No abstract

No abstract

Rationale Evidence-based practice (EBP) is upheld as a means for patients to receive the most efficient care in a given context. Despite the available evidence and positive beliefs about it, implementing EBP as standard daily practice still faces many obstacles. Conclusion This study's results will be used to guide institutional strategy to increase the use of EBP in daily practice. Aims and objectives

OBJECTIVES Nursing home (NH) residents with complex care needs ask for attentive monitoring of changes and appropriate in‐house decision making. However, access to geriatric expertise is often limited with a lack of geriatricians, general practitioners, and/or nurses with advanced clinical skills, leading to potentially avoidable hospitalizations. This situation calls for the development, implementation, and evaluation of innovative, contextually adapted nurse‐led care models that support NHs in improving their quality of care and reducing hospitalizations by investing in effective clinical leadership, geriatric expertise, and care coordination. DESIGN An effectiveness‐implementation hybrid type 2 design to assess clinical outcomes of a nurse‐led care model and a mixed‐method approach to evaluate implementation outcomes will be applied. The model development, tailoring, and implementation are based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). SETTING NHs in the German‐speaking region of Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Eleven NHs were recruited. The sample size was estimated assuming an average of .8 unplanned hospitalizations/1000 resident days and a reduction of 25% in NHs with the nurse‐led care model. INTERVENTION The multilevel complex context‐adapted intervention consists of six core elements (eg, specifically trained INTERCARE nurses or evidence‐based tools like Identify, Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation [ISBAR]). Multilevel implementation strategies include leadership and INTERCARE nurse training and support. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcomes are unplanned hospitalizations/1000 care days. Secondary outcomes include unplanned emergency department visits, quality indicators (eg, physical restraint use), and costs. Implementation outcomes included, for example, fidelity to the model's core elements. CONCLUSION The INTERCARE study will provide evidence about the effectiveness of a nurse‐led care model in the real‐world setting and accompanying implementation strategies. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2145–2150, 2019

On average, our results indicated high quality nurse work environments in Swiss hospitals. Implementing Magnet model organisational principles might be a valuable approach for Swiss acute-care hospitals to both improve mixed and unfavourable nurse work environments and to improve nurse and patient outcomes. National benchmarking of nurse work environments and other nurse-sensitive indicators may facilitate evaluating the impact of current developments in Swiss healthcare.

Background: Unplanned nursing home (NH) transfers are burdensome for residents and costly for health systems. Innovative nurse-led models of care focusing on improving in-house geriatric expertise are needed to decrease unplanned transfers. The aim was to test the clinical effectiveness of a comprehensive, contextually adapted geriatric nurse-led model of care (INTERCARE) in reducing unplanned transfers from NHs to hospitals.Franziska Zúñiga and Raphaëlle-Ashley Guerbaai shared first authorship.

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)

No abstract