Cathy Howe

Pulmonary rehabilitation following hospitalisation for acute exacerbation of COPD: referrals, uptake and adherence

Abstract Rationale Several randomised controlled trials support the provision of early pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following hospitalisation for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). However, there is little real-world data regarding uptake, adherence and completion rates. Methods An audit was conducted to prospectively document referral, uptake, adherence and completion rates for early post-hospitalisation outpatient PR in Northwest London over a 12-month period. Results Out of 448 hospital discharges for AECOPD, 90 referrals for post-hospitalisation PR were received. Only 43 patients received and completed PR (9.6% of all hospital discharges) despite a fully commissioned PR service. Conclusions Despite the strong evidence base, there are poor referral and uptake rates for early outpatient PR following hospitalisation for AECOPD, with only a small proportion of the intended target population receiving this intervention.

Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement.

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL).Data from project teams’ responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as ‘engaged,’ ‘partially engaged’ and ‘non-engaged.’ Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a ‘diversity of opinion’ measure was derived to assess response variance over time.Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as ‘engaged,’ six ‘partially engaged,’ and seven as ‘non-engaged.’ Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness.The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams’ views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM.

Identifying the challenges and facilitators of implementing a COPD care bundle.

Background Care bundles have been shown to improve outcomes, reduce hospital readmissions and reduce length of hospital stay; therefore increasing the speed of uptake and delivery of care bundles should be a priority in order to deliver more timely improvements and consistent high-quality care. Previous studies have detailed the difficulties of obtaining full compliance to bundle elements but few have described the underlying reasons for this. In order to improve future implementation this paper investigates the challenges encountered by clinical teams implementing a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care bundle and describes actions taken to overcome these challenges. Methods An initial retrospective documentary analysis of data from seven clinical implementation teams was undertaken to review the challenges faced by the clinical teams. Three focus groups with healthcare professionals and managers explored solutions to these challenges developed during the project. Results Documentary analysis identified 28 challenges which directly impacted implementation of the COPD care bundle within five themes; staffing, infrastructure, process, use of improvement methodology and patient and public involvement. Focus groups revealed that the five most significant challenges for all groups were: staff too busy, staff shortages, lack of staff engagement, added workload of the bundle and patient coding issues. The participants shared facilitating factors used to overcome issues including: shifting perceptions to improve engagement, further education sessions to increase staff participation and gaining buy-in from managers through payment frameworks. Conclusions Maximising the impact of a care bundle relies on its successful and timely implementation. Teams implementing the COPD care bundle encountered challenges that were common to all teams and sites. Understanding and learning from the challenges faced by previous endeavours and identifying the facilitators to overcoming these barriers provides an opportunity to mitigate issues that waste time and resources, and ensures that training can be tailored to the anticipated challenges.

Improving patient and project outcomes using interorganisational innovation, collaboration and co-design.

Background Common mental disorders (CMDs) are a leading cause of disability. The Department of Health has launched a large-scale initiative to improve access to evidence-based psychological treatments, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), through the Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) programme. Access to IAPT services by black and minority ethnic (BME) communities is lower than for other groups. Setting The London Borough of Ealing in west London; a diverse borough with areas of high BME population and relatively high deprivation. Aim To compare the outcomes of two linked quality improvement (QI) projects undertaken by Ealing Mental Health and Wellbeing Service (MHWBS), both with the same aim of increasing access to talking therapies for BME communities. Methods Application of QI methodologies supported by the NIHR CLAHRC for northwest London in two different settings in Ealing. One, the ‘Southall project’, was set within a wider initiative for collaborative improvements and shared learning (the Southall Initiative for Integrated Care) in an ethnically diverse area of Ealing; it was undertaken between April 2010 and September 2011. The second, ‘the Ealing project’, operated in the two other Ealing localities that did not have the advantage of a broader initiative for collaborative improvements; it was undertaken between April 2011 and September 2012. Results Comparison of the monthly referral rates of BME patients (standardised per 10 000 general practitioner (GP)-registered patients) show that the Southall project was more effective in increasing referrals from BME communities than the Ealing project. Conclusion Broad local participation and ownership in the project design of the Southall project may explain why it was more effective in achieving its aims than the Ealing project which lacked these ownership-creating mechanisms.

Translating evidence in complex systems: a comparative review of implementation and improvement frameworks

Abstract Purpose An increasing number of implementation and improvement frameworks seek to describe and explain how change is made in healthcare. This paper aims to explore how existing frameworks conceptualize the influence of complexity in translating evidence into practice in healthcare. Data sources A database was interrogated using a search strategy to identify publications that present frameworks and models for implementation and improvement. Study selection Ten popular implementation and improvement frameworks were purposively selected. Data extraction Comparative analysis was conducted using an analytical framework derived from SHIFT-Evidence, a framework that conceptualizes complexity in implementation and improvement initiatives. Results Collectively the frameworks accounted for key concepts of translating evidence in complex systems: understanding the uniqueness of each setting; the interdependency of practices/processes and the need to respond to unpredictable events and emergent learning. The analysis highlighted heterogeneity of the frameworks in their focus on different aspects of complexity. Differences include the extent to which problems and solutions are investigated or assumed; whether endpoints are defined as the uptake of interventions or achievement of goals; and emphasis placed on fixed-term interventions versus continual improvement. None of the individual frameworks reviewed incorporated all the implications of complexity, as described by SHIFT-Evidence. Conclusion This research identifies the differences in how implementation and improvement frameworks consider complexity, suggesting that SHIFT-Evidence offers a more comprehensive overview compared with the other frameworks. The similarity of concepts across the frameworks suggests growing consensus in the literature, with SHIFT-Evidence providing a conceptual bridge between the implementation and improvement fields.

Successful Healthcare Improvements From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence): simple rules to guide practice and research

Abstract Background Evidence translation and improvement research indicate that healthcare contexts are complex systems, characterized by uncertainty and surprise, which often defy orchestrated intervention attempts. This article reflects on the implications of complexity on attempts to translate evidence, and on a newly published framework for Successful Healthcare Improvements From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence). Discussion SHIFT-Evidence positions the challenge of evidence translation within the complex and evolving context of healthcare, and recognizes the wider issues practitioners routinely face. It is empirically grounded, and designed to be comprehensive, practically relevant and actionable. SHIFT-evidence is summarized by three principles designed to be intuitive and memorable: ‘act scientifically and pragmatically’; ‘embrace complexity’; and ‘engage and empower’. Common challenges and strategies to overcome them are summarized in 12 ‘simple rules’ that provide actionable guidance. Conclusion SHIFT-Evidence provides a practical tool to guide practice and research of evidence translation and improvement within complex dynamic healthcare settings. Implications are that improvement initiatives and research study designs need to take into account the unique initial conditions in each local setting; conduct needs to respond to unpredictable effects and address dependent problems; and evaluation needs to be sensitive to evolving priorities and the emergent range of activities required to achieve improvement.

P105 Identifying missed opportunities for referral to pulmonary rehabilitation

Introduction and Objectives UK COPD standards require that patients are referred to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following hospitalisation for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). The Hillingdon pulmonary rehabilitation service established a “fast-track” route for patients admitted to Hillingdon Hospital with AECOPD in November 2011. Knowledge of current referral patterns and identification of missed opportunities can provide a strategy for improving access to PR services. Methods Data including residential postcode and registered GP were extracted for patients that were admitted to an acute hospital with AECOPD during a 6 month period (November 2011 to April 2012). Data were cross-referenced to referrals to the PR service. Admissions were mapped by residential postcode to provide a geographical distribution of patients that were referred to PR and those that were not. Admissions and subsequent referral status were analysed by GP practises; identifying practises with relatively high AECOPD admissions and low PR referrals Results There were 240 admissions during the 6 month period of analysis and 36 (15%) of the patients were referred to the pulmonary rehabilitation service via the “fast-track” route. Admissions mapped by residential postcode demonstrated a clustering of admissions in parts of the south of the borough, compared to the north. Although absolute numbers of PR referrals were similar in the north and south of the borough, there were far fewer in the south as a proportion of admissions. Analysis of admissions and PR referrals by GP practise identified a number of “high-value” practises that could be targeted to improve PR referrals. Conclusions Improving access and the uptake of PR remains challenging within the post-hospitalised AECOPD patient group. Analysing local data can generate an understanding of the bottlenecks in the system and develop strategies improving access and uptake. Transport is an often cited reason for patients declining referral. Analysis of geographical data can inform decisions on the location of community PR services. Identifying GP surgeries for targeted intervention to improve PR referral provides an opportunity to engage with GPs and support them in delivering high-quality, evidence based care. Abstract P105 Figure 1 A) demonstrates geographical spread of admissions highlighting those that were referred (light gray) and those that were not referred (dark gray) to PR. B) Shows the distribution of patients admitted for AECOPD during the period of analysis by GP surgeries and the proportion referred to PR.