Background Variable standards of care may contribute to poor outcomes associated with AKI. We evaluated whether a multifaceted intervention (AKI e-alerts, an AKI care bundle, and an education program) would improve delivery of care and patient outcomes at an organizational level. Methods A multicenter, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial was performed in five UK hospitals, involving patients with AKI aged $18 years. The intervention was introduced sequentially across fixed three-month periods according to a randomly determined schedule until all hospitals were exposed. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, with pre-specified secondary endpoints and a nested evaluation of care process delivery. The nature of the intervention precluded blinding, but data collection and analysis were independent of project delivery teams. Results We studied 24,059 AKI episodes, finding an overall 30-day mortality of 24.5%, with no difference between control and intervention periods. Hospital length of stay was reduced with the intervention (decreases of 0.7, 1.1, and 1.3 days at the 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 quantiles, respectively). AKI incidence increased and was mirrored by an increase in the proportion of patients with a coded diagnosis of AKI. Our assessment of process measures in 1048 patients showed improvements in several metrics including AKI recognition, medication optimization, and fluid assessment. Conclusions A complex, hospital-wide intervention to reduce harm associated with AKI did not reduce 30-day AKI mortality but did result in reductions in hospital length of stay, accompanied by improvements in in quality of care. An increase in AKI incidence likely reflected improved recognition.

No abstract

This systematic review of reviews aims to investigate how brief interventions (BIs) are defined, whether they increase physical activity, which factors influence their effectiveness, who they are effective for, and whether they are feasible and acceptable. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, DARE, HTA database, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network from their inception until May 2015 to identify systematic reviews of the effectiveness of BIs aimed at promoting physical activity in adults, reporting a physical activity outcome and at least one BI that could be delivered in a primary care setting. A narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified three specific BI reviews and thirteen general reviews of physical activity interventions that met the inclusion criteria. The BI reviews reported varying definitions of BIs, only one of which specified a maximum duration of 30min. BIs can increase self-reported physical activity in the short term, but there is insufficient evidence about their long-term impact, their impact on objectively measured physical activity, and about the factors that influence their effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability. Current definitions include BIs that are too long for primary care consultations. Practitioners, commissioners and policy makers should be aware of this when interpreting evidence about BIs, and future research should develop and evaluate very brief interventions (of 5min or less) that could be delivered in a primary care consultation.

Background: A recent initiative in hospital settings is the patient safety huddle (PSH): a brief multidisciplinary meeting held to highlight patient safety issues and actions to mitigate identified risks. Aim: The authors studied eight ward teams that had sustained PSHs for over 2 years in order to identify key contributory factors. Methods: Unannounced observations of the PSH on eight acute wards in one UK hospital were undertaken. Interviews and focus groups were also conducted. These were recorded and transcribed for framework analysis. Findings: A range of factors contributes to the sustainability of the PSH including a high degree of belief and consensus in purpose, adaptability, determination, multidisciplinary team involvement, a non-judgemental space, committed leadership and consistent reward and celebration. Conclusion: The huddles studied have developed and been shaped over time through a process of trial and error, and persistence. Overall this study offers insights into the factors that contribute to this sustainability.

In England, primary care patients have access to Patient Access Portals (PAPs), enabling them to book appointments, request repeat medication prescriptions, send/receive messages and review their medical records. Few studies have elicited user views and value of PAPs, especially in a publicly funded primary care setting. This study aimed to elicit the value users of PAPs place on online access to medical records and linked services. Secondary data analysis of the completed electronic survey (available 2 May 2015-27 June 2015) distributed via the EMIS PAP to all its registered users. EMIS designed the survey; responses were voluntary. There were 62,486 responders (95.7% self-completed). The PAP was mainly used for medication requests (86.3%) and online appointment bookings (78.4%), and, to a lesser extent, medical record viewing (18.3%) and messaging (9.5%). The majority (70%) reported a positive impact from using it. One in five rated it as their favourite online service second only to online banking. Almost three out of four responders stated that availability of online access would influence their move to another practice. Nonetheless, responders were reluctant to award a high monetary value to it. These findings correlated with the number of long-term conditions. The majority of users place a relatively high value, but not monetary value, on the PAP and report a positive impact from using it. The potential for PAPs to enhance patient experience, especially for those with long-term conditions, appears to be largely untapped. Research exploring the reasons for non-use is also required.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common and associated with extremely poor outcomes. While strategies to tackle deficiencies in basic care delivery are advocated, robust testing of their effectiveness is also needed. The Tackling AKI study was designed to test whether a complex intervention (consisting of an e-alert, care bundle and education programme) can be successfully implemented across a range of UK hospitals, and whether this will deliver improved patient outcomes. This multicentre, pragmatic clinical trial will employ a cluster randomised stepped wedge design to study this in all adult patients who sustain AKI in the 5 participating hospitals over a 2-year period. The intervention will be supported by a comprehensive change management framework. Data collection will include patient outcomes, process measures and a qualitative assessment of barriers and enablers to implementation. This article describes the rationale and design behind the Tackling AKI study.

BackgroundImplementation of trial interventions is rarely assessed, despite its effects on findings. We assessed the implementation of a nurse-led intervention to facilitate medication adherence in type 2 diabetes (SAMS) in a trial against standard care in general practice. The intervention increased adherence, but not through the hypothesised psychological mechanism. This study aimed to develop a reliable coding frame for tape-recorded consultations, assessing both a priori hypothesised and potential active ingredients observed during implementation, and to describe the delivery and receipt of intervention and standard care components to understand how the intervention might have worked.Methods211 patients were randomised to intervention or comparison groups and 194/211 consultations were tape-recorded. Practice nurses delivered standard care to all patients and motivational and action planning (implementation intention) techniques to intervention patients only. The coding frame was developed and piloted iteratively on selected tape recordings until a priori reliability thresholds were achieved. All tape-recorded consultations were coded and a random subsample double-coded.ResultsNurse communication, nurse-patient relationship and patient responses were identified as potential active ingredients over and above the a priori hypothesised techniques. The coding frame proved reliable. Intervention and standard care were clearly differentiated. Nurse protocol adherence was good (M (SD) = 3.95 (0.91)) and competence of intervention delivery moderate (M (SD) = 3.15 (1.01)). Nurses frequently reinforced positive beliefs about taking medication (e.g., 65% for advantages) but rarely prompted problem solving of negative beliefs (e.g., 21% for barriers). Patients’ action plans were virtually identical to current routines. Nurses showed significantly less patient-centred communication with the intervention than comparison group.ConclusionsIt is feasible to reliably assess the implementation of behaviour change interventions in clinical practice. The main study results could not be explained by poor delivery of motivational and action planning components, definition of new action plans, improved problem solving or patient-centred communication. Possible mechanisms of increased medication adherence include spending more time discussing it and mental rehearsal of successful performance of current routines, combined with action planning. Delivery of a new behaviour change intervention may lead to less patient-centred communication and possible reduction in overall trial effects.Trial registrationISRCTN30522359.

BackgroundAcute kidney injury in hospital patients is common and associated with reduced survival and higher healthcare costs. The Tackling Acute Kidney Injury (TAKI) quality improvement project aimed to reduce mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury by implementing a multicomponent intervention comprising of an electronic alert, care bundle and education in five UK hospitals across a variety of wards. A parallel developmental evaluation using a case study approach was conducted to provide the implementation teams with insights into factors that might impact intervention implementation and fidelity. The qualitative element of the evaluation will be reported.Methods29 semi-structured interviews with implementation teams across the five hospitals were carried out to identify perceived barriers and enablers to implementation. Interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim and Framework analysis was conducted.ResultsInterviews generated four ‘barriers and enablers’ to implementation themes: i) practical/contextual factors, ii) skills and make-up of the TAKI implementation team, iii) design, development and implementation approach, iv) staff knowledge, attitudes, behaviours and support. Enablers included availability of specialist teams (e.g. educational teams), multi-disciplinary implementation teams with strong leadership, team-based package completion and proactive staff. Barriers were frequently the converse of facilitators.ConclusionsDespite diversity of sites, a range of common local factors–contextual, intervention-based and individual–were identified as potential barriers and enablers to fidelity, including intervention structure/design and process of/approach to implementation. Future efforts should focus on early identification and management of barriers and tailored optimisation of known enablers such as leadership and multidisciplinary teams to encourage buy-in. Improved measures of real-time intervention and implementation fidelity would further assist local teams to target their support during such quality improvement initiatives.