Mixed methods feasibility study for a trial of blood pressure telemonitoring for people who have had stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA).

Background Good blood pressure (BP) control reduces the risk of recurrence of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Although there is strong evidence that BP telemonitoring helps achieve good control, none of the major trials have considered the effectiveness in stroke/TIA survivors. We therefore conducted a feasibility study for a trial of BP telemonitoring for stroke/ TIA survivors with uncontrolled BP in primary care. Method Phase 1 was a pilot trial involving 55 patients stratified by stroke/TIA randomised 3:1 to BP telemonitoring for 6 months or usual care. Phase 2 was a qualitative evaluation and comprised semi-structured interviews with 16 trial participants who received telemonitoring and 3 focus groups with 23 members of stroke support groups and 7 carers. Results Overall, 125 patients (60 stroke patients, 65 TIA patients) were approached and 55 (44%) patients were randomised including 27 stroke patients and 28 TIA patients. Fifty-two participants (95%) attended the 6-month follow-up appointment, but one declined the second daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) measurement resulting in a 93% completion rate for ABPM − the proposed primary outcome measure for a full trial. Adherence to telemonitoring was good; of the 40 participants who were telemonitoring, 38 continued to provide readings throughout the 6 months. There was a mean reduction of 10.1 mmHg in systolic ABPM in the telemonitoring group compared with 3.8 mmHg in the control group, which suggested the potential for a substantial effect from telemonitoring. Our qualitative analysis found that many stroke patients were concerned about their BP and telemonitoring increased their engagement, was easy, convenient and reassuring Conclusions A full-scale trial is feasible, likely to recruit well and have good rates of compliance and follow-up.

Development of process control methodology for tracking the quality and safety of pain, agitation and sedation management in critical care units

Objective: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. Design: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. Setting: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman [rho] = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; [kappa] = 0.66) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.58) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.29) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. Conclusions: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time