Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31829252›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2019

Process evaluation of a complex intervention to optimize quality of prescribing in nursing homes (COME-ON study).

Pauline Anrys, Goedele Strauven, Sandrine Roussel, Marie Vande Ginste, Jan De Lepeleire, Veerle Foulon, Anne Spinewine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Preliminary Evidence for Dementia Collaborative Coaching.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Tailored patient therapeutic educational interventions: A patient-centred communication model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pauline AnrysClinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, UCLouvain, Av E Mounier, 72 B1.72.02, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Goedele StrauvenDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Sandrine RousselClinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, UCLouvain, Av E Mounier, 72 B1.72.02, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Marie Vande GinsteDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan De LepeleireDepartment Public Health and Primary Care, ACHG, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Veerle FoulonDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Anne SpinewineClinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, UCLouvain, Av E Mounier, 72 B1.72.02, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. anne.spinewine@uclouvain.be.ORCID 0000-0002-3836-2846

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COME-ON study was a cluster-controlled trial of a complex intervention that consisted of a blended training program, local interdisciplinary meetings, and interdisciplinary case conferences in Belgian nursing homes. The intervention was associated with significant improvements in the appropriateness of prescribing. The aims of this study were to describe the implementation of the intervention and to explore the experiences of participants, for the purpose of identifying factors associated with implementation and perceived impact and to draw lessons for future implementation.

methodsWe performed a mixed-method process evaluation. Questionnaires and reports were used to collect quantitative data on implementation and experiences from the 24 NHs and participating healthcare professionals (coordinating physicians, general practitioners, pharmacists, and nurses) in the intervention group. Multidisciplinary focus groups focusing on factors associated with implementation and perceived impact were conducted in 11 NHs.

resultsOverall, the rate of implementation and the satisfaction of participants were good, despite some variability between NHs and HCPs. Although perceived impact on nursing home residents varied, most participants perceived a positive impact for themselves. Factors associated with implementation and perceived impact were identified at different levels: intervention, healthcare professionals, organization, and external context. The interdisciplinary and face-to-face approaches were recognized as key elements for the success of the intervention, despite organizational constraints. The attitude of general practitioners was identified both as a barrier to and a facilitator for implementation and its success. The professional role and competency of the pharmacist influenced perceived impact. The pre-existing relationships between HCPs and the presence of a leader facilitated implementation and perceived impact. Remuneration was deemed necessary for the study and for future implementation.

conclusionsOverall, the intervention, and more specifically its interdisciplinary aspect, was well implemented and appreciated by HCPs. This probably contributed to the positive effect on the appropriateness of prescribing. Future implementation must take into account the various factors found to affect implementation and perceived impact, in order to maximize effect and sustainability. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66138978; registered 18 November 2015, retrospectively registered, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66138978.

Indexed as

AgedBelgiumCluster AnalysisHealth Plan ImplementationHomes for the AgedHumansInappropriate PrescribingNursing HomesPractice Patterns, Physicians'Process Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesComplex interventionMixed methodsNursing homesPotentially inappropriate prescribingProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31829252
PMCPMC6907338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.