The effectiveness of a nurse practitioner-led pain management team in long-term care: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Considering the high rates of pain as well as its under-management in long-term care (LTC) settings, research is needed to explore innovations in pain management that take into account limited resource realities. It has been suggested that nurse practitioners, working within an inter-professional model, could potentially address the under-management of pain in LTC.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness of implementing a nurse practitioner-led, inter-professional pain management team in LTC in improving (a) pain-related resident outcomes; (b) clinical practice behaviours (e.g., documentation of pain assessments, use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions); and, (c) quality of pain medication prescribing practices.

METHODS: A mixed method design was used to evaluate a nurse practitioner-led pain management team, including both a quantitative and qualitative component. Using a controlled before-after study, six LTC homes were allocated to one of three groups: 1) a nurse practitioner-led pain team (full intervention); 2) nurse practitioner but no pain management team (partial intervention); or, 3) no nurse practitioner, no pain management team (control group). In total, 345 LTC residents were recruited to participate in the study; 139 residents for the full intervention group, 108 for the partial intervention group, and 98 residents for the control group. Data was collected in Canada from 2010 to 2012.

RESULTS: Implementing a nurse practitioner-led pain team in LTC significantly reduced residents' pain and improved functional status compared to usual care without access to a nurse practitioner. Positive changes in clinical practice behaviours (e.g., assessing pain, developing care plans related to pain management, documenting effectiveness of pain interventions) occurred over the intervention period for both the nurse practitioner-led pain team and nurse practitioner-only groups; these changes did not occur to the same extent, if at all, in the control group. Qualitative analysis highlighted the perceived benefits of LTC staff about having access to a nurse practitioner and benefits of the pain team, along with barriers to managing pain in LTC.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study showed that implementing a nurse practitioner-led pain team can significantly improve resident pain and functional status as well as clinical practice behaviours of LTC staff. LTC homes should employ a nurse practitioner, ideally located onsite as opposed to an offsite consultative role, to enhance inter-professional collaboration and facilitate more consistent and timely access to pain management.

The cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care. Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of 512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1086.46-91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, 0.0101-0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY. Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.

Effectiveness of medicines review with web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care:a cluster randomized trial (OPTI-SCRIPT study protocol)

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people is common in primary care and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, hospitalizations and mortality. In Ireland, 36% of those aged 70 years or over received at least one potentially inappropriate medication, with an associated expenditure of over €45 million.The main objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of a complex, multifaceted intervention in reducing the level of potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care.

Voices from higher up the ladder:Exploring the team leader role in call centres

This paper focuses on an under-researched employee category in the call centre literature-the team leader. The paper, drawing on data from nine Australian call centres, finds that the team leader role is integral to the effectiveness of call centres, yet it is a role that consists of considerable complexity and contradictions. The research demonstrates the critical role performed by team leaders: coach, mentor, trainer, performance evaluator, communicator and supervisor. It also shows team leaders as being far more positive about many of the features of the call centre work environment compared with those on the front line. However, there does appear to be a need for greater acknowledgement of their challenging role, the contradictions that are inherent in the job and the need, in many cases, for increased support being made available to assist. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The Role and Effectiveness of Public – Private Partnerships (NHS LIFT) in the Development of Enhanced Primary Care Premises and Services:Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme

The research project analysed the role and effectiveness of LIFT via a multi-method study which included semi-structured interviews with policy elites and users, as well as case studies and an exploratory analysis of the financial characteristics of three LIFT Companies. While the team felt that it was able to identify key aspects relating to the advantages and drawbacks surrounding LIFT, some aspects relating to the representativeness of the study was adversely affected by a reluctance of PCTs to participate in the case study analysis and commercial confidentiality restrictions. The study was nonetheless able to identify important issues in relation to the funding and procurement of primary care premises and services.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of an algorithm intervention in reducing inappropriate faecal samples sent for Clostridium difficile testing.

Background: Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is a leading cause of infectious diarrhoea in hospitals. Sending faecal samples for testing expedites diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Clinical suspicion of C. difficile based on patient history, signs and symptoms is the basis for sampling. Sending faecal samples from patients with diarrhoea ‘just in case’ the patient has C. difficile may be an indication of poor clinical management.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention by an Infection Prevention and Control Team (IPCT) in reducing inappropriate faecal samples sent for C. difficile testing.

Method: An audit of numbers of faecal samples sent before and after a decision-making algorithm was introduced. The number of samples received in the laboratory was retrospectively counted for 12-week periods before and after an algorithm was introduced.
Findings: There was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of faecal samples sent post the algorithm. Results were compared to a similar intervention carried out in 2009 in which the same message was delivered by a memorandum. In 2009 the memorandum had no effect on the overall number of weekly samples being sent.

Conclusion: An algorithm intervention had an effect on the number of faecal samples being sent for C. difficile testing and thus contributed to the effective use of the laboratory service.

Cost-effectiveness of natriuretic peptide-based screening and collaborative care: a report from the STOP-HF (St Vincent's Screening TO Prevent Heart Failure) study

AIMS: Prevention of cardiovascular disease and heart failure (HF) in a cost-effective manner is a public health goal. This work aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of the St Vincent's Screening TO Prevent Heart Failure (STOP-HF) intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a substudy of 1054 participants with cardiovascular risk factors [median age 65.8 years, interquartile range (IQR) 57.8:72.4, with 4.3 years, IQR 3.4:5.2, follow-up]. Annual natriuretic peptide-based screening was performed, with collaborative cardiovascular care between specialist physicians and general practitioners provided to patients with BNP levels >50 pg/mL. Analysis of cost per case prevented and cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was performed. The primary clinical endpoint of LV dysfunction (LVD) with or without HF was reduced in intervention patients [odds ratio (OR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.94; P = 0.026]. There were 157 deaths and/or emergency hospitalizations for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the control group vs. 102 in the intervention group (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49-0.93; P = 0.01). The cost per case of LVD/HF prevented was €9683 (sensitivity range -€843 to €20 210), whereas the cost per MACE prevented was €3471 (sensitivity range -€302 to €7245). Cardiovascular hospitalization savings offset increased outpatient and primary care costs. The cost per QALY gain was €1104 and the intervention has an 88% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of €30 000.

CONCLUSION: Among patients with cardiovascular risk factors, natriuretic peptide-based screening and collaborative care reduced LVD, HF, and MACE, and has a high probability of being cost-effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00921960.