G181(P) Evaluation of a new e-health intervention in neonatal care : perspectives of parents and health professionals.

Aim This paper will report findings from the first phase of an evaluation of a new e-health intervention designed to allow mothers to ‘see’ their baby in neonatal care (NNU) when they are not able to be with them. The intervention, MyLittleOne, involves a web-camera being placed over the incubator in NNU, which transmits a real-time video wirelessly to a coupled tablet device at the mother’s bedside. Guided by the MRC Framework for the Development and Evaluation of Healthcare Interventions (MRC, 2008), the aim was to explore parent and professional views of the technology and make recommendations for its future development, use and evaluation. Methods A qualitative approach was adopted, guided by a critical realist perspective (McEvoy and Richards, 2003). The study took place in a Level 3 NNU in Scotland. Participants were recruited purposively and included parents (n = 33) and a range of health professionals working in neonatal and postnatal care (n = 21). The data were collected during semi-structured individual, paired and small group interviews and were analysed thematically using NVivo v10. Results The majority of parents and professionals spoke positively about MyLittleOne. Perceptions were that: use of the technology assisted bonding and responsiveness; it promoted the recovery process following birth; and, for mothers who wished to breast-feed, being able to see their baby on the tablet device encouraged the ‘let-down’ reflex. An additional benefit was that siblings and others who may not be able to visit the NNU were able to see the baby. In contrast, for a small number of mothers, viewing their baby remotely appeared to increase their levels of anxiety. Switching off the camera during a medical procedure and back on after the procedure was completed was found to be problematic, at times and in different ways, for both parents and professionals. Conclusions Findings from this preliminary evaluation will guide future developments of the technology, including its use in family homes following the mother’s discharge. The findings will also inform the design of a feasibility study and subsequent RCT to assess the impact of MyLittleOne on a range of psychological indicators of postnatal adjustment.

A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

Background: increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause on going disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). Methods: the intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. Results: the final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. Conclusions: the MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.