing the LOCK Falls Programme, an evidence-based quality improvement intervention. The LOCK Falls Programme involves the entire front-line care team in (1) focusing on evidence of positive change, (2) collecting data through systematic observation and (3) facilitating communication and coordination of care through the practice of front-line staff huddles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study protocol describes a mixed-methods, 4-year hybrid (type 2) effectiveness-implementation study in State Veterans Homes in the USA. The study uses a pragmatic stepped-wedge randomised trial design and employs relational coordination theory and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to guide implementation and evaluation. A total of eight State Veterans Homes will participate and data will be collected over an 18-month period. Administrative data inclusive of all clinical assessments and Minimum Data Set assessments for Veterans with a State Veterans Home admission or stay during the study period will be collected (8480 residents total). The primary outcome is a resident having any fall. The primary analysis will be a partial intention-to-treat analysis using the rate of participants experiencing any fall. A staff survey (n=1200) and qualitative interviews with residents (n=80) and staff (n=400) will also be conducted. This research seeks to systematically address known barriers to nursing home quality improvement efforts associated with reducing falls. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Central Institutional Review Board (#167059-11). All participants will be recruited voluntarily and will sign informed consent as required. Collection, assessment and managing of solicited and spontaneously reported adverse events, including required protocol alterations, will be communicated and approved directly with the Central Institutional Review Board, the data safety monitoring board and the Office of Research and Development. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations at the Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, the Gerontological Society of America Annual Scientific Meeting and the American Geriatrics Society Annual Meeting. Key stakeholders will also help disseminate lessons learnt. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05906095.

Virtual external implementation facilitation: successful methods for remotely engaging groups in quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little guidance exists on how to use virtual implementation facilitation to successfully implement evidence-based practices and innovations into clinical programs. Yet virtual methods are increasingly common. They have potentially wider reach, emergent public health situations necessitate their use, and restrictions on resources can make them more attractive. We therefore outline a set of principles for virtual external implementation facilitation and a series of recommendations based on extensive experience successfully using virtual external implementation facilitation in a national program. MODEL AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Success in virtual external implementation facilitation may be achieved by facilitators applying three overarching principles: pilot everything, incorporate a model, and prioritize metacognition. Five practical principles also help: plan in advance, communicate in real time, build relationships, engage participants, and construct a virtual room for participants. We present eight concrete suggestions for enacting the practical principles: (1) assign key facilitation roles to facilitation team members to ensure the program runs smoothly; (2) create small cohorts of participants so they can have meaningful interactions; (3) provide clarity and structure for all participant interactions; (4) structure program content to ensure key points are described, reinforced, and practiced; (5) use visuals to supplement audio content; (6) build activities into the agenda that enable participants to immediately apply knowledge at their own sites, separate from the virtual experience; (7) create backup plans whenever possible; and (8) engage all participants in the program. These principles represent a novel conceptualization of virtual external implementation facilitation, giving structure to a process that has been, to date, inadequately described. The associated actions are demonstrably useful in supporting the principles and offer teams interested in virtual external implementation facilitation concrete methods by which to ensure success. Our examples stem from experiences in healthcare. But the principles can, in theory, be applied to virtual external implementation facilitation regardless of setting, as they and the associated actions are not setting specific.

Pain Patterns and Treatment Among Nursing Home Residents With Moderate-Severe Cognitive Impairment.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the frequency and severity of pain and use of pain therapies among long-term care residents with moderate to severe dementia and to explore the factors associated with increased pain severity. DESIGN: Prospective individual data were collected over 1 to 3 days for each participant. SETTING: Sixteen long-term care facilities in Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. PARTICIPANTS: Residents with moderate to severe cognitive impairment residing in a long-term care facility for at least 7 days were enrolled (N = 205). Residents were 47% female, predominantly white (69%), and 84 years old, on average (SD = 10 years). MEASUREMENTS: A comprehensive pain assessment protocol was used to evaluate pain severity and characteristics through medical record review, interviews with nursing home staff, physical examinations, as well as pain observation tools (Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia Pain Scale and Pain Intensity Measure for Persons With Dementia). Known correlates were also assessed (agitation, depression, and sleep). RESULTS: Experts' pain evaluations indicated that residents' usual pain was mild (mean = 1.6/10), and most experienced only intermittent pain (70%). However, 45% of residents experienced moderate to severe worst pain. Of residents, 90% received a pain therapy, with acetaminophen (87%) and opioids (32%) commonly utilized. Only 3% had a nondrug therapy documented in the medical record. The only resident characteristic that was significantly associated with pain severity was receipt of an opioid in the past week. CONCLUSION: Using a comprehensive pain assessment protocol, we found that most nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia had mild usual, intermittent pain and the vast majority received at least one pain therapy in the previous week. Although these findings reflect improvements in pain management compared with older studies, there is still room for improvement in that 45% of the sample experienced moderate to severe pain at some point in the previous week. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:794-802, 2020.

Psychometric Evaluation of the MOBID Dementia Pain Scale in U.S. Nursing Homes.

PURPOSE: The Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia (MOBID) Pain Scale is an observational tool in which raters estimate pain intensity on a 0-10 scale following five standardized movements. The tool has been shown to be valid and reliable in northern European samples and could be useful in the United States (US) for research and clinical purposes. The goal of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the MOBID among English-speaking nursing home residents in the US. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: Sixteen nursing homes in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Alabama. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-eight older adults with dementia and moderate to severe cognitive impairment. METHODS: Validity was evaluated using Spearman correlations between the MOBID overall pain intensity score and 1) an expert clinician's pain intensity rating (ECPIR), 2) nursing staff surrogate pain intensity ratings, and 3) known correlates of pain. We assessed internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: MOBID overall scores were significantly associated with expert clinician's rating of current and worst pain in the past week (rho = 0.54, and 0.57; p < .001, respectively). Statistically significant associations also were found between the MOBID overall score and nursing staff current and worst pain intensity ratings as well as the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (rho = 0.29; p < .001). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Result of this study support the use of the MOBID in English-speaking staff and residents in the US. Findings also suggest that the tool can be completed by trained, nonclinical staff.

Psychometric Evaluation of a Pain Intensity Measure for Persons with Dementia.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to conduct initial psychometric analyses of a seven-item pain intensity measure for persons with dementia (PIMD) that was developed using items from existing pain observational measures. DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated validity by examining associations with an expert clinician's pain intensity rating (ECPIR) and an established pain observation tool (Mobilization Observation Behaviour Intensity Dementia [MOBID]). We also examined correlations between the PIMD and known correlates of pain: depression, sleep disturbances, agitation, painful diagnoses, and caregiver pain reports. We examined the differences between PIMD scores for "at rest" and "during movement" observations. We assessed reliability by calculating Cronbach's alpha and estimating inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlations (ICCs). Finally, we examined whether six additional "recent changes in behavior" items improved the PIMD's ability to predict expert clinicians' pain ratings. SETTING: Sixteen nursing homes located in Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety residents with moderate to severe cognitive impairment, mean age of 84 years, 49.5% female, and 70% white. RESULTS: PIMD during movement scores were highly correlated with the ECPIR and overall MOBID scores. As expected, there were large differences between at rest and during movement PIMD scores. Associations of PIMD with known correlates of pain were generally low and statistically nonsignificant. Internal consistency was supported with a Cronbach alpha of 0.72 and an inter-rater ICC of 0.82 for during movement PIMD scores. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation of the PIMD supports its validity and reliability. Additional testing is needed to evaluate the tool's sensitivity to changes in pain intensity.

Developing a Pain Intensity Measure for Persons with Dementia: Initial Construction and Testing.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify a limited set of pain indicators that were most predicive of physical pain. We began with 140 items culled from existing pain observation tools and used a modified Delphi approach followed by statistical analyses to reduce the item pool. METHODS: Through the Delphi Method, we created a candidate item set of behavioral indicators. Next, trained staff observed nursing home residents and rated the items on scales of behavior intensity and frequency. We evaluated associations among the items and expert clinicians' assessment of pain intensity. SETTING: Four government-owned nursing homes and 12 community nursing homes in Alabama and Southeastern Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-five residents (mean age = 84.9 years) with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator model, we identified seven items that best predicted clinicians' evaluations of pain intensity. These items were rigid/stiff body or body parts, bracing, complaining, expressive eyes, grimacing, frowning, and sighing. We also found that a model based on ratings of frequency of behaviors did not have better predictive ability than a model based on ratings of intensity of behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: We used two complementary approaches-expert opinion and statistical analysis-to reduce a large pool of behavioral indicators to a parsimonious set of items to predict pain intensity in persons with dementia. Future studies are needed to examine the psychometric properties of this scale, which is called the Pain Intensity Measure for Persons with Dementia.